Search
Search results
Blaze and the Monster Machines - Racing Game
Education and Games
App
Get ready to race along with Nick Jr.’s Blaze and the Monster Machines in this fun truck racing...
Blaze and the Monster Machines - Racing Game HD
Education and Games
App
Get ready to race along with Nick Jr.’s Blaze and the Monster Machines in this fun truck racing...
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Runner Runner (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Many times as a reviewer I watch a film that has so many things going for it that there is every reason to expect that it will be a high-quality product. Sadly the sum of the parts do not always come together and I am left to ponder how such an accumulation of talent went so wrong especially when the concept was strong and intriguing.
Such was the case with the new film “Runner Runner” which stars Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck, and Gemma Arterton and takes a look at the big money yet seedy and dangerous world of online gambling.
Timberlake stars as Richie Furst, a Princeton student who is seeking his Masters degree and earns his income by getting new clients to sign up for a gambling site. Richie is bitter as he was a player about to get the first of several big paydays on Wall Street who lost it all when the market and the economy turned.
Richie hopes that a Masters from Princeton will get him back on solid footing in Wall Street and dreams of getting back the money he believes was owed to him.
When Richie is told that he must give up his gambling income in order to remain at school after a fellow student complains about him, Richie decides to gamble his last $17K online in an effort to get the $60K he needs to pay for his education.
Richie does well early and despite pleas from his friends to take his $50K and call it good, he presses his luck and loses it all.
Richie then learns that he was cheated and sets out to travel to Costa Rica to meet with the mysterious owner of the site, Ivan Block, (Ben Affleck), and tell him about the cheat program that has been running on the popular site.
Richie is able to meet Block and he in time thanks Richie for being discreet and exposing a problem he did not know about. He offers to restore the money Richie lost and pay him a bonus and then offers him a lucrative job working for him.
Seduced by the lure of big money and the charismatic block, Richie soon moves up the ranks and sets his eyes on the comely associate of Block named Rebecca (Gemma Arterton).
The new found success of Richie soon draws the attention of the F.B.I. and an agent named Shavers (Anthony Mackie), who threatens Richie unless he works for him as an informant against Block.
Now this setup combined with the fact that Block starts to show his darker side as well as the seedy world of corruptions, payoffs, and violence would be an ideal formula for success.
Sadly the film plays out without much drama or tension and gives us very little on the background of the characters and why they do what they do beyond simple greed.
The film does not have any dramatic payoff and plods along in a very methodical way without any real twists or turns.
The finale is fairly underwhelming and is not what audiences deserved after investing their time in the film or the characters.
Timberlake does a good job as the ambitious Richie and Affleck is very good as the charismatic Block. Sadly they can only do so much with their thinly written characters and scenarios that we have seen many times before.
In the end “Runner Runner” is a great concept that is sadly left stalled at the starting line.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/runner-runner/
Such was the case with the new film “Runner Runner” which stars Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck, and Gemma Arterton and takes a look at the big money yet seedy and dangerous world of online gambling.
Timberlake stars as Richie Furst, a Princeton student who is seeking his Masters degree and earns his income by getting new clients to sign up for a gambling site. Richie is bitter as he was a player about to get the first of several big paydays on Wall Street who lost it all when the market and the economy turned.
Richie hopes that a Masters from Princeton will get him back on solid footing in Wall Street and dreams of getting back the money he believes was owed to him.
When Richie is told that he must give up his gambling income in order to remain at school after a fellow student complains about him, Richie decides to gamble his last $17K online in an effort to get the $60K he needs to pay for his education.
Richie does well early and despite pleas from his friends to take his $50K and call it good, he presses his luck and loses it all.
Richie then learns that he was cheated and sets out to travel to Costa Rica to meet with the mysterious owner of the site, Ivan Block, (Ben Affleck), and tell him about the cheat program that has been running on the popular site.
Richie is able to meet Block and he in time thanks Richie for being discreet and exposing a problem he did not know about. He offers to restore the money Richie lost and pay him a bonus and then offers him a lucrative job working for him.
Seduced by the lure of big money and the charismatic block, Richie soon moves up the ranks and sets his eyes on the comely associate of Block named Rebecca (Gemma Arterton).
The new found success of Richie soon draws the attention of the F.B.I. and an agent named Shavers (Anthony Mackie), who threatens Richie unless he works for him as an informant against Block.
Now this setup combined with the fact that Block starts to show his darker side as well as the seedy world of corruptions, payoffs, and violence would be an ideal formula for success.
Sadly the film plays out without much drama or tension and gives us very little on the background of the characters and why they do what they do beyond simple greed.
The film does not have any dramatic payoff and plods along in a very methodical way without any real twists or turns.
The finale is fairly underwhelming and is not what audiences deserved after investing their time in the film or the characters.
Timberlake does a good job as the ambitious Richie and Affleck is very good as the charismatic Block. Sadly they can only do so much with their thinly written characters and scenarios that we have seen many times before.
