Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Umbrella Academy in TV
Mar 7, 2019 (Updated Mar 7, 2019)
Characters (1 more)
SFX
One For A Rainy Day
A few years ago when I heard the guy from My Chemical Romance had wrote a graphic novel, it peaked my interest, but after reading up on some reviews of the book, it just sounded like a rip-off of other properties like Watchmen and X-Men and to be honest I wasn't a huge fan of the obscure character designs and bizarre artwork. I never got around to reading it after this as I was kind of put off by the accusations of unoriginality and the weird art.
Then late last year, I read that there was a Netflix adaption of the show being released and my curiosity was once again peaked. After reading some of the early glowing reviews from critics, I knew that I had found my next binge.
This show is fantastic, which for the most part is owed to it's well written and well acted characters. The members of the Umbrella Academy and their various odd relationships with one another, as well as the outsiders that have interaction with them throughout the show, make the character dynamics of this show as a whole pretty unique and exciting. The cast are all brilliant, with Robert Sheehan's Klaus being the clear stand-out. He gets all of the best lines and nails the American accent that he speaks with in the show.
It is cool to get an insight into the world that the show-runners have crafted, which is as odd as it is charming. It is similar to our own world, with a few pretty drastic changes that change the dynamic of the universe in a oddly interesting way. There were points while watching the show that I was reminded of other superhero stories like Watchmen and X-Men, but instead of Umbrella Academy blatantly ripping off these other stories, it instead takes some of the best parts from its respective influences and adapts them to suit the narrative that is unfolding. It comes off as more of a wink and a nod than just a lazy copy/paste job.
I also feel like the amazing CGI work on Pogo the chimp, - who is highly intelligent and serves as the family's butler, - deserves a shout-out. It is quite possibly the best CGI that I have ever seen in a TV show and is almost on the same level as the CGI on Caesar in the Planet Of The Apes movies.
Overall, The Umbrella Academy is a stellar example of what happens when a show embraces it's influences and presents them in a coherent way in collaboration with the original story that the show itself is telling. It is not the greatest superhero story ever filmed, but it is an extremely entