Search
Search results
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Big Sick (2017) in Movies
Jul 4, 2019
Propelled by its near perfect score on Rotten Tomatoes, I went cold turkey into The Big Sick, without so much as seeing a trailer. Although it took a worrisome amount of time, I did eventually warm up to the film and ultimately I ended up enjoying it quite a bit. The Big Sick is a movie that’s unflatteringly honest at times, and it’s a bit light in both of the romance and comedy departments, but it’s a well-rounded true story that makes up for its any of its shortcomings with a big heart.
The Big Sick tells the unique, real-life love story of how Kumail Nanjiani, played by himself in the film, met the love of his life, Emily. The film begins with Kumail working as a struggling stand-up comic. After a performance one night, he meets Emily at a bar and takes her back to his place. The two of them gradually begin dating, but Kumail keeps it a secret from his strict Pakistani parents, who expect him to abide by his culture’s custom of arranged marriages. When Emily’s health unexpectedly takes a dangerous and mysterious turn, Kumail must confront his family, as well as meet Emily’s family, to confess his true feelings of love.
Allow me to begin by addressing the fact that I spent a good half of The Big Sick feeling entirely ambivalent about it. While it seemed well made, I didn’t feel particularly entertained nor engaged by it. Slowly but surely, however, the movie began to win me over, thanks primarily to the help of Ray Romano and Holly Hunter, who co-star as Emily’s parents. By the end, I appreciated and enjoyed the film, and I feel as though I would probably like it even more with a second viewing.
The movie rubbed me the wrong way early on with its not-so-romantic romance that culminated from a one-night-stand. I found the relationship of Kumail and Emily to be somewhat dull, and I was perplexed by how unfavorably it depicts both characters. Though considering the screenplay was actually written by both of them, I suppose there’s something noble and courageous to be said about their honesty. This is not a typical romanticized love story. It has two decent but flawed characters, who I felt indifferent towards at the outset but learned to care about over the course of the film.
Kumail is quite enjoyable as the lead star and I suspect this will be a breakout role for him. He has a good sense of humor and really showcases it in a couple of hysterical scenes. My favorite being a late night visit to a restaurant drive-thru, which is one of the flat-out funniest moments I’ve seen in theaters all year. I also really loved both Romano and Hunter. They’re both complex and comical characters struggling with their own strained marriage, while hesitantly getting to know Kumail and coming to terms with their daughter’s grave illness. Certainly not the best circumstances to be meeting your girlfriend’s parents, and even worse considering they knew that Kumail and Emily had broken up shortly beforehand.
Hunter’s character is volatile and highly defensive of her daughter, yet she’s still wholly identifiable as a loving and concerned parent. I think she gives the strongest performance in the film. Ray Romano is also a pleasant addition, and his character ironically tries to be the voice of reason and balance, even as his own life is crumbling beneath him. I also liked Kumail’s parents, played by Anupam Kher and Zenobia Shroff. Kumail’s mother is amusing in her never-ending pursuit of potential female suitors to marry her son. However, having grown up with western values, Kumail’s own beliefs serve as a stark contrast to those of his strict and traditional family.
The way in which The Big Sick depicts the differences in American and Pakistani culture is what I think really helps to set it apart. It tackles these contrasts with both comedy and sincerity, while also drawing attention to the subtle and the not-so-subtle racism that’s often prevalent in the misunderstanding of other cultures. It’s an honest and respectful film that should be approached as open-mindedly as possible. Those of you willing to give this one a chance may find that it to be well worth your while.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.17.)
The Big Sick tells the unique, real-life love story of how Kumail Nanjiani, played by himself in the film, met the love of his life, Emily. The film begins with Kumail working as a struggling stand-up comic. After a performance one night, he meets Emily at a bar and takes her back to his place. The two of them gradually begin dating, but Kumail keeps it a secret from his strict Pakistani parents, who expect him to abide by his culture’s custom of arranged marriages. When Emily’s health unexpectedly takes a dangerous and mysterious turn, Kumail must confront his family, as well as meet Emily’s family, to confess his true feelings of love.
