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.
JT (287 KP) rated Dredd (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
From the opening slow motion bullet to the face and exit wound that leaves a spray of deep red across the screen, it’s clear to see that this Dredd reboot is all about eradicating the memory of Stallone. It also does its best to stay true to the graphic novels in which this Judge Dredd leaves his helmet on for the entirety.
Karl Urban steps into the boots for this outing and complete with grizzled voice that echoes of Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry he goes up against female villain Ma-Ma (Headey) who is as nasty as she is ruthless.
Mega City one, set on the East Coast and running from Boston to Washington DC is the Judges stomping ground and its being overrun by a new drug called SLO-MO in which users experience reality at a fraction of the speed. When a routine homicide leads Dredd and rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Thirlby) to The Peach Trees, a 200-storey slum tower block (wait, another tower block?), they must fight their way through the scum to get to the top and bring down the prostitute turned drug lord.
The film is certainly grittier and bloodier than its almost comic predecessor, and director Travis does not shy away from this.
An early encounter in which Dredd and Anderson infiltrate a drug house is slowed right down, maybe in some way to mirror the feeling the SLO-MO drug has on its users. Bullets and blood fly as the casualties and body count rise significantly, Dredd quips the occasional one liner with deadpan expression “negotiation’s over. Sentence is death.”
Those that saw The Raid would have been mesmerized by the action which was none stop from start to finish, sadly Dredd doesn’t live up to those high expectations but does its best to stay with mainstream carnage, of which there is plenty to satisfy.
It’s all about the facial expression
Thirlby’s psychic abilities prove useful but almost disappointing that she can second guess her opponents, a mutant, she’d probably fit in well with the X-Men. She’s the sense of reason to Dredd’s brute force, although most of the time he’s right in what he does, after all he is the law. The film is stripped back, humour is used when needed, and the action set pieces are exceptional. Urban a long time supporting actor now gets a chance to be front and centre in a franchise that can really go places.
Karl Urban steps into the boots for this outing and complete with grizzled voice that echoes of Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry he goes up against female villain Ma-Ma (Headey) who is as nasty as she is ruthless.
Mega City one, set on the East Coast and running from Boston to Washington DC is the Judges stomping ground and its being overrun by a new drug called SLO-MO in which users experience reality at a fraction of the speed. When a routine homicide leads Dredd and rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Thirlby) to The Peach Trees, a 200-storey slum tower block (wait, another tower block?), they must fight their way through the scum to get to the top and bring down the prostitute turned drug lord.
The film is certainly grittier and bloodier than its almost comic predecessor, and director Travis does not shy away from this.
An early encounter in which Dredd and Anderson infiltrate a drug house is slowed right down, maybe in some way to mirror the feeling the SLO-MO drug has on its users. Bullets and blood fly as the casualties and body count rise significantly, Dredd quips the occasional one liner with deadpan expression “negotiation’s over. Sentence is death.”
Those that saw The Raid would have been mesmerized by the action which was none stop from start to finish, sadly Dredd doesn’t live up to those high expectations but does its best to stay with mainstream carnage, of which there is plenty to satisfy.
It’s all about the facial expression
Thirlby’s psychic abilities prove useful but almost disappointing that she can second guess her opponents, a mutant, she’d probably fit in well with the X-Men. She’s the sense of reason to Dredd’s brute force, although most of the time he’s right in what he does, after all he is the law. The film is stripped back, humour is used when needed, and the action set pieces are exceptional. Urban a long time supporting actor now gets a chance to be front and centre in a franchise that can really go places.
Adam Silvera recommended The Young Elites in Books (curated)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Aug 12, 2020 (Updated Aug 12, 2020)
Packs a Surprising Impact
Based on the bestselling video game, super cool Sonic (Ben Schwartz) has to outsmart the evil Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey) who wants him captured. Sonic the Hedgehog was pulled originally to revamp the look of the character. That fact alone had me worried about the viability of the movie. After watching, I have to be honest: I didn’t hate it. Dare I say, I actually kinda liked it.
