Search
Search results
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Kids of Appetite in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Mirror, Mirror in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
Contains spoilers, click to show
If I’m honest I initially thought the tagline to this Snow White twisted tale novel was a massive plot spoiler but, when you are 300 pages into a book and no-one has eaten a poisoned apple, it may be the ideal opportunity to admit you were wrong. This book is not that simple!
Mirror, Mirror explores the traditional Grimm fairy tale of Snow White through the eyes of the two main characters: the Evil Queen and Snow White herself. The reader is completely under the control of these two women: finding themselves with no choice but to witness the familiar story from their perspective.
Jen Calonita’s novel is also heavily built on story telling through flashbacks. In my opinion, this is a genius idea as it provides an undeniable depth to her characters. Let’s be honest, everyone knows the story of Snow White but not everyone knows the story before Snow White and it is here where the twisted tale evolves.
Through these flashbacks we meet Katherine and Ingrid: two sisters whom have lost their mother and are being raised by their neglectful, sometimes violent, father. As a result of their upbringing, Ingrid, the elder sister, has adopted a motherly role towards her younger sister Katherine and strives to protect the innocent girl at all times. They leave home, finding work on a farm where Katherine finds her passion within the apple orchard, cultivating a new variety of apple which will later attract the attention of the King.
Ingrid however, always wants more than what she has. Older and more aware of the hardship life can bring, Ingrid is not as sweet and innocent as her sister: people do not dote on Ingrid as they do Katherine and eventually Ingrid finds that she cannot settle for a simple life- instead opting for a job in a small shop known for its association with dark magic and the home of a certain mirror.
You may have guessed by now that Ingrid is, in fact, the Evil Queen and her sister Katherine is Snow White’s mother! I know what you are thinking, I have just described how protective Ingrid was of the future Queen: surely she wouldn’t “off” her own sister and try to collect her niece’s heart in a box?
This is where the complexity of Ingrid’s character really shines through and where, (if hats suited me) I will take my hat off to Jen Calonita. Mirror Mirror takes you on a journey with Ingrid. You experience her love for her sister first-hand as well as her frustration with her sheltered life but later you also witness her lust for power and how easily Ingrid’s choices lead her down the wrong path.
I also believe that Ingrid is truly scarred by her past. She sneers upon her sister’s kindness and villainises Katherine for letting a man, and later her baby, come between them. Ingrid views herself as wiser and more intelligent than her little sister: believing that she would certainly rule the Kingdom more efficiently and not stopping until this becomes a reality.
Despite being a formidable woman, Ingrid is not devoid of vulnerabilities and, as the story progresses, the readers will witness Ingrid’s ghosts and note how one in particular never leaves her until the very end.
Of course, Ingrid’s enabler is the magic mirror. Calonita paints a picture of a mirror identical to the one we remember from the Disney 1938 classic animated film with a haunting mask dominating and manipulating The Evil Queen with every chance it gets.
The mirror creates an obsession and dependence within Ingrid that is chillingly portrayed. It is undoubtedly the real villain of the story: demanding blood from the start and weakening Ingrid until she cleaves to its will. However, we all know who is standing between the mirror and its plans for domination and undisputed power: the princess Snow White.
In the past, I have made no secret of the fact that Snow is my least favourite Disney princess. Her voice in the film grated on me and I just genuinely found her irritating. Thankfully Calonita’s Snow White is more akin to the ‘Once Upon A Time’ interpretation and so much easier to form a relationship with as a reader.
While fulfilling our expectations of being kind, innocent and prone to falling in love with conveniently handsome Princes: Mirror Mirror’s Snow White is bolder than we are used to and, as her story progresses, becomes more confident in herself as the heir to the kingdom. Her priorities are more political in nature, with a strong focus on rebuilding her kingdom and her bravery shines through almost from the very beginning. Snow does encounter challenges and dark thoughts as any person does but earns her Disney princess badge by helping true love to save the day!
Similarly, the seven dwarves are not as one-dimensional as the classic movie. They assist the Princess of course and shelter her in the forest but they also seem more street-wise (or should that be forest-wise?), squirreling away diamonds for bartering and mustering armies for Snow’s cause. There isn’t too much focus on the seven men in Mirror Mirror but I don’t think that the book is necessarily missing this. I think the characters are so well-known that too much character development would stray away from the main plot.
Mirror, Mirror is a modern adaptation of the familiar fairytale: centring itself around two very strong women in their own right but polar opposites in terms of their characters and choices in life.
The novel makes several nods to the iconic images formed in 1938 by Walt Disney such as the apple, the glass coffin and, of course, the seven dwarves. However, the recurring theme of choosing your own story and the complex backgrounds to her characters cause Jen Calonita’s novel to stand out on its own.
It may not have been the traditional “happy ever after” but this adaptation of Snow White was, in my opinion, the “fairest of them all”.
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog
Mirror, Mirror explores the traditional Grimm fairy tale of Snow White through the eyes of the two main characters: the Evil Queen and Snow White herself. The reader is completely under the control of these two women: finding themselves with no choice but to witness the familiar story from their perspective.
Jen Calonita’s novel is also heavily built on story telling through flashbacks. In my opinion, this is a genius idea as it provides an undeniable depth to her characters. Let’s be honest, everyone knows the story of Snow White but not everyone knows the story before Snow White and it is here where the twisted tale evolves.
Through these flashbacks we meet Katherine and Ingrid: two sisters whom have lost their mother and are being raised by their neglectful, sometimes violent, father. As a result of their upbringing, Ingrid, the elder sister, has adopted a motherly role towards her younger sister Katherine and strives to protect the innocent girl at all times. They leave home, finding work on a farm where Katherine finds her passion within the apple orchard, cultivating a new variety of apple which will later attract the attention of the King.
Ingrid however, always wants more than what she has. Older and more aware of the hardship life can bring, Ingrid is not as sweet and innocent as her sister: people do not dote on Ingrid as they do Katherine and eventually Ingrid finds that she cannot settle for a simple life- instead opting for a job in a small shop known for its association with dark magic and the home of a certain mirror.
You may have guessed by now that Ingrid is, in fact, the Evil Queen and her sister Katherine is Snow White’s mother! I know what you are thinking, I have just described how protective Ingrid was of the future Queen: surely she wouldn’t “off” her own sister and try to collect her niece’s heart in a box?
This is where the complexity of Ingrid’s character really shines through and where, (if hats suited me) I will take my hat off to Jen Calonita. Mirror Mirror takes you on a journey with Ingrid. You experience her love for her sister first-hand as well as her frustration with her sheltered life but later you also witness her lust for power and how easily Ingrid’s choices lead her down the wrong path.
I also believe that Ingrid is truly scarred by her past. She sneers upon her sister’s kindness and villainises Katherine for letting a man, and later her baby, come between them. Ingrid views herself as wiser and more intelligent than her little sister: believing that she would certainly rule the Kingdom more efficiently and not stopping until this becomes a reality.
Despite being a formidable woman, Ingrid is not devoid of vulnerabilities and, as the story progresses, the readers will witness Ingrid’s ghosts and note how one in particular never leaves her until the very end.