Allow me to begin by addressing the fact that I spent a good half of The Big Sick feeling entirely ambivalent about it. While it seemed well made, I didn’t feel particularly entertained nor engaged by it. Slowly but surely, however, the movie began to win me over, thanks primarily to the help of Ray Romano and Holly Hunter, who co-star as Emily’s parents. By the end, I appreciated and enjoyed the film, and I feel as though I would probably like it even more with a second viewing.
The movie rubbed me the wrong way early on with its not-so-romantic romance that culminated from a one-night-stand. I found the relationship of Kumail and Emily to be somewhat dull, and I was perplexed by how unfavorably it depicts both characters. Though considering the screenplay was actually written by both of them, I suppose there’s something noble and courageous to be said about their honesty. This is not a typical romanticized love story. It has two decent but flawed characters, who I felt indifferent towards at the outset but learned to care about over the course of the film.
Kumail is quite enjoyable as the lead star and I suspect this will be a breakout role for him. He has a good sense of humor and really showcases it in a couple of hysterical scenes. My favorite being a late night visit to a restaurant drive-thru, which is one of the flat-out funniest moments I’ve seen in theaters all year. I also really loved both Romano and Hunter. They’re both complex and comical characters struggling with their own strained marriage, while hesitantly getting to know Kumail and coming to terms with their daughter’s grave illness. Certainly not the best circumstances to be meeting your girlfriend’s parents, and even worse considering they knew that Kumail and Emily had broken up shortly beforehand.
Hunter’s character is volatile and highly defensive of her daughter, yet she’s still wholly identifiable as a loving and concerned parent. I think she gives the strongest performance in the film. Ray Romano is also a pleasant addition, and his character ironically tries to be the voice of reason and balance, even as his own life is crumbling beneath him. I also liked Kumail’s parents, played by Anupam Kher and Zenobia Shroff. Kumail’s mother is amusing in her never-ending pursuit of potential female suitors to marry her son. However, having grown up with western values, Kumail’s own beliefs serve as a stark contrast to those of his strict and traditional family.
The way in which The Big Sick depicts the differences in American and Pakistani culture is what I think really helps to set it apart. It tackles these contrasts with both comedy and sincerity, while also drawing attention to the subtle and the not-so-subtle racism that’s often prevalent in the misunderstanding of other cultures. It’s an honest and respectful film that should be approached as open-mindedly as possible. Those of you willing to give this one a chance may find that it to be well worth your while.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.17.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Battle: Los Angeles (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
War movies depicting a group of soldiers against overwhelming odds are nothing new. For generations, moviegoers have been treated to cinematic recreations as well as new scenarios of fighting units in combat. Usually these films follow a typical formula that includes the tough and gritty commanding officer, the naïve new soldier, the one with a woman and children waiting at home, and one who has difficulties with combat. In the new movie Battle: Los Angeles a new twist is given to the formulaic troops-in-combat picture which produces a mixed bag of results.
Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz; a 20 year Marine who, after losing men on a recent mission, has decided that it is time for him to leave and has filed his retirement paperwork from the corps. While completing a training exercise, Nantz and a squadron of Marines at Camp Pendleton are activated for what they are told is an evacuation mission in order to clear Santa Monica and other area residents from a swarm of meteors which are scheduled to hit just off the coast.
Nantz is assigned to a new commanding officer who, like the men in his unit, is wary of Nantz as many believe that he got his men killed in his last assignment. Despite the misgivings of the new lieutenant, he agrees that Nantz offers a wealth of experience and should be just fine for a simple evacuation assignment.