Acting: 10
Sure Ben Schwartz was pretty solid as Sonic, but this movie would be nothing without the hilarious performance of Jim Carrey. Carrey has always been hit or miss for me, but he hits a homerun in Sonic. His timing is perfect as he is constantly doing things to keep you laughing. The “Left Yourself Open” scene is a constant rewinder in my household. He gives the movie a much needed shine.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Despite the exorbitant amount of time spent on fixing Sonic’s character there is still a bit to be desired in the visuals department. Some of the slow-mo scenes feel stolen from the Quicksilver scenes in the X-Men Franchise. Don’t get me wrong, there are quite a few cool moments, but I can’t help but feel like I’ve seen some of it before.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 5
What Pixar manages to do extremely well in moments is make you feel like you’re not watching a movie for kids. For me, that was the primary reason I couldn’t allow myself to fully get into Sonic the Hedgehog. It oozes with cheesiness in spots which takes away from some of the overall appeal. It would be one thing if it embraced the ridiculousness of these moments, but the movie actually expects you take some of these moments seriously.
Memorability: 7
On a positive note, there are quite a few hilarious moments and some of the action scenes are really cool to watch unfold. it definitely leaves an impact even if it’s not a lasting one. I’ve seen worse kids movies and I’ve for sure seen worse video game adaptations.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 76
Sonic the Hedgehog is a solid movie to watch when you’re with your kids and you’ve expended your options. It’s not going to win any awards, but it packs heart. Sometimes that’s enough to carry a movie. In the case of Sonic, at the very least it makes it a fun ride.
Acting: 10
Sure Ben Schwartz was pretty solid as Sonic, but this movie would be nothing without the hilarious performance of Jim Carrey. Carrey has always been hit or miss for me, but he hits a homerun in Sonic. His timing is perfect as he is constantly doing things to keep you laughing. The “Left Yourself Open” scene is a constant rewinder in my household. He gives the movie a much needed shine.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Despite the exorbitant amount of time spent on fixing Sonic’s character there is still a bit to be desired in the visuals department. Some of the slow-mo scenes feel stolen from the Quicksilver scenes in the X-Men Franchise. Don’t get me wrong, there are quite a few cool moments, but I can’t help but feel like I’ve seen some of it before.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 5
What Pixar manages to do extremely well in moments is make you feel like you’re not watching a movie for kids. For me, that was the primary reason I couldn’t allow myself to fully get into Sonic the Hedgehog. It oozes with cheesiness in spots which takes away from some of the overall appeal. It would be one thing if it embraced the ridiculousness of these moments, but the movie actually expects you take some of these moments seriously.
Memorability: 7
On a positive note, there are quite a few hilarious moments and some of the action scenes are really cool to watch unfold. it definitely leaves an impact even if it’s not a lasting one. I’ve seen worse kids movies and I’ve for sure seen worse video game adaptations.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 76
Sonic the Hedgehog is a solid movie to watch when you’re with your kids and you’ve expended your options. It’s not going to win any awards, but it packs heart. Sometimes that’s enough to carry a movie. In the case of Sonic, at the very least it makes it a fun ride.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Ali (2001) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Ali starts on the brink of Cassius Clay (Smith) first title match in 1964, a match he wins to become heavyweight champion of the world, with his place on top of the world ready, Cassius joins forces with Malcolm X (Peebles) becoming a Muslim in the process, changing his name to Muhammad Ali.
With the Vietnam war drafting men from America, Muhammad is drafted, but he refuses to go and fight which leads him to be stripped of the title and banned from fighting in certain states, Ali uses his to create one of the biggest fights in history, The Rumble in the Jungle.
Thoughts on Ali
Characters – Muhammad Ali is one if not the most famous boxers in the world, in the history of the sport, he help shape the sport to be what we know now, with his charisma and loud behaviour against his opponents, we follow just ten years of his life, from his first title win, through his religious change, the battle against the government about fighting in the Vietnam war, to being part of one of the biggest fights in boxing history. When we focus on the rest of the real-life people we get to see the loyal people in his life, reporter Howard Cosell that seemed to have a wonderful relationship which included banter between the two and the promoters that make the fight possible.