Of course, Ingrid’s enabler is the magic mirror. Calonita paints a picture of a mirror identical to the one we remember from the Disney 1938 classic animated film with a haunting mask dominating and manipulating The Evil Queen with every chance it gets.
The mirror creates an obsession and dependence within Ingrid that is chillingly portrayed. It is undoubtedly the real villain of the story: demanding blood from the start and weakening Ingrid until she cleaves to its will. However, we all know who is standing between the mirror and its plans for domination and undisputed power: the princess Snow White.
In the past, I have made no secret of the fact that Snow is my least favourite Disney princess. Her voice in the film grated on me and I just genuinely found her irritating. Thankfully Calonita’s Snow White is more akin to the ‘Once Upon A Time’ interpretation and so much easier to form a relationship with as a reader.
While fulfilling our expectations of being kind, innocent and prone to falling in love with conveniently handsome Princes: Mirror Mirror’s Snow White is bolder than we are used to and, as her story progresses, becomes more confident in herself as the heir to the kingdom. Her priorities are more political in nature, with a strong focus on rebuilding her kingdom and her bravery shines through almost from the very beginning. Snow does encounter challenges and dark thoughts as any person does but earns her Disney princess badge by helping true love to save the day!
Similarly, the seven dwarves are not as one-dimensional as the classic movie. They assist the Princess of course and shelter her in the forest but they also seem more street-wise (or should that be forest-wise?), squirreling away diamonds for bartering and mustering armies for Snow’s cause. There isn’t too much focus on the seven men in Mirror Mirror but I don’t think that the book is necessarily missing this. I think the characters are so well-known that too much character development would stray away from the main plot.
Mirror, Mirror is a modern adaptation of the familiar fairytale: centring itself around two very strong women in their own right but polar opposites in terms of their characters and choices in life.
The novel makes several nods to the iconic images formed in 1938 by Walt Disney such as the apple, the glass coffin and, of course, the seven dwarves. However, the recurring theme of choosing your own story and the complex backgrounds to her characters cause Jen Calonita’s novel to stand out on its own.
It may not have been the traditional “happy ever after” but this adaptation of Snow White was, in my opinion, the “fairest of them all”.
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky thrill-ride of a movie, this is sure to be the ticket!
Edgar Wright’s Baby Driver is a pulse-pounding, jukebox-jamming blast! In this wildly entertaining crime thriller, a young man called Baby is the perennial pedal-pushing getaway driver for an Atlanta crime boss known as Doc. The two of them have worked countless jobs together, and in Doc’s mind, Baby is the only one worthy behind the wheel. Unbeknownst to Doc, however, Baby plans to wipe his hands clean and hit the road for good as soon as the opportunity arrives. Tensions steadily rise as this perfect getaway driver tries to find a way out and get away from his life of crime.
The premise in Baby Driver is a familiar one, although the movie itself is anything but. Sure, it features the cliché of one last job, but the motives here are a bit different and morality is a big focus. I’ll spare the details, but this crime movie has a heart and a conscience, and at its core, it’s really more of a love story, as Baby tries to make a daring dash for freedom all in the name of romance. After meeting a nice girl named Debora at a local diner, Baby has finally found a reason to want to break free from his past so he can live a life of love. With its romantic drive, its high-octane action, and its fresh and funky soundtrack, Baby Driver is an action thriller that would make for a perfect date night movie.
While I did very much enjoy Baby Driver, it did leave a worrisome first impression. One of the earliest scenes verges on the borderline of being a musical, and as well-crafted as the one-take scene may be, it sort of rubbed me the wrong way by making Baby look like a goofball. It was trying too hard to be cool and to me it ended up feeling pretty pretentious. Really what got me engaged in the movie was the film’s stellar supporting cast, led by Jamie Foxx, Jon Hamm, and Jon Bernthal, all of whom play bank robbers working for Doc. By the time the film’s second robbery rolled around, all else was forgiven, and I was eagerly strapped in for the ride.
The cast in this movie is outstanding. Foxx steals the show in every scene he’s in, playing a violent loose-cannon thug known as Bats. His intensity, wit, and strong distrust of others make Bats a character you won’t want to take your eyes off of. Hamm’s character Buddy is less abrasive, but no less intimidating when he’s angry. I really loved watching his nice guy façade crumble away when things got personal. Ansel Elgort, the teenage heartthrob from The Fault in Our Stars, has enough charm and coolness to make Baby an easy character to root for. Meanwhile, Kevin Spacey does a wonderful job balancing the complexity of his character, Doc. Eiza González is lovely and cool as Buddy’s girlfriend Darling, and Jon Bernthal truly makes the most out of his limited screen-time. All in all, I have nothing but praise for the actors as well as their well-written characters.
A big part of what makes Baby Driver so cool is its killer soundtrack, and it’s not just the music, but the way that it’s incorporated into the movie. The music itself is practically a character in the movie, as Baby is always playing songs through his iPod to drown out the ringing in his ears caused by a condition known as tinnitus. It’s used to great effect in terms of both plot and action. The movie’s eclectic music mix features over 40 songs, and much of the action is brilliantly synced up to the beat. The timing really ratchets up the fun factor and makes for a uniquely wild experience. I don’t know a good half of the songs in the movie, but this diversity helps give Baby Driver an identity of its own, and I look forward to taking the soundtrack for another spin.
Baby Driver is so fresh, fun, and entertaining that you’ve really just got to go see it for yourself. Edgar Wright has really made something special with his upbeat, funky crime thriller. The characters are compelling, the action is superb, and the comedy is hysterical. It’s one of the most laugh-out-loud funny movies of the year, but also full of edge-of-your-seat excitement. The movie builds tension so well, and it rarely takes its foot off the gas. I particularly loved the final act when Baby propels the intensity to new heights by taking charge of his own destiny, bringing forth an exciting and unpredictable turn of events. It puts an exhilarating and frantic twist on what is already a wild movie.
That’s not to say it’s a perfect movie, though. The ending itself left me feeling pretty unsatisfied. It forgoes the predictable ending for something different, and as respectable as that may be, it went on for too long and was a little too hokey and hard to believe for my taste. After riding high on Baby Driver’s adrenaline for so long, the ending botches the film’s momentum by devoting too much time to unnecessary explanation. While I even like the way the story concludes, I wish it could have gotten there a little more smoothly.
Bumpy start and finish aside, I really had a great time Baby Driver. It is an incredibly fun and energetic experience that the whole audience seemed to enjoy. It’s rhythmic, it’s stylish, and it’s not like any other film you’ll see this year. Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky ride in theaters this summer, Baby Driver is sure to be the ticket.
The premise in Baby Driver is a familiar one, although the movie itself is anything but. Sure, it features the cliché of one last job, but the motives here are a bit different and morality is a big focus. I’ll spare the details, but this crime movie has a heart and a conscience, and at its core, it’s really more of a love story, as Baby tries to make a daring dash for freedom all in the name of romance. After meeting a nice girl named Debora at a local diner, Baby has finally found a reason to want to break free from his past so he can live a life of love. With its romantic drive, its high-octane action, and its fresh and funky soundtrack, Baby Driver is an action thriller that would make for a perfect date night movie.