However during the mission briefing, the Marines are informed that the meteors that are hitting off the coast of major cities around the world contain metallic centers and that this is very likely an invasion from an unknown force. While the Marines are deploying an otherworldly fighting unit emerges destroying everything in their path as they moved inland from the coast line. Unsure what they are dealing with, the military decides to carpet bomb the city in order to contain the alien threat and give Nantz and his unit three hours to enter the combat zone and evacuate civilians from a police station.
While the movie is for the most part the standard soldiers-at-war film which substitute’s aliens for the usual enemy forces, the strength of the cast and the solid action and special effects help the movie overcome many of its shortcomings. There is little character development in the film and scenarios that were introduced in some of the characters’ backstories early in the film were given little to no chance to develop once the shooting started.
I also had an issue with some of the tactics in the film. While it may seem nitpicking there were a few scenes where the soldiers didn’t follow logical courses of engagement until later in the film. I have had only the most basic of combat instruction from my brief time in the Air Force, yet I can think of at least four scenarios in the film where the unit failed to use the most logical options available in their combat situation. Of course any film dealing with an alien invasion is sure to have plot holes and yes I can quibble about the Air Force waiting three hours to bomb a heavily overrun area when containment would have been priority one in not allowing a hostile force that much time to entrench itself.
That being said it was an interesting and entertaining film. The enemy was sufficiently mysterious and dangerous enough to hold my interest and had me rooting desperately for the troops to rise up and strike back at the enemy. Michelle Rodriguez does fine supporting work in the role of an Air Force Tech Sgt. who may have the key to turning the tide of the battle. Eckhart is solid as the gruff but caring staff sergeant is equally strong and his unit of young corporals, including R&B singer Ne-Yo, are believable.
Director Jonathan Liebesman knows the core intention of this film is and in doing so provides enough action to keep the audience entertained throughout. despite some issues with pacing and plot. While it doesn’t have the epic feel of Independence Day, Battle: Los Angeles is a film that provides enough entertainment to make it one of the better alien invasion films ever made and one that I certainly would not mind seeing revisited in a future sequel.
3.5 stars out of 5
Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz; a 20 year Marine who, after losing men on a recent mission, has decided that it is time for him to leave and has filed his retirement paperwork from the corps. While completing a training exercise, Nantz and a squadron of Marines at Camp Pendleton are activated for what they are told is an evacuation mission in order to clear Santa Monica and other area residents from a swarm of meteors which are scheduled to hit just off the coast.
Nantz is assigned to a new commanding officer who, like the men in his unit, is wary of Nantz as many believe that he got his men killed in his last assignment. Despite the misgivings of the new lieutenant, he agrees that Nantz offers a wealth of experience and should be just fine for a simple evacuation assignment.
However during the mission briefing, the Marines are informed that the meteors that are hitting off the coast of major cities around the world contain metallic centers and that this is very likely an invasion from an unknown force. While the Marines are deploying an otherworldly fighting unit emerges destroying everything in their path as they moved inland from the coast line. Unsure what they are dealing with, the military decides to carpet bomb the city in order to contain the alien threat and give Nantz and his unit three hours to enter the combat zone and evacuate civilians from a police station.
While the movie is for the most part the standard soldiers-at-war film which substitute’s aliens for the usual enemy forces, the strength of the cast and the solid action and special effects help the movie overcome many of its shortcomings. There is little character development in the film and scenarios that were introduced in some of the characters’ backstories early in the film were given little to no chance to develop once the shooting started.
I also had an issue with some of the tactics in the film. While it may seem nitpicking there were a few scenes where the soldiers didn’t follow logical courses of engagement until later in the film. I have had only the most basic of combat instruction from my brief time in the Air Force, yet I can think of at least four scenarios in the film where the unit failed to use the most logical options available in their combat situation. Of course any film dealing with an alien invasion is sure to have plot holes and yes I can quibble about the Air Force waiting three hours to bomb a heavily overrun area when containment would have been priority one in not allowing a hostile force that much time to entrench itself.
That being said it was an interesting and entertaining film. The enemy was sufficiently mysterious and dangerous enough to hold my interest and had me rooting desperately for the troops to rise up and strike back at the enemy. Michelle Rodriguez does fine supporting work in the role of an Air Force Tech Sgt. who may have the key to turning the tide of the battle. Eckhart is solid as the gruff but caring staff sergeant is equally strong and his unit of young corporals, including R&B singer Ne-Yo, are believable.
Director Jonathan Liebesman knows the core intention of this film is and in doing so provides enough action to keep the audience entertained throughout. despite some issues with pacing and plot. While it doesn’t have the epic feel of Independence Day, Battle: Los Angeles is a film that provides enough entertainment to make it one of the better alien invasion films ever made and one that I certainly would not mind seeing revisited in a future sequel.
3.5 stars out of 5
Lee Ronaldo recommended Kollaps by Einsturzende Neubauten in Music (curated)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2019
Roman Griffin Davis stars as Jojo Betzler in Taika Waititi’s black comedy Jojo Rabbit. Along with his second best friend Yorki (Archie Yates), Jojo is a part of a Nazi training camp for young boys and girls to become the men and women suited for Hitler supporting soldiers. Meanwhile, Jojo’s mom Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) is secretly hiding a young Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) within the walls of their home. Jojo, who is incredibly adamant about Hitler becoming his first best friend, has Hitler as an imaginary friend (portrayed by Taika Waititi) who shows up whenever Jojo seems to need a pep talk.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
Alien Slave Masters: Part Two
Book
When a distant planet’s ownership is in dispute, conquering aliens turn defiant human males into...
Dark Science Fiction Erotica MM
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lion (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Lost in Train-station.
As January progresses, the quality Oscar films just keep on coming! India’s vibrant and teeming tapestry of life is a natural gift for film-makers, without a word needing to be spoken, and director Garth Davis – in an impressive feature film debut – utilizes that backdrop to the max.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tiny Epic Galaxies: Beyond the Black in Tabletop Games
Mar 11, 2022
In the expansion review series, we take a look at a game expansion to discuss whether it is a necessary purchase/addition to one’s collection.
This review is a breakdown of the Beyond the Black expansion for Tiny Epic Galaxies. Beyond the Black introduces several new components to the game: Pilot cards, Hangars, and Exploration cards. To set up for a game with the expansion, things are done as normal with a few additions. The deck of Pilot cards is shuffled, and a market is created above the row of Planet cards. Each player receives a Hangar mat with 4 Advanced Ships, and the Exploration cards are shuffled and placed face-down on the Exploration mat. A handful of new Planet and Secret Mission cards are included in this expansion, and are shuffled into their respective decks. Pictured below are some of the expansion components.
The gameplay with the Beyond the Black expansion is essentially identical to that of the base game, with two new action options. On your turn, when you have rolled your dice, you have the option to Hire Pilots. These Pilots will take control of an Advanced Ship from your Hangar mat, and will provide special and powerful abilities in the game. In order to Hire a Pilot, you must pay the dice cost for the specific type of Advanced Ship for which you are hiring. Take the Pilot card and place it on your Hangar mat, on the corresponding Advanced Ship. You then replace one of your normal ships with the new Advanced Ship, to be used throughout the rest of the game. Not all Pilots can control every ship, so you have to strategize on which Pilots to hire.
The other new action option is Exploration. On your turn, when you roll a “Move a Ship” action, you may move a ship to the Exploration mat. Exploring uncharted space could result in helpful discoveries (gaining resources) or dangerous consequences (usually losing resources). Once on the Exploration mat, you have the option to take any face-up card from the Exploration row, if there are any, or you have the option to reveal the top card of the Exploration deck. If you reveal the top card and it is a green Discovery card, you may choose to take it and reap the rewards, or you can choose to push your luck and draw another card hoping for something better. If you draw a red Danger card, you must immediately take it and suffer the consequences, thus ending your turn. The Exploration row can only ever have 3 face-up cards at a time, so knowing when to push your luck or when to take a safe card is key.