Performances – Will Smith in the role of Ali is brilliant, this is easily his best performance of his career showing the world that he can have his wise cracking side mixed with the serious side. We have an unrecognizable Jon Voight who is shows us all that how easily he can morph into any role. The rest of the supporting cast are good without being fantastic or taking away anything from Smith in the leading role.
Story – The story here takes us into Muhammed Ali’s life for ten years, we get to see from the night he first won the title till the famous Rumble in the Jungle match. We do see the obstacles he must overcome to remain the man he was which in itself is an incredible story during late 60s America. My issues with the story come from not seeing everything that Ali went through in this career, mostly the rise to the top, which could have been an even more interesting story. for the story to only cover 10- years is interesting because we could have seen so much more of the legal battle against the government, the religious battles he faced because of his stance on war and action with the women. The truth is, Ali lived an amazing life and there are so many story we could learn about him from his career any film just can’t cover them all.
Biopic/Sports – Ten years of one of the great boxers in the history of the sport, one of the men that changed the sport almost doesn’t give it enough justice. The sports side of the film comes from the boxing scenes which are incredibly real through the film we do get a couple and they do go on a long time.
Settings – The film here takes us to the important locations in Ali’s life, the ring of course is the most important one while we get scenes away from the ring to as we look at his church and his personal life.
Scene of the Movie – Rumble in the Jungle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I would have like to see more of his life and career
Final Thoughts – This is one of those biopics which is great to watch and has wonderful scenes, only for it to be missing that big it factor about it. The fights do feel real which is key and the performances are flawless, we could only have learnt more.
Overall: Biopic to enjoy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/05/01/abc-film-challenge-biopic-a-ali-2001/
With the Vietnam war drafting men from America, Muhammad is drafted, but he refuses to go and fight which leads him to be stripped of the title and banned from fighting in certain states, Ali uses his to create one of the biggest fights in history, The Rumble in the Jungle.
Thoughts on Ali
Characters – Muhammad Ali is one if not the most famous boxers in the world, in the history of the sport, he help shape the sport to be what we know now, with his charisma and loud behaviour against his opponents, we follow just ten years of his life, from his first title win, through his religious change, the battle against the government about fighting in the Vietnam war, to being part of one of the biggest fights in boxing history. When we focus on the rest of the real-life people we get to see the loyal people in his life, reporter Howard Cosell that seemed to have a wonderful relationship which included banter between the two and the promoters that make the fight possible.
Performances – Will Smith in the role of Ali is brilliant, this is easily his best performance of his career showing the world that he can have his wise cracking side mixed with the serious side. We have an unrecognizable Jon Voight who is shows us all that how easily he can morph into any role. The rest of the supporting cast are good without being fantastic or taking away anything from Smith in the leading role.
Story – The story here takes us into Muhammed Ali’s life for ten years, we get to see from the night he first won the title till the famous Rumble in the Jungle match. We do see the obstacles he must overcome to remain the man he was which in itself is an incredible story during late 60s America. My issues with the story come from not seeing everything that Ali went through in this career, mostly the rise to the top, which could have been an even more interesting story. for the story to only cover 10- years is interesting because we could have seen so much more of the legal battle against the government, the religious battles he faced because of his stance on war and action with the women. The truth is, Ali lived an amazing life and there are so many story we could learn about him from his career any film just can’t cover them all.
Biopic/Sports – Ten years of one of the great boxers in the history of the sport, one of the men that changed the sport almost doesn’t give it enough justice. The sports side of the film comes from the boxing scenes which are incredibly real through the film we do get a couple and they do go on a long time.
Settings – The film here takes us to the important locations in Ali’s life, the ring of course is the most important one while we get scenes away from the ring to as we look at his church and his personal life.
Scene of the Movie – Rumble in the Jungle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I would have like to see more of his life and career
Final Thoughts – This is one of those biopics which is great to watch and has wonderful scenes, only for it to be missing that big it factor about it. The fights do feel real which is key and the performances are flawless, we could only have learnt more.
Overall: Biopic to enjoy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/05/01/abc-film-challenge-biopic-a-ali-2001/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wordy but entertaining.