While I did very much enjoy Baby Driver, it did leave a worrisome first impression. One of the earliest scenes verges on the borderline of being a musical, and as well-crafted as the one-take scene may be, it sort of rubbed me the wrong way by making Baby look like a goofball. It was trying too hard to be cool and to me it ended up feeling pretty pretentious. Really what got me engaged in the movie was the film’s stellar supporting cast, led by Jamie Foxx, Jon Hamm, and Jon Bernthal, all of whom play bank robbers working for Doc. By the time the film’s second robbery rolled around, all else was forgiven, and I was eagerly strapped in for the ride.
The cast in this movie is outstanding. Foxx steals the show in every scene he’s in, playing a violent loose-cannon thug known as Bats. His intensity, wit, and strong distrust of others make Bats a character you won’t want to take your eyes off of. Hamm’s character Buddy is less abrasive, but no less intimidating when he’s angry. I really loved watching his nice guy façade crumble away when things got personal. Ansel Elgort, the teenage heartthrob from The Fault in Our Stars, has enough charm and coolness to make Baby an easy character to root for. Meanwhile, Kevin Spacey does a wonderful job balancing the complexity of his character, Doc. Eiza González is lovely and cool as Buddy’s girlfriend Darling, and Jon Bernthal truly makes the most out of his limited screen-time. All in all, I have nothing but praise for the actors as well as their well-written characters.
A big part of what makes Baby Driver so cool is its killer soundtrack, and it’s not just the music, but the way that it’s incorporated into the movie. The music itself is practically a character in the movie, as Baby is always playing songs through his iPod to drown out the ringing in his ears caused by a condition known as tinnitus. It’s used to great effect in terms of both plot and action. The movie’s eclectic music mix features over 40 songs, and much of the action is brilliantly synced up to the beat. The timing really ratchets up the fun factor and makes for a uniquely wild experience. I don’t know a good half of the songs in the movie, but this diversity helps give Baby Driver an identity of its own, and I look forward to taking the soundtrack for another spin.
Baby Driver is so fresh, fun, and entertaining that you’ve really just got to go see it for yourself. Edgar Wright has really made something special with his upbeat, funky crime thriller. The characters are compelling, the action is superb, and the comedy is hysterical. It’s one of the most laugh-out-loud funny movies of the year, but also full of edge-of-your-seat excitement. The movie builds tension so well, and it rarely takes its foot off the gas. I particularly loved the final act when Baby propels the intensity to new heights by taking charge of his own destiny, bringing forth an exciting and unpredictable turn of events. It puts an exhilarating and frantic twist on what is already a wild movie.
That’s not to say it’s a perfect movie, though. The ending itself left me feeling pretty unsatisfied. It forgoes the predictable ending for something different, and as respectable as that may be, it went on for too long and was a little too hokey and hard to believe for my taste. After riding high on Baby Driver’s adrenaline for so long, the ending botches the film’s momentum by devoting too much time to unnecessary explanation. While I even like the way the story concludes, I wish it could have gotten there a little more smoothly.
Bumpy start and finish aside, I really had a great time Baby Driver. It is an incredibly fun and energetic experience that the whole audience seemed to enjoy. It’s rhythmic, it’s stylish, and it’s not like any other film you’ll see this year. Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky ride in theaters this summer, Baby Driver is sure to be the ticket.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dredd (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The mid 90’s was a strange time for movies. Sure, there were quite a few remembered fondly (just like with any era) but there were also many movies that are forgotten due to their ridiculousness. It was a time that gave us the style of adaptions on par with Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection, or the two Joel Schumacher Batman films. Likewise, there was a Judge Dredd film right in the middle of that time period.
It was a mess. It exemplified everything wrong with many adaptions in the 90’s. Big name actors, over-the-top designs, cheesy dialogue. It tried very hard to be akin to the original Total Recall but instead succeeded at only being a movie fun to laugh at. It featured Sylvester Stallone and Rob Schneider. That is all that needs to be said about that film. So, when Hollywood comes along and decides to make a new adaption, of course the original’s ridiculousness looms over the whole affair. Not helping is the fact that most of the cast and crew are relatively obscure, and its source material (the Judge Dredd comics) is not as well-known as most of Marvel’s or DC’s pantheon. Yet, this brand new adaption, Dredd 3D, soars much higher than the original and manages to be one of those well-hidden gems of Fall 2012. I don’t imagine this film breaking box office records, but it is a wholly worthwhile piece of screen entertainment, even if it has some notable flaws and is overshadowed by past outings in the franchise.
The future America is an irradiated waste land known as the Cursed Earth. On the east coast of North America lies Mega-City One, a vast, violent metropolis containing 800 million residents, where 17,000 crimes are reported daily and “Slo-Mo”, an addictive new drug that slows the user’s perception of time, has been introduced. The only force of order is the Judges, who act as police, judge, jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is tasked by the Chief Judge (Rakie Ayola) with evaluating rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a psychic who has failed the tests to become a full Judge. They become involved in a raid upon a crime and Slo-Mo ridden apartment complex known as Peach-Trees, which is ruled by a vicious crime boss Ma-Ma (Lena Heady).
You can guess from the title that the movie is meant to be watched in 3D. But that is where personal opinions of 3D come into play. For me personally, I cannot ding the film’s use of 3D because it uses it well enough that it becomes unnoticeable, which is to say it does not obnoxiously remind you at all times it is meant to be watched in 3D by throwing random things at the camera. But I will say that, although somewhat gimmicky, the “Slo-Mo” segments (which are shot from the perspective of those on the mind-altering drug ‘Slo-Mo’) do use 3D very well and manage to be some of the most visually striking and beautiful shots in the entire film.
The plot is simple to understand and straight forward. There are not huge twists and turns, and manages to be tightly written. It is not extremely memorable for plot standards, but it does not need to be. The story is held up by focusing on three major characters, which some good additional characterization of two more side characters. In that sense, the plot and characters do not pop off the screen into greatness, yet they are still tightly written enough that both elements (plot and characters) are not muddled or confusing. The simple plot, and the fact it all takes place in one apartment complex, makes it easier to focus on action and visuals.
While the visuals are all extremely well-done, the action could use some work. The setting of Mega-City One is extremely well established, as opposed to the original Judge Dredd adaption. It seems like it could be a real place not far off in the future, as it is set up with a realistic visual design – just with added grittiness and subtle science fictional elements. Also, there is not a huge amount of CG and the Judge uniforms especially look like iconic yet possibly realistic futuristic police suits. But the action could use some work, as stated. I could not help but constantly compare it to the recently released film, “The Raid: Redeption”, the Indonesian martial arts police film centering on a single police raid on an apartment complex. The similarities are there.
Both movies have very similar locations and plots, but the difference is that while Dredd has more interesting setting and science fiction elements (and arguably more interesting characters), The Raid: Redemption’s action is far more entertaining and engrossing. The real problem with Dredd is that there are never any real amazing feats of heroics on part of Judge Dredd. They set up the film in a sort of “’Die Hard’ in the future vibe” but that requires the hero to barely overcome overwhelming odds. As it stands, it never really feels like Judge Dredd is in a ton of danger. There are some cool shooting moments, and some even more interesting usage of Judge Anderson’s psychic powers. But at the end of the day, there simply are not many memorable action moments.