The game continues in the normal fashion, with these additional actions, until a player has earned 21 or more VP. Along with the base game VP, the expansion allows players to earn VP for hired Pilots and Exploration cards. When the game end is triggered, players will then score their Secret Mission cards and VP earned from Exploration cards, and the player with the highest total is declared the winner!
Official recommendation: If you’ve read our review of Tiny Epic Galaxies, and it’s newest iteration, Tiny Epic Galaxies Blast Off!, then you’ll know that we absolutely love this game. The gameplay is excellent, the theming is on point, and the mechanics are engaging. That being said, is the Beyond the Black expansion necessary? If you, like us, are serious fans of the base game, I would say yes. This expansion builds upon the great elements of the base game, and provides even more opportunities for strategy in your gameplay. Should you hire this Pilot now, and for which Advanced Ship? You’re allowed to replace Pilots in future turns, but what if you replace someone and then regret it? How far are you willing to push your luck to Explore uncharted space? The benefits are nice, but the consequences can be brutal. The gameplay is elevated by the inclusion of these new elements, and is not bogged down by unnecessary additions. When first introducing this game to people, I would probably just use the base game to build an understanding of the gameplay. But beyond that (see what I did there?), I would highly recommend grabbing a copy of the Beyond the Black expansion to include in your future plays of this awesome little space game.
This review is a breakdown of the Beyond the Black expansion for Tiny Epic Galaxies. Beyond the Black introduces several new components to the game: Pilot cards, Hangars, and Exploration cards. To set up for a game with the expansion, things are done as normal with a few additions. The deck of Pilot cards is shuffled, and a market is created above the row of Planet cards. Each player receives a Hangar mat with 4 Advanced Ships, and the Exploration cards are shuffled and placed face-down on the Exploration mat. A handful of new Planet and Secret Mission cards are included in this expansion, and are shuffled into their respective decks. Pictured below are some of the expansion components.
The gameplay with the Beyond the Black expansion is essentially identical to that of the base game, with two new action options. On your turn, when you have rolled your dice, you have the option to Hire Pilots. These Pilots will take control of an Advanced Ship from your Hangar mat, and will provide special and powerful abilities in the game. In order to Hire a Pilot, you must pay the dice cost for the specific type of Advanced Ship for which you are hiring. Take the Pilot card and place it on your Hangar mat, on the corresponding Advanced Ship. You then replace one of your normal ships with the new Advanced Ship, to be used throughout the rest of the game. Not all Pilots can control every ship, so you have to strategize on which Pilots to hire.
The other new action option is Exploration. On your turn, when you roll a “Move a Ship” action, you may move a ship to the Exploration mat. Exploring uncharted space could result in helpful discoveries (gaining resources) or dangerous consequences (usually losing resources). Once on the Exploration mat, you have the option to take any face-up card from the Exploration row, if there are any, or you have the option to reveal the top card of the Exploration deck. If you reveal the top card and it is a green Discovery card, you may choose to take it and reap the rewards, or you can choose to push your luck and draw another card hoping for something better. If you draw a red Danger card, you must immediately take it and suffer the consequences, thus ending your turn. The Exploration row can only ever have 3 face-up cards at a time, so knowing when to push your luck or when to take a safe card is key.
The game continues in the normal fashion, with these additional actions, until a player has earned 21 or more VP. Along with the base game VP, the expansion allows players to earn VP for hired Pilots and Exploration cards. When the game end is triggered, players will then score their Secret Mission cards and VP earned from Exploration cards, and the player with the highest total is declared the winner!