In the end “Runner Runner” is a great concept that is sadly left stalled at the starting line.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/runner-runner/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Warcraft (2016) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
To begin, I am not really up on the plot of the game in which this movie is based, though I do understand that this is a prequel and that the tone is reasonably accurate to the that of the long enduring PC game.
But derivative is the word. The game was designed to allow its players to interact with each over and across the internet and essentially play in scenarios which span the fantasy genre, itself drawing from such classics as Lord Of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons and every medieval or ancient myth imaginable.
As a game, this sounds like fun, taking on roles and pretending to be mythological characters, wielding swords and magic, but since this was already taken wholesale from the genre, including films, what was the point?
Essentially, what we have is an epic mash up of films which have already made there mark whilst offering little if anything new worth talking about. The plot twists are predicable if not hammy, the characterisations are dull and cliched and in the end there is little to offer but a brand name and endless special effects.
The movie does pick up a bit in the third act but even this is let down with a finale of world building and sequel teasing, with the plot left wide open and several plot lines ready to go if there was ever to be a Warcraft 2. The problem is that there is little to tantalise unless you are already a die hard fan. The writing is poor, effective for driving the plot along at some pace but it is mundane, predictable and lacking any real intrigue or interest. It simply goes through the motions as does almost everything and everyone else in the film as a whole.
I want to say that it could have been better, but I can not. I think that Jones and his team have probably done a reasonable job of adapting this game but that is what it is, a derivative PC game and hardly suitable for a movie of this scale.
When will they learn?
But derivative is the word. The game was designed to allow its players to interact with each over and across the internet and essentially play in scenarios which span the fantasy genre, itself drawing from such classics as Lord Of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons and every medieval or ancient myth imaginable.
As a game, this sounds like fun, taking on roles and pretending to be mythological characters, wielding swords and magic, but since this was already taken wholesale from the genre, including films, what was the point?
Essentially, what we have is an epic mash up of films which have already made there mark whilst offering little if anything new worth talking about. The plot twists are predicable if not hammy, the characterisations are dull and cliched and in the end there is little to offer but a brand name and endless special effects.
The movie does pick up a bit in the third act but even this is let down with a finale of world building and sequel teasing, with the plot left wide open and several plot lines ready to go if there was ever to be a Warcraft 2. The problem is that there is little to tantalise unless you are already a die hard fan. The writing is poor, effective for driving the plot along at some pace but it is mundane, predictable and lacking any real intrigue or interest. It simply goes through the motions as does almost everything and everyone else in the film as a whole.
I want to say that it could have been better, but I can not. I think that Jones and his team have probably done a reasonable job of adapting this game but that is what it is, a derivative PC game and hardly suitable for a movie of this scale.
When will they learn?
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Kick-Ass (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Kick-Ass starts out as a clever action movie with good humor interspersed throughout the first half, but by the second half the jokes trail off as the movie takes a blacker turn toward a mindless and confusing tale of morality.
Viewing this movie as a mindless action flick, it is impressive and at times humorous, albeit that humor, in the immersive first half, is deadened by the much darker scenes toward the end of the film. But if you’re trying to find a deeper message hidden behind the motivations and actions of the characters on screen, you perhaps would be better served by reading the comic first. The violence was surprisingly graphic for what started out as a clever and somewhat endearing highschool drama about not fitting in and trying to change the world for the better.
As the director of Layer Cake and Stardust, Matthew Vaughn has shown before that he knows how to do action and fantasy, and in this movie, the action scenes are tight and gripping and slightly surreal. You may even recognize a few cameos if you’re familiar with Guy Ritchie films.
Aaron Johnson, as the title character, brings a smart vulnerability to his part. As an overly ambitious, but well meaning comic book fan, his stabs at super-heroics were quite believable.
This movie may be titled Kick-Ass, but the most interesting character is Hit-Girl, played by Chloë Grace Moretz. Quite a few child actors come across as precocious, and Moretz is a welcome change. She shares some great scenes with Nicolas Cage, a vengeful father who has turned his 11 year-old daughter into a killing machine. Cage’s deadpan humor as Big Daddy matches surprisingly well with the giddy, foul-mouthed, black humor of Hit-Girl.
In a way, I may be doing the movie a disservice if I were to dwell on the plot holes, morality, and thematic elements of this movie which are clearly not the focused intent of the director. Not every movie is intended to be a deep and meaningful reflection on life, so in that regard, this movie is simply a blood-drenched charmer.
Viewing this movie as a mindless action flick, it is impressive and at times humorous, albeit that humor, in the immersive first half, is deadened by the much darker scenes toward the end of the film. But if you’re trying to find a deeper message hidden behind the motivations and actions of the characters on screen, you perhaps would be better served by reading the comic first. The violence was surprisingly graphic for what started out as a clever and somewhat endearing highschool drama about not fitting in and trying to change the world for the better.