Overall, it does not ruin the film at all. It still manages to be an entertaining and interesting movie regardless of memorable action sequences. It has a tightly plotted narrative with fairly well done characters, not muddled by overuse of complexity or plot twists. It manages to be visually excellent with interesting science fictional elements, but never does it soar with its action set-pieces. It would have benefitted with some better use of gunplay or more clever feats of heroics on Judge Dredd’s part. But at least it takes itself seriously enough to not have anything akin to Rob Schneider following Sylvester Stallone around in a cheesy script.
It was a mess. It exemplified everything wrong with many adaptions in the 90’s. Big name actors, over-the-top designs, cheesy dialogue. It tried very hard to be akin to the original Total Recall but instead succeeded at only being a movie fun to laugh at. It featured Sylvester Stallone and Rob Schneider. That is all that needs to be said about that film. So, when Hollywood comes along and decides to make a new adaption, of course the original’s ridiculousness looms over the whole affair. Not helping is the fact that most of the cast and crew are relatively obscure, and its source material (the Judge Dredd comics) is not as well-known as most of Marvel’s or DC’s pantheon. Yet, this brand new adaption, Dredd 3D, soars much higher than the original and manages to be one of those well-hidden gems of Fall 2012. I don’t imagine this film breaking box office records, but it is a wholly worthwhile piece of screen entertainment, even if it has some notable flaws and is overshadowed by past outings in the franchise.
The future America is an irradiated waste land known as the Cursed Earth. On the east coast of North America lies Mega-City One, a vast, violent metropolis containing 800 million residents, where 17,000 crimes are reported daily and “Slo-Mo”, an addictive new drug that slows the user’s perception of time, has been introduced. The only force of order is the Judges, who act as police, judge, jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is tasked by the Chief Judge (Rakie Ayola) with evaluating rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a psychic who has failed the tests to become a full Judge. They become involved in a raid upon a crime and Slo-Mo ridden apartment complex known as Peach-Trees, which is ruled by a vicious crime boss Ma-Ma (Lena Heady).
You can guess from the title that the movie is meant to be watched in 3D. But that is where personal opinions of 3D come into play. For me personally, I cannot ding the film’s use of 3D because it uses it well enough that it becomes unnoticeable, which is to say it does not obnoxiously remind you at all times it is meant to be watched in 3D by throwing random things at the camera. But I will say that, although somewhat gimmicky, the “Slo-Mo” segments (which are shot from the perspective of those on the mind-altering drug ‘Slo-Mo’) do use 3D very well and manage to be some of the most visually striking and beautiful shots in the entire film.
The plot is simple to understand and straight forward. There are not huge twists and turns, and manages to be tightly written. It is not extremely memorable for plot standards, but it does not need to be. The story is held up by focusing on three major characters, which some good additional characterization of two more side characters. In that sense, the plot and characters do not pop off the screen into greatness, yet they are still tightly written enough that both elements (plot and characters) are not muddled or confusing. The simple plot, and the fact it all takes place in one apartment complex, makes it easier to focus on action and visuals.
While the visuals are all extremely well-done, the action could use some work. The setting of Mega-City One is extremely well established, as opposed to the original Judge Dredd adaption. It seems like it could be a real place not far off in the future, as it is set up with a realistic visual design – just with added grittiness and subtle science fictional elements. Also, there is not a huge amount of CG and the Judge uniforms especially look like iconic yet possibly realistic futuristic police suits. But the action could use some work, as stated. I could not help but constantly compare it to the recently released film, “The Raid: Redeption”, the Indonesian martial arts police film centering on a single police raid on an apartment complex. The similarities are there.
Both movies have very similar locations and plots, but the difference is that while Dredd has more interesting setting and science fiction elements (and arguably more interesting characters), The Raid: Redemption’s action is far more entertaining and engrossing. The real problem with Dredd is that there are never any real amazing feats of heroics on part of Judge Dredd. They set up the film in a sort of “’Die Hard’ in the future vibe” but that requires the hero to barely overcome overwhelming odds. As it stands, it never really feels like Judge Dredd is in a ton of danger. There are some cool shooting moments, and some even more interesting usage of Judge Anderson’s psychic powers. But at the end of the day, there simply are not many memorable action moments.
Overall, it does not ruin the film at all. It still manages to be an entertaining and interesting movie regardless of memorable action sequences. It has a tightly plotted narrative with fairly well done characters, not muddled by overuse of complexity or plot twists. It manages to be visually excellent with interesting science fictional elements, but never does it soar with its action set-pieces. It would have benefitted with some better use of gunplay or more clever feats of heroics on Judge Dredd’s part. But at least it takes itself seriously enough to not have anything akin to Rob Schneider following Sylvester Stallone around in a cheesy script.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated GoodFellas (1990) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
Cast (3 more)
Sets
Script
Directing
Masterpiece
Contains spoilers, click to show
At the weekend, I was lucky enough to go and see one of my favourite films ever made on the big screen; Goodfellas. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of seeing the movie in an actual cinema, but it has been a few years since I have last seen it and seeing it after seeing some of Scorsese’s more recent efforts, I actually saw the story in a different light.
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10
Here me out here; Goodfellas is a religious story.
I know what you are thinking, “But Scorsese has already made religious movies with The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence. Goodfellas is about gangsters and murder and the only brief mention of religion in the movie is the fact that Karen is Jewish and Henry wears a cross.” Well none of that is strictly untrue, but there were just several points of the movie that I just couldn’t help but feel an implied religious undertone.
The first of which is in the opening scene of the movie, when Henry, Tommy and Jimmy open the boot of the car to finish off Billy Batts. The bright red tail light shines harshly on Henry’s face as he watches a man die and delivers his iconic voiceover: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” Here we are being introduced to a man who is capable of literally staring death in the face and metaphorically staring into the jaws of hell without even flinching.
From this point on, Henry is our guide into this forbidden underworld. He treats us the viewers as total newcomers to this chaotic landscape as he attempts to sell to us how great it is to live this way. It’s akin to Virgil guiding Dante through the various circles of hell in the Divine Comedy. This idea of Henry being a guide into hell is most explicit in the scene of his and Karen’s first real date at the Copacabana nightclub. In this scene we are treated to a glorious tracking shot that follows the couple all the way from their car to their seat directly in front of the stage. The first major direction we are taken is down. We descend down a staircase into a hallway painted red, in fact if you pay attention to the background in this entire sequence, there is almost always at least one red object onscreen. All the way to the table, Henry is greeted by various sinners as the ‘Then He Kissed Me,’ plays in the background; a song of seduction and lust.
Another example of this is the famous scene where Henry introduces us to various gangsters such as Jimmy Two Times through voiceover. Once again, the environment is littered with red light and dark shadowed areas as we are being introduced to a batch of sinners, thieves and murderers.