Official recommendation: If you’ve read our review of Tiny Epic Galaxies, and it’s newest iteration, Tiny Epic Galaxies Blast Off!, then you’ll know that we absolutely love this game. The gameplay is excellent, the theming is on point, and the mechanics are engaging. That being said, is the Beyond the Black expansion necessary? If you, like us, are serious fans of the base game, I would say yes. This expansion builds upon the great elements of the base game, and provides even more opportunities for strategy in your gameplay. Should you hire this Pilot now, and for which Advanced Ship? You’re allowed to replace Pilots in future turns, but what if you replace someone and then regret it? How far are you willing to push your luck to Explore uncharted space? The benefits are nice, but the consequences can be brutal. The gameplay is elevated by the inclusion of these new elements, and is not bogged down by unnecessary additions. When first introducing this game to people, I would probably just use the base game to build an understanding of the gameplay. But beyond that (see what I did there?), I would highly recommend grabbing a copy of the Beyond the Black expansion to include in your future plays of this awesome little space game.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Don't Stop Believin' in Books
May 28, 2019
I was obsessed with Olivia Newton-John as a little girl. As a little girl, I knew all of her songs by heart, and I had watched all of her movies over and over. I do admit that as I grew up, my obsession faded. However, when I saw Olivia's autobiography, Don't Stop Believin', on the shelf at my local library, I decided to give it a read. While it was enjoyable, it just came across as kind of preachy.
Olivia Newton-John rose to fame in the United States as the character of Sandy in the movie Grease. She also had a bunch of hit songs and records afterwards. Olivia's autobiography does mention her rise to fame although I felt as if there wasn't enough time spent on her rise to fame. She does write about her time with Grease and other films as well as recording her songs throughout the book. I felt the movies and songs were written about well.
We get a taste of her life as a child in England and Australia, although I felt she didn't discuss her pre-fame life too much. I would have liked to read more about her childhood instead of just being rushed into when she started performing. I know Olivia Newton-John likes to keep her private life out of the limelight, but when writing an autobiography, it's important to give the reader a little more details than what Don't Stop Believin' gave us.
There was so much name dropping throughout this book! While I understand that famous people know other famous people, sometimes I felt as if Olivia was dropping names just for show instead of because it fit the story. You have a lot of famous friends. We get it!
Another thing that annoyed me about the book was how some parts seemed like an advertisement for her Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre as well as for her husband, John Easterling's, herb company. I know she's done so much for her cancer center, (which I give her mad props for), but she goes on and on about how great and lovely of a place it was especially after she was an inpatient there. Of course the staff would treat her better when her name is on the building! There's more than one chapter devoted to how great the place is. I'm sure it is lovely, but I felt like I didn't need to a chapter (and more) about how great it is. As for her husband's herb company, she went on and on towards the end of the book how his herbs really helped her out which is great, but again, does the reader really need the specifics and being told over and over again how helpful it was?
The major thing that annoyed me was how preachy Don't Stop Believin' was in a lot of chapters. In fact, it made me feel guilty sometimes that I rely on modern medicine. Olivia writes how she'd rather take the natural approach to fighting off viruses and diseases, and I get that because I don't like to take medicine needlessly either, but sometimes, it's the best thing. However, I just felt that Olivia was berating those who choose to go the medicinal route. I felt like she was implying that natural remedies work better than modern medicine. This can be dangerous especially if someone gets off their medicines they need to survive to try the natural approach. People should always discuss any changes of medication with their doctors.
To me, Don't Stop Believin' writes like someone who's always been privileged and sheltered throughout their life. A lot of it feels like Olivia Newton-John is out of touch with reality and like she's living in La-La Land. I just found it hard to relate to her throughout the book. Yes, she has gone through some hardships such as deaths in the family, her cancer diagnoses, and her ex-boyfriend disappearing, but for the most part, her autobiography is just too sunshine and rainbows for me to truly relate.
Don't Stop Believin' flows beautifully though, and the writing is done very well, so it has that going for it. I did find myself enjoying the book most of the time when Olivia wasn't been preachy or advertising something. There were some interesting tidbits about her life throughout the book.
Trigger warnings include some profanity use, death, cancer, drinking, and smoking.