As the director of Layer Cake and Stardust, Matthew Vaughn has shown before that he knows how to do action and fantasy, and in this movie, the action scenes are tight and gripping and slightly surreal. You may even recognize a few cameos if you’re familiar with Guy Ritchie films.
Aaron Johnson, as the title character, brings a smart vulnerability to his part. As an overly ambitious, but well meaning comic book fan, his stabs at super-heroics were quite believable.
This movie may be titled Kick-Ass, but the most interesting character is Hit-Girl, played by Chloë Grace Moretz. Quite a few child actors come across as precocious, and Moretz is a welcome change. She shares some great scenes with Nicolas Cage, a vengeful father who has turned his 11 year-old daughter into a killing machine. Cage’s deadpan humor as Big Daddy matches surprisingly well with the giddy, foul-mouthed, black humor of Hit-Girl.
In a way, I may be doing the movie a disservice if I were to dwell on the plot holes, morality, and thematic elements of this movie which are clearly not the focused intent of the director. Not every movie is intended to be a deep and meaningful reflection on life, so in that regard, this movie is simply a blood-drenched charmer.
Emerged (The Life of Anna #5)
9.0
Rate It
Book
Anna has escaped from Devin. Now she must learn what it is to live without a master. Yet Devin will...
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament in Books
Jun 29, 2018
In Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), Eugene H. Merrill sets out to provide a theology of the Old Testament which represents the O.T. as a consistent whole that has God as its ultimate source. As such, he supports a high view of biblical inspiration as verbal: “The word of God to the prophets was verbal; and what they spoke and wrote, therefore, was also verbal. The means by which the verbalizing was effected is never disclosed, nor is it necessary to know. The point is that the prophetic word, the highest form of divine revelation, was recognized at the time to be the words of God, a view maintained by virtually unanimous consensus in Jewish and Christian tradition until the inroads of modern criticism.”
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
CoinKeeper: spending tracker, money and finance
Finance and Productivity
App
CoinKeeper – is one the most popular personal finance managers with: * 180 000 active users * 10...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Groot Expectations.
James Gunn is back writing and directing the sequel to his surprise 2014 summer hit. And it might be a fresh mix tape slammed into the Walkman, but it’s much of the same again. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Tree of Life (2011) in Movies
Apr 19, 2019
Challenge yourself. Give this a watch!
I have to admit to not having seen many films directed by Terrence Malick. Not by choice, just hadn't gotten around to it. I watched The Thin Red Line when it was released, but thought it was inferior to Saving Private Ryan which was released around the same time. I will give a rewatch soon.
I saw another review which said to describe this film would be like trying to describe the color blue to someone who was blind. A basically impossible task.
The easiest way for me would be to mention other movies, so if you took parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mother!, Revolutionary Road and Stand By Me you might start to come close to the interesting weave of imagery and story which conjoin this film.
Loosely speaking, it's about a family with 3 young boys in Texas in the 1950s. Their relationships, their troubles, their triumphs, the small insignificant moments in their lives combined with the very important ones. Throw in scenes of the creation of the universe, dinosaurs and unusual images of the Earth itself you'll finally start to maybe understand the complexity of this film.
Of course, this is a film like 2001 or Mother in which some will say it is crap or there is no meaning beyond what is displayed onscreen, but I would beg to differ. I respect everyone's opinions, but strive to seek out films that make me think a little and make me ponder during and after the end credits are complete and this film will do that for sure.
I am not a religious person, but you don't need to be to appreciate the vivid imagery in this film. I believe Malick supports differing views whether you believe in God or not.
In short, in a world of summer blockbusters just beyond the horizon, I would challenge you to enjoy those films as they have their place, but also challenge yourself with something rich.
I know I will be finding Days of Heaven and Badlands to get more Malick in the weeks ahead.
I saw another review which said to describe this film would be like trying to describe the color blue to someone who was blind. A basically impossible task.
The easiest way for me would be to mention other movies, so if you took parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mother!, Revolutionary Road and Stand By Me you might start to come close to the interesting weave of imagery and story which conjoin this film.
Loosely speaking, it's about a family with 3 young boys in Texas in the 1950s. Their relationships, their troubles, their triumphs, the small insignificant moments in their lives combined with the very important ones. Throw in scenes of the creation of the universe, dinosaurs and unusual images of the Earth itself you'll finally start to maybe understand the complexity of this film.
Of course, this is a film like 2001 or Mother in which some will say it is crap or there is no meaning beyond what is displayed onscreen, but I would beg to differ. I respect everyone's opinions, but strive to seek out films that make me think a little and make me ponder during and after the end credits are complete and this film will do that for sure.
I am not a religious person, but you don't need to be to appreciate the vivid imagery in this film. I believe Malick supports differing views whether you believe in God or not.
In short, in a world of summer blockbusters just beyond the horizon, I would challenge you to enjoy those films as they have their place, but also challenge yourself with something rich.
I know I will be finding Days of Heaven and Badlands to get more Malick in the weeks ahead.