After Tommy’s death, the period of seduction in the movie is over. From this point on, we are seeing the intense fall of Henry’s world. It is just as chaotic as the first half of the movie, but now Henry and his friends are no longer in charge of the chaos and slowly they are beginning to lose control of everything that was once theirs. All of a sudden the momentum that has carried the movie and Henry’s life up until this point is brought to a halt, most obviously manifested in the scene of Henry driving far too fast despite being unaware of wait awaits him ahead and having to slam on his breaks and come to a screeching stop mere inches away from crashing. What direction is he looking just prior to this? He’s looking up for the chopper that he suspects has been following him, however he is also looking in the direction of Heaven, looking for a threat of something bigger than him that threatens to put a stop to his sinful lifestyle.
In the movie’s epilogue, once Henry gives up Jimmy and Paulie to the FBI, we see him in an entirely different environment. He’s dressed different, the weather is different and he describes how he is now just a nobody like everyone else as if that to him is a fate worse that death. Almost as if, he is in Limbo. No longer is he amongst the sinners in a world of gratification and sin, but instead he is in a ‘safe,’ environment where he can’t do anything even remotely illegal or morally questionable because he is being monitored by people just waiting for him to slip up. Then the very last shot we see is Tommy shooting at the audience. This is not only a very neat bookend as both the opening scene and final scene of the movie see Tommy committing a violent act, but it signifies that elements of Henry’s old life still follow him and he will spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder for demons from his old life, like Tommy waiting to snuff him out.
Maybe I’m reaching slightly with this, but I feel like at least a few of these choices were intentionally put in by Scorsese. Especially the opening scene showing the murder of Billy Batts and the tracking shot as we are taken into the Copacabana. After watching recently watching Silence and The Irishman, it is clear that faith and mortality are both things that heavily weigh on Scorsese’s mind, so I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to say that it was probably something that was at least in the back of his mind in 1990.
Regardless, this movie is a masterpiece and is still great no matter how many times you have seen it previously. It feels so authentic and genuine through the direction and presentation and the fantastic performances given by the respective cast members allow the characters to feel so real and deep. There is a reason that this is still considered as one of the seminal gangster movies. 10/10
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Never Mind The Bollocks, Here's The Sex Pistols by The Sex Pistols in Music
Nov 2, 2017
The ultimate reset switch on the musical chart machine
This album changed everything and brought rock ‘n roll music back down to ground level where it belongs. It perfectly captured the mindset of a generation and it was the turning point that was so badly needed at that point in musical history. These four lads were saying exactly what they meant and we could hear their pain and frustration through Lydon’s voice as he screamed down the microphone at us. This album is gripping from start to finish and full of strikingly relevant lyrics even today. Without Never Mind The Bollocks, you can forget Oasis or Nirvana or Green Day or any punk band to come after ’77 for that matter. This album had to happen as it totally changed the course of rock ‘n roll history for the better and gave us all what we wanted again. This band is as important to rock ‘n roll music and British culture as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones and they only ever released the one album, that is how important this record is. This album affected the style of an entire generation, it affected the politicians and it gave the how the majority of the country was feeling a united voice. The Tory government and the Royal Family may be scum, but it is hard to argue the fact that they have inspired some of the best music over the last 50 years. This album defines what it means to be young and pissed off and overlooked by the older generations who hold the power. It is an attack launched at anyone who has ever looked down their nose at anyone else. It is the quintessential lesson in how to compose a legendary rock n’ roll album and it reminded the world that you don’t need a bunch of overcomplicated instrumentals or 16 minute long interludes to make a great record, all you need is a few instruments, some raw talent and a determination to tell people how it really is. The Pistols wear their hearts on their sleeve in this record, both through their instruments and their lyrics, there is so much feeling and passion and genuine dissatisfaction on this record, yet it is also so careless and spur of the moment and that combination results in one of the greatest albums of the last half century in my opinion.
If American Idiot is a slap on the wrist of the government and a nudge to change things, Never Mind The Bollocks is the Pistols grabbing the man by the throat and squeezing until he is forced to listen to them. In the years prior to this record coming out, the charts were dominated by songs that were being played on a minimum of 15 different instruments per song. There hadn’t been a record composed solely of a guitar, a drumkit, a bass and a vocal in far too long and The Sex Pistols hit the reset button on rock ‘n roll music going forward. This record had to happen, without it bands like Oasis and Nirvana would never have came to be, or if they did they would sound vastly different to what they do today. This record has an undeniable feeling to it that no other record does, it is fury, frustration, desperation and sadness all at once and for me, there is nothing else in musical history that quite captures that feeling in the same way. This is simply four bored lads with pure raw talent telling us exactly how they feel and making sure not to leave out any of the gory details. Every riff on this album is a violent wake up call, every drum beat feels like a well deserved punch to the face and with Lydon’s voice and lyrics topping it all off, it is a beautifully ugly piece of pop culture that is relevant even today. The Pistols take on everybody in this album, from the Queen, to politics, to record labels and all of it is so well composed and yet so spur of the moment simultaneously. It’s like Lydon is spitting at you but in perfect time and in the most unique way that has ever been put to record. The band had a flair that lit Britain on fire, especially the middle classes, this record got banned out of fear that it would cause the man on the street to rise up and see through the bullshit that politicians and the government try to spin us day in and day out. Every song points out what is wrong with the country and its ethics and policies and it defines the reasons that the public are fed up of it. The whole thing flows so well and even though it takes just under 40 minutes to listen to the entire album from start to finish, it goes by in a flash and leaves such a strong impression that causes you to be left thinking about what you have just heard for hours afterwards. This is a fleeting moment in modern history captured in the most brief, yet poignant way and without it the very culture of Britain would be entirely different. This album is so important, not just for it’s anti establishment themes or its musical reasons, but because it actually altered the course of history beyond just the musical ecosystem. There was never an album before Never The Bollocks that sounded anything like it and there hasn’t been one since and sadly, there probably never will be. The last great rock n’ roll band that the world really took notice of were Oasis and since then there has been nothing significant enough to capture the world’s attention. If you ask me what we need right now is another band like the Sex Pistols to swagger up and take the spotlight away from the dance/pop garbage that is dominating today’s charts. We need a band that can reset the musical machine and show the youth of today that all you need to make it is raw talent, a few instruments and a sprinkle of determination and the world can be yours. I am hopeful it will eventually happen, it has to and in my mind it is inevitable and is more a question of when rather than a question of if. That album is what will resurrect rock n’ roll music and bring it back to the forefront and the group that manages it will be the band that defines their respective generation. Since Oasis split the crown has been up for the taking and all we need is a band with enough balls and talent and who actually have something to say, to reach out and grab it.