You can never accuse Aaron Sorkin of skimping on his words. Sorkin is of course the award-winning writer of “The West Wing” but on the big screen he has also written many classics: “A Few Good Men”; “The Social Network” and “Steve Jobs” for example. Here he also makes his directorial debut in a movie about the true-life turbulent career of Olympic wannabe skier Molly Bloom.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
A Blast
I remember the trepidation of going to see Marvel’s The Avengers. Could they really pull a team-up like this off? Could the whole really be a sum of some awesome parts? I wasn’t sure. That trepidation turned into utter lack of interest. X-Men: The Last Stand left a bad taste in my mouth, but the Avengers crew was regaining my interest in the superhero world movie by movie. Good thing I gave the movie a chance because I ended up having the time of my life.
In Marvel’s The Avengers, Earth’s mightiest heroes take on the evil Loki who is hell-bent on world domination.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The gang’s all here and what a gang. I appreciate that each of these superheroes are battling their own inner demons which affects how their characters interact with the other heroes. it’s what makes them a good team. They come to understand each other’s dysfunctions and deal with it. This is the first movie where you start to see the team use their strengths in tandem and work together as a team. Their initial lack of chemistry is hilarious to watch as they are forced into a unit.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Bringing all these characters on the big screen at once was a monumental accomplishment. It was a risk that paid off. A damn good movie was made here and deserves a ton of credit for setting a standard in the way superhero movies should be done.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
The story weaves together the backstories of the other characters in seamless fashion. While there aren’t many twists and turns to throw you off or keep you guessing, I would also argue that twists weren’t necessary for a film like this. Tell the story you need to tell and if we can see some awesome superpowered battles along the way, great! Job well done here.
Resolution: 10
Solid ending capped off with some fun end-credit scenes that pave the way for films to come. The entire movie is meant to entertain and I was happy that they finished strong. It’s a capper that leaves you wanting to see these guys team up again.
Overall: 100
Seven years later and the Marvel Cinematic Universe is still going as strong as ever. I’m going to see Captain Marvel tomorrow, a film that wouldn’t even be possible without the success of The Avengers and other lesser-known properties like Guardians of the Galaxy. Seven years later and this movie still never ceases to excite me and make me laugh at the same time.
In Marvel’s The Avengers, Earth’s mightiest heroes take on the evil Loki who is hell-bent on world domination.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The gang’s all here and what a gang. I appreciate that each of these superheroes are battling their own inner demons which affects how their characters interact with the other heroes. it’s what makes them a good team. They come to understand each other’s dysfunctions and deal with it. This is the first movie where you start to see the team use their strengths in tandem and work together as a team. Their initial lack of chemistry is hilarious to watch as they are forced into a unit.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Bringing all these characters on the big screen at once was a monumental accomplishment. It was a risk that paid off. A damn good movie was made here and deserves a ton of credit for setting a standard in the way superhero movies should be done.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
The story weaves together the backstories of the other characters in seamless fashion. While there aren’t many twists and turns to throw you off or keep you guessing, I would also argue that twists weren’t necessary for a film like this. Tell the story you need to tell and if we can see some awesome superpowered battles along the way, great! Job well done here.
Resolution: 10
Solid ending capped off with some fun end-credit scenes that pave the way for films to come. The entire movie is meant to entertain and I was happy that they finished strong. It’s a capper that leaves you wanting to see these guys team up again.
Overall: 100
Seven years later and the Marvel Cinematic Universe is still going as strong as ever. I’m going to see Captain Marvel tomorrow, a film that wouldn’t even be possible without the success of The Avengers and other lesser-known properties like Guardians of the Galaxy. Seven years later and this movie still never ceases to excite me and make me laugh at the same time.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
We film-goers really can’t get enough of zombies. The brain-munching, cannibalistic horrors used to be the stuff of nightmares. But as our tastes became more extreme, the flesh-eaters managed to slip into the mainstream with genre-bending films at the forefront of zombie resurgence.
Christopher B. Landon brings zombies back to the silver screen with horror comedy, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. Are we looking at a US version of Shaun of the Dead? Or something a little more dead behind the eyes?
Scouts Guide follows the tale of three teenage boys, having to battle not only their raging hormones, but a raging horde of zombies in a small town during the course of one evening. Starring rising star Tye Sheridan, Logan Miller and Joey Morgan as the aforementioned teens and the ever-likeable David Koechner as their scout leader, the trio must survive and defeat the creatures.
To create a successful zombie film, you need to know your monsters and this is where things start to unravel here. There are so many inconsistences that it’s difficult knowing where to begin. Instead of choosing a zombie-typing, like fast walkers from World War Z or traditional moaners like those from Shaun of the Dead, Scouts Guide uses both and the result simply doesn’t work.
Then there’s the plot. It’s so riddled with holes, cheap jumps and clichés that it’s almost impossible to fully immerse yourself in the experience. The makeup on the zombies is also terrifically poor, lacking in any sort of terror or real detail.
Thankfully, the acting from the lead three scouts is good with Sheridan in particular proving why he’s fast becoming one to watch, especially after being cast in next year’s X-Men: Apocalypse. The remainder of the characters are cardboard cut-outs with no backstory and no real gravitas when it comes to how the story will play out.
Nevertheless, there are some funny and genuinely clever moments dotted throughout Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. A living-room chase choreographed to Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5 is a hilarious, albeit too short highlight in a film that needed more intriguing and unique sequences.
There’s also a nice, if unusually placed, homage to John Carpenter’s Halloween that whilst being particularly tasteful, is at odds with the film’s genre.
Overall, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is as beige as a blood-filled horror comedy can come. Despite a couple of clever scenes, some good acting and a reasonably fluid directing style, it’s a damp squib of a movie that never really gets into its groove.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/15/dead-behind-the-eyes-scouts-guide-to-the-zombie-apocalypse-review/
Christopher B. Landon brings zombies back to the silver screen with horror comedy, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. Are we looking at a US version of Shaun of the Dead? Or something a little more dead behind the eyes?
Scouts Guide follows the tale of three teenage boys, having to battle not only their raging hormones, but a raging horde of zombies in a small town during the course of one evening. Starring rising star Tye Sheridan, Logan Miller and Joey Morgan as the aforementioned teens and the ever-likeable David Koechner as their scout leader, the trio must survive and defeat the creatures.
To create a successful zombie film, you need to know your monsters and this is where things start to unravel here. There are so many inconsistences that it’s difficult knowing where to begin. Instead of choosing a zombie-typing, like fast walkers from World War Z or traditional moaners like those from Shaun of the Dead, Scouts Guide uses both and the result simply doesn’t work.
Then there’s the plot. It’s so riddled with holes, cheap jumps and clichés that it’s almost impossible to fully immerse yourself in the experience. The makeup on the zombies is also terrifically poor, lacking in any sort of terror or real detail.
Thankfully, the acting from the lead three scouts is good with Sheridan in particular proving why he’s fast becoming one to watch, especially after being cast in next year’s X-Men: Apocalypse. The remainder of the characters are cardboard cut-outs with no backstory and no real gravitas when it comes to how the story will play out.
Nevertheless, there are some funny and genuinely clever moments dotted throughout Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. A living-room chase choreographed to Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5 is a hilarious, albeit too short highlight in a film that needed more intriguing and unique sequences.
There’s also a nice, if unusually placed, homage to John Carpenter’s Halloween that whilst being particularly tasteful, is at odds with the film’s genre.
Overall, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is as beige as a blood-filled horror comedy can come. Despite a couple of clever scenes, some good acting and a reasonably fluid directing style, it’s a damp squib of a movie that never really gets into its groove.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/15/dead-behind-the-eyes-scouts-guide-to-the-zombie-apocalypse-review/
Into the Black: The Electrifying True Story of How the First Flight of the Space Shuttle Nearly Ended in Disaster
Book
On 12th April 1981 a revolutionary new spacecraft blasted off from Florida on her maiden flight....
Wake Up, Sir!
Jonathan Ames and Jamie Keenan
Book
A brilliant contemporary reimagining of the greatest comic relationship of all time, which goes far...