Overall, Don't Stop Believin' isn't a bad book, quite the contrary. It's just a bit too hippie dippy for me to have truly enjoyed it to its fullest. I did find the book interesting though despite some flaws. I would recommend Don't Stop Believin' by Olivia Newton-John especially to those who have been diagnosed with cancer as this book does come with a bunch of positivity when it comes to dealing with cancer.
Olivia Newton-John rose to fame in the United States as the character of Sandy in the movie Grease. She also had a bunch of hit songs and records afterwards. Olivia's autobiography does mention her rise to fame although I felt as if there wasn't enough time spent on her rise to fame. She does write about her time with Grease and other films as well as recording her songs throughout the book. I felt the movies and songs were written about well.
We get a taste of her life as a child in England and Australia, although I felt she didn't discuss her pre-fame life too much. I would have liked to read more about her childhood instead of just being rushed into when she started performing. I know Olivia Newton-John likes to keep her private life out of the limelight, but when writing an autobiography, it's important to give the reader a little more details than what Don't Stop Believin' gave us.
There was so much name dropping throughout this book! While I understand that famous people know other famous people, sometimes I felt as if Olivia was dropping names just for show instead of because it fit the story. You have a lot of famous friends. We get it!
Another thing that annoyed me about the book was how some parts seemed like an advertisement for her Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre as well as for her husband, John Easterling's, herb company. I know she's done so much for her cancer center, (which I give her mad props for), but she goes on and on about how great and lovely of a place it was especially after she was an inpatient there. Of course the staff would treat her better when her name is on the building! There's more than one chapter devoted to how great the place is. I'm sure it is lovely, but I felt like I didn't need to a chapter (and more) about how great it is. As for her husband's herb company, she went on and on towards the end of the book how his herbs really helped her out which is great, but again, does the reader really need the specifics and being told over and over again how helpful it was?
The major thing that annoyed me was how preachy Don't Stop Believin' was in a lot of chapters. In fact, it made me feel guilty sometimes that I rely on modern medicine. Olivia writes how she'd rather take the natural approach to fighting off viruses and diseases, and I get that because I don't like to take medicine needlessly either, but sometimes, it's the best thing. However, I just felt that Olivia was berating those who choose to go the medicinal route. I felt like she was implying that natural remedies work better than modern medicine. This can be dangerous especially if someone gets off their medicines they need to survive to try the natural approach. People should always discuss any changes of medication with their doctors.
To me, Don't Stop Believin' writes like someone who's always been privileged and sheltered throughout their life. A lot of it feels like Olivia Newton-John is out of touch with reality and like she's living in La-La Land. I just found it hard to relate to her throughout the book. Yes, she has gone through some hardships such as deaths in the family, her cancer diagnoses, and her ex-boyfriend disappearing, but for the most part, her autobiography is just too sunshine and rainbows for me to truly relate.
Don't Stop Believin' flows beautifully though, and the writing is done very well, so it has that going for it. I did find myself enjoying the book most of the time when Olivia wasn't been preachy or advertising something. There were some interesting tidbits about her life throughout the book.
Trigger warnings include some profanity use, death, cancer, drinking, and smoking.
Overall, Don't Stop Believin' isn't a bad book, quite the contrary. It's just a bit too hippie dippy for me to have truly enjoyed it to its fullest. I did find the book interesting though despite some flaws. I would recommend Don't Stop Believin' by Olivia Newton-John especially to those who have been diagnosed with cancer as this book does come with a bunch of positivity when it comes to dealing with cancer.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Land of the Dead (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Twenty years after his last installment of the classic “Dead” zombie genre, landmark Horror writer/director George Romero has returned to the delight of fans worldwide.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous “Dead” films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romero’s Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85’s disappointing “Day of the Dead”, but on par with the ground breaking “Dawn of the Dead and the classic Original “Night of the Living Dead.”
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Riley’s prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with “Land” being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, “Land” will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.