If American Idiot is a slap on the wrist of the government and a nudge to change things, Never Mind The Bollocks is the Pistols grabbing the man by the throat and squeezing until he is forced to listen to them. In the years prior to this record coming out, the charts were dominated by songs that were being played on a minimum of 15 different instruments per song. There hadn’t been a record composed solely of a guitar, a drumkit, a bass and a vocal in far too long and The Sex Pistols hit the reset button on rock ‘n roll music going forward. This record had to happen, without it bands like Oasis and Nirvana would never have came to be, or if they did they would sound vastly different to what they do today. This record has an undeniable feeling to it that no other record does, it is fury, frustration, desperation and sadness all at once and for me, there is nothing else in musical history that quite captures that feeling in the same way. This is simply four bored lads with pure raw talent telling us exactly how they feel and making sure not to leave out any of the gory details. Every riff on this album is a violent wake up call, every drum beat feels like a well deserved punch to the face and with Lydon’s voice and lyrics topping it all off, it is a beautifully ugly piece of pop culture that is relevant even today. The Pistols take on everybody in this album, from the Queen, to politics, to record labels and all of it is so well composed and yet so spur of the moment simultaneously. It’s like Lydon is spitting at you but in perfect time and in the most unique way that has ever been put to record. The band had a flair that lit Britain on fire, especially the middle classes, this record got banned out of fear that it would cause the man on the street to rise up and see through the bullshit that politicians and the government try to spin us day in and day out. Every song points out what is wrong with the country and its ethics and policies and it defines the reasons that the public are fed up of it. The whole thing flows so well and even though it takes just under 40 minutes to listen to the entire album from start to finish, it goes by in a flash and leaves such a strong impression that causes you to be left thinking about what you have just heard for hours afterwards. This is a fleeting moment in modern history captured in the most brief, yet poignant way and without it the very culture of Britain would be entirely different. This album is so important, not just for it’s anti establishment themes or its musical reasons, but because it actually altered the course of history beyond just the musical ecosystem. There was never an album before Never The Bollocks that sounded anything like it and there hasn’t been one since and sadly, there probably never will be. The last great rock n’ roll band that the world really took notice of were Oasis and since then there has been nothing significant enough to capture the world’s attention. If you ask me what we need right now is another band like the Sex Pistols to swagger up and take the spotlight away from the dance/pop garbage that is dominating today’s charts. We need a band that can reset the musical machine and show the youth of today that all you need to make it is raw talent, a few instruments and a sprinkle of determination and the world can be yours. I am hopeful it will eventually happen, it has to and in my mind it is inevitable and is more a question of when rather than a question of if. That album is what will resurrect rock n’ roll music and bring it back to the forefront and the group that manages it will be the band that defines their respective generation. Since Oasis split the crown has been up for the taking and all we need is a band with enough balls and talent and who actually have something to say, to reach out and grab it.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Apr 18, 2017
The Good, The Bad and The Editing
So...here's a movie that split so many fans and has caused COUNTLESS arguments online. My review may also cause arguments, but I'm willing to risk that as I have a fair bit to say about this movie, most importantly and foremost;
I enjoyed the movie!
The Good:
Let me start with what's good because I feel there's never enough positivity around this movie so here goes.
Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot were the two focuses of this movie because they had a lot of pressure on them to bring Batman and Wonder Woman to life and do the characters justice (terrible I know but I couldn't resist). All over the internet I saw hate for Ben Affleck and people saying Gal Gadot was too skinny. At first, I'll be honest, I did think Gal Gadot was really skinny and couldn't imagine her as Wonder Woman, BUT, unlike most people, I knew that before they would film her scenes, she would be 'buffing up' because I have faith in Zack Snyder because he is a fan and has made brilliant films. Man Of Steel made me like Superman, because of the way he was written as conflicted and the whole film made him more human and I loved it.
Here's where some people will disagree highly with me....I am not a big fan of the Nolan trilogy Batman. Now, before you throw a fit and verbally kick my ass, let me try and tell you why. The Voice! (it's not the only reason, but this is the reason I'm trying to make a point of) Batman a.k.a Bruce Wayne is a BILLIONAIRE, so who thought that the best way for him to disguise his voice would be to make him sound like he's fucked up his throat somehow? A billionaire with all those gadgets would surely think that what he needs is a voice modulator. Snyder brought in the voice modulator and I fell in love in that first trailer from hearing Batman talk through a voice modulator because I was sat there like "Hallelujah they finally worked out what a billionaire vigilante would do!" and I think it could be just me, but I honestly would prefer to think of Batman using one of those rather than grumbling his voice, because it just makes more sense.
So...Batfleck was incredible. My favourite portrayal so far and here's why:
- Arkham game fighting style
- Aged personality that says it all about why he's that violent
- He's definitely a great portrayal of the Dark Knight Returns version of Batman
- Ben Affleck is a great actor (in my opinion)
People's biggest complaint was 'Batman Kills' and I've had this discussion with my friends many times. Yes people died, IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE! It's rare but it's happened. You like the realism of Nolan's trilogy but there's a realism to Batfleck that you might not be seeing. He's been through all the same shit year in, year out for decades. Villains cause chaos, Batman fights villain, lets them live, puts them away, they break out, rinse repeat. Doing that for decades, losing people you love because of your choice not to kill, would surely cause a spark in your mind and Bruce Wayne says this in the movie through less words. "How many good guys are left? How many stay that way?"
If you think about it, he's essentially saying "I was a good guy but even I have had my boundaries pushed to the line and over". He's finally at the age where he has a state of mind that from his perspective...bad guys don't deserve to be shown mercy, but at the same time, he doesn't necessarily kill the bad guys directly.
Think of the warehouse scene. Bad Guy throws grenade, Batman kicks it back at him. Grenade goes BOOM. Bad guys die. BUT! If the guy hadn't have tried to throw the grenade, Batman wouldn't have kicked it back, and it wouldn't have ended in their death. Simple as that.
Let's move on though.
Superman is conflicted and the movie gets very political with a message of "Here's a God-Like figure. Should he be allowed to do what he wants or should we take away Choice by having under the Governments thumb?" and Superman personally is having internal issues of "I want this to be my home because it's the only home I've known, but these people don't want me and this stress is affecting both Clark Kent and Superman". He should have been able to see or hear the bomb in the wheelchair, but his mind was preoccupied with "Why does this government and these people hate me when I saved not only my city but the whole world?". Think about your stress with work, with college, school etc. and how it really does effect everything else around you. You might not want to go out with friends because you feel drained from the stress, now try to imagine that on the level of Superman! The poor guy just wanted to help.
My biggest enjoyment from this film was ALL OF THE DC REFERENCES! There were so many cool easter eggs, references etc. that I adored from Riddler Question Marks, to seeing Superman in a skeletal form after the Nuke explosion and then regaining his life force from the flowers through their Photosynthesis just like in the graphic novel! It was an incredible experience and I loved the film mainly for that.
The Bad:
Doomsday....I want to hope it's not the actual Doomsday and maybe just a failed experiment that Lex tried out but at the same time I know it probably is meant to be THE Doomsday.
The Editing:
The editing was jumpy and some cuts didn't make sense UNTIL the Ultimate Cut. The Ultimate Cut gives us some scenes with Clark Kent in Gotham BEFORE the big introduction to Batman in person, and hearing stories and investigating why people fear him, but also respect him. This would have worked so much better in the Theatrical Cut but sadly studios like to cut the film and people blame the Director for it which annoys me slightly.
Guaranteed this post might not change your mind, but I must say that you should try watching the film again if you've avoided it, watch the Ultimate Cut and really pay attention to how its being shown to the audience. Overall this is one of my favourite superhero movies and I will always stand up for it, BUT I'm not blind to it's faults.
I enjoyed the movie!
The Good:
Let me start with what's good because I feel there's never enough positivity around this movie so here goes.
Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot were the two focuses of this movie because they had a lot of pressure on them to bring Batman and Wonder Woman to life and do the characters justice (terrible I know but I couldn't resist). All over the internet I saw hate for Ben Affleck and people saying Gal Gadot was too skinny. At first, I'll be honest, I did think Gal Gadot was really skinny and couldn't imagine her as Wonder Woman, BUT, unlike most people, I knew that before they would film her scenes, she would be 'buffing up' because I have faith in Zack Snyder because he is a fan and has made brilliant films. Man Of Steel made me like Superman, because of the way he was written as conflicted and the whole film made him more human and I loved it.
Here's where some people will disagree highly with me....I am not a big fan of the Nolan trilogy Batman. Now, before you throw a fit and verbally kick my ass, let me try and tell you why. The Voice! (it's not the only reason, but this is the reason I'm trying to make a point of) Batman a.k.a Bruce Wayne is a BILLIONAIRE, so who thought that the best way for him to disguise his voice would be to make him sound like he's fucked up his throat somehow? A billionaire with all those gadgets would surely think that what he needs is a voice modulator. Snyder brought in the voice modulator and I fell in love in that first trailer from hearing Batman talk through a voice modulator because I was sat there like "Hallelujah they finally worked out what a billionaire vigilante would do!" and I think it could be just me, but I honestly would prefer to think of Batman using one of those rather than grumbling his voice, because it just makes more sense.
So...Batfleck was incredible. My favourite portrayal so far and here's why:
- Arkham game fighting style
- Aged personality that says it all about why he's that violent
- He's definitely a great portrayal of the Dark Knight Returns version of Batman
- Ben Affleck is a great actor (in my opinion)
People's biggest complaint was 'Batman Kills' and I've had this discussion with my friends many times. Yes people died, IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE! It's rare but it's happened. You like the realism of Nolan's trilogy but there's a realism to Batfleck that you might not be seeing. He's been through all the same shit year in, year out for decades. Villains cause chaos, Batman fights villain, lets them live, puts them away, they break out, rinse repeat. Doing that for decades, losing people you love because of your choice not to kill, would surely cause a spark in your mind and Bruce Wayne says this in the movie through less words. "How many good guys are left? How many stay that way?"
If you think about it, he's essentially saying "I was a good guy but even I have had my boundaries pushed to the line and over". He's finally at the age where he has a state of mind that from his perspective...bad guys don't deserve to be shown mercy, but at the same time, he doesn't necessarily kill the bad guys directly.
Think of the warehouse scene. Bad Guy throws grenade, Batman kicks it back at him. Grenade goes BOOM. Bad guys die. BUT! If the guy hadn't have tried to throw the grenade, Batman wouldn't have kicked it back, and it wouldn't have ended in their death. Simple as that.
Let's move on though.
Superman is conflicted and the movie gets very political with a message of "Here's a God-Like figure. Should he be allowed to do what he wants or should we take away Choice by having under the Governments thumb?" and Superman personally is having internal issues of "I want this to be my home because it's the only home I've known, but these people don't want me and this stress is affecting both Clark Kent and Superman". He should have been able to see or hear the bomb in the wheelchair, but his mind was preoccupied with "Why does this government and these people hate me when I saved not only my city but the whole world?". Think about your stress with work, with college, school etc. and how it really does effect everything else around you. You might not want to go out with friends because you feel drained from the stress, now try to imagine that on the level of Superman! The poor guy just wanted to help.
My biggest enjoyment from this film was ALL OF THE DC REFERENCES! There were so many cool easter eggs, references etc. that I adored from Riddler Question Marks, to seeing Superman in a skeletal form after the Nuke explosion and then regaining his life force from the flowers through their Photosynthesis just like in the graphic novel! It was an incredible experience and I loved the film mainly for that.
The Bad:
Doomsday....I want to hope it's not the actual Doomsday and maybe just a failed experiment that Lex tried out but at the same time I know it probably is meant to be THE Doomsday.
The Editing:
The editing was jumpy and some cuts didn't make sense UNTIL the Ultimate Cut. The Ultimate Cut gives us some scenes with Clark Kent in Gotham BEFORE the big introduction to Batman in person, and hearing stories and investigating why people fear him, but also respect him. This would have worked so much better in the Theatrical Cut but sadly studios like to cut the film and people blame the Director for it which annoys me slightly.
Guaranteed this post might not change your mind, but I must say that you should try watching the film again if you've avoided it, watch the Ultimate Cut and really pay attention to how its being shown to the audience. Overall this is one of my favourite superhero movies and I will always stand up for it, BUT I'm not blind to it's faults.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019 (Updated Jul 4, 2019)
When a director like Ari Aster only has two full-length features under his belt, it’s difficult not to compare his works but the truth of the matter is that Hereditary and Midsommar are two incredibly different films. Hereditary seemed to thrive on lurking in the shadows visually to assist in its dark storytelling. Nearly all of Midsommar takes place under blinding sunlight making the horrific events that unfold feel stranger and even more out of place, confusing, and bizarrely unsettling. Based on his two films though, Aster does seem to flock towards a few common themes. Grief, loss, and the inability to cope have plagued the main characters of his films while the importance of family takes a high precedence. Hereditary was more about a specific family attempting to stay together while already being in shambles and Midsommar attempts to create a new family on more than one occasion with the possibility of constant expansion.
Dani’s (Florence Pugh) life is turned inside out once a devastating tragedy leaves her dumbstruck. She leans on her boyfriend of four years, Christian (Jack Reynor), for support, but their relationship is obviously strained. Along with their friends Josh (William Jackson Harper) and Mark (Will Poulter), Dani and Christian end up going on vacation to rural Sweden. They travel to a small village where their friend Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren) grew up and now serves as their host. A rare nine-day festival that only occurs once every 90 years is being celebrated. Josh is utilizing the trip as a means to bulk up his folklore thesis for college while Mark is more interested in partaking in the Swedish women. Christian is attempting to figure out what his thesis will be while Dani searches for some sort of guidance after such a tragic occurrence. Their trip becomes increasingly more peculiar the longer they stay as they’re forced to witness violent rituals and are encouraged to embrace the ways of a Pagan cult.
The intricate illustrations throughout the film like in the opening shot, the elongated love potion cloth, or the walls of the barn-like structure Dani and her friends sleep in, give Midsommar this dark fairy tale aspect to it that a film like Pan’s Labyrinth would be proud of. The Pagan roots of Pelle’s village and the film’s metaphorical feet being so firmly planted in such rich folklore give Midsommar this cautiously fanciful aesthetic. The film capitalizes on the nostalgic sensation of when fairy tales and children’s books were read to you as a child. There are consistent signs that things aren’t right, paranoia lurks around every corner, and the locals set off every ominous alarm in your body, but there’s that naïve part of us buried deep down that wishes for and hopes for a happy ending because cosmetically we believe that is what resides at the end of every fairy tale not written by Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm (The Brothers Grimm).
It’s also interesting observing the main and supporting characters of the film or basically all of the “outsider” guests of the festival. Pelle acts as a conduit/guide between his village and the outside world, Josh is a historian/researcher, Mark is a mocker/fool, Dani and Christian are a strained couple, and Connie (Ellora Torchia) and Simon (Archie Madekwe) are a flourishing one. According to Wikipedia, Ari Aster based Dani and Christian’s relationship on a bad breakup. Midsommar is also way funnier than it has any right to be; something Hereditary completely distanced itself from. Midsommar goes out of its way to boast about who Dani’s real family is in the film. The unified chanting, outrageous theatrics, and harmonized moaning may seem like mockery or complete insanity to some. While it is humorous at times, it seems like this is the way the locals can experience everything everyone else does as a cohesive unit. This seems relevant to emotions, hallucinogens, and even sustenance; this cult does everything together.
Midsommar isn’t going to sit right with a lot of people, especially since Ari Aster desired to be confusing when it came to making the film. With all of the drug-taking in the film being so common, Midsommar may leave you feeling as groggy and disoriented as the characters on screen. However, in between the sacrifices, the brutality, the graphic nature of the film, inbred oracles, and plethora of naked mature women moaning in unison there’s something unique and brilliant about Midsommar you can’t find elsewhere. It may draw parallels to films like Robin Hardy’s The Wicker Man and may feel like a bleaker version of The Wizard of Oz on a bad acid trip, but Midsommar is unlike any other film you’ll see this year. In a way, Dani and her friends all get exactly what they came for but the end outcome is that the majority of them bit off more than they could chew. Truth be told, you’ll never look at a bear in a film the same way again even if it does remind you of the Tanooki suit Mario wore in Super Mario Bros 3. This is the type of film where you could literally tell someone everything that happens and it wouldn’t really spoil the film for them. The context of these events is important to witness in succession and in their entirety since what each individual takes away from the film will likely differ person to person.
There’s a deliberate pacing of the film many will find too slow and uneventful as the film’s two and a half hour runtime will already feel daunting. Aster has teased that the original cut of the film was three hours and 45 minutes and he has a version of the film that is 25 minutes longer that was difficult to cut down to the theatrical cut currently in theaters. An extended cut of the film or a large amount of deleted scenes on the Blu-ray (how about that levitation sequence from the trailer?) would certainly be intriguing.
If you enjoy ambiguous filmmaking where everything isn’t explained and the film’s imagery can mean more than one specific thing, then Midsommar may be worth checking out. It is an outlandish experiment by Ari Aster that a large quantity will likely deem a failure. Personally speaking though, Midsommar is such an unconventionally different ceremonial fever dream loaded with preposterousness, beautiful cinematography, hilarity, and anxiety-fueled-dread that it’s not only memorable and bold but also the type of one-of-a-kind film experience I crave whenever the lights dim and the quiet hum of a projector accelerates into a dull yet soothing roar.
Dani’s (Florence Pugh) life is turned inside out once a devastating tragedy leaves her dumbstruck. She leans on her boyfriend of four years, Christian (Jack Reynor), for support, but their relationship is obviously strained. Along with their friends Josh (William Jackson Harper) and Mark (Will Poulter), Dani and Christian end up going on vacation to rural Sweden. They travel to a small village where their friend Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren) grew up and now serves as their host. A rare nine-day festival that only occurs once every 90 years is being celebrated. Josh is utilizing the trip as a means to bulk up his folklore thesis for college while Mark is more interested in partaking in the Swedish women. Christian is attempting to figure out what his thesis will be while Dani searches for some sort of guidance after such a tragic occurrence. Their trip becomes increasingly more peculiar the longer they stay as they’re forced to witness violent rituals and are encouraged to embrace the ways of a Pagan cult.
The intricate illustrations throughout the film like in the opening shot, the elongated love potion cloth, or the walls of the barn-like structure Dani and her friends sleep in, give Midsommar this dark fairy tale aspect to it that a film like Pan’s Labyrinth would be proud of. The Pagan roots of Pelle’s village and the film’s metaphorical feet being so firmly planted in such rich folklore give Midsommar this cautiously fanciful aesthetic. The film capitalizes on the nostalgic sensation of when fairy tales and children’s books were read to you as a child. There are consistent signs that things aren’t right, paranoia lurks around every corner, and the locals set off every ominous alarm in your body, but there’s that naïve part of us buried deep down that wishes for and hopes for a happy ending because cosmetically we believe that is what resides at the end of every fairy tale not written by Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm (The Brothers Grimm).
It’s also interesting observing the main and supporting characters of the film or basically all of the “outsider” guests of the festival. Pelle acts as a conduit/guide between his village and the outside world, Josh is a historian/researcher, Mark is a mocker/fool, Dani and Christian are a strained couple, and Connie (Ellora Torchia) and Simon (Archie Madekwe) are a flourishing one. According to Wikipedia, Ari Aster based Dani and Christian’s relationship on a bad breakup. Midsommar is also way funnier than it has any right to be; something Hereditary completely distanced itself from. Midsommar goes out of its way to boast about who Dani’s real family is in the film. The unified chanting, outrageous theatrics, and harmonized moaning may seem like mockery or complete insanity to some. While it is humorous at times, it seems like this is the way the locals can experience everything everyone else does as a cohesive unit. This seems relevant to emotions, hallucinogens, and even sustenance; this cult does everything together.
Midsommar isn’t going to sit right with a lot of people, especially since Ari Aster desired to be confusing when it came to making the film. With all of the drug-taking in the film being so common, Midsommar may leave you feeling as groggy and disoriented as the characters on screen. However, in between the sacrifices, the brutality, the graphic nature of the film, inbred oracles, and plethora of naked mature women moaning in unison there’s something unique and brilliant about Midsommar you can’t find elsewhere. It may draw parallels to films like Robin Hardy’s The Wicker Man and may feel like a bleaker version of The Wizard of Oz on a bad acid trip, but Midsommar is unlike any other film you’ll see this year. In a way, Dani and her friends all get exactly what they came for but the end outcome is that the majority of them bit off more than they could chew. Truth be told, you’ll never look at a bear in a film the same way again even if it does remind you of the Tanooki suit Mario wore in Super Mario Bros 3. This is the type of film where you could literally tell someone everything that happens and it wouldn’t really spoil the film for them. The context of these events is important to witness in succession and in their entirety since what each individual takes away from the film will likely differ person to person.
There’s a deliberate pacing of the film many will find too slow and uneventful as the film’s two and a half hour runtime will already feel daunting. Aster has teased that the original cut of the film was three hours and 45 minutes and he has a version of the film that is 25 minutes longer that was difficult to cut down to the theatrical cut currently in theaters. An extended cut of the film or a large amount of deleted scenes on the Blu-ray (how about that levitation sequence from the trailer?) would certainly be intriguing.
If you enjoy ambiguous filmmaking where everything isn’t explained and the film’s imagery can mean more than one specific thing, then Midsommar may be worth checking out. It is an outlandish experiment by Ari Aster that a large quantity will likely deem a failure. Personally speaking though, Midsommar is such an unconventionally different ceremonial fever dream loaded with preposterousness, beautiful cinematography, hilarity, and anxiety-fueled-dread that it’s not only memorable and bold but also the type of one-of-a-kind film experience I crave whenever the lights dim and the quiet hum of a projector accelerates into a dull yet soothing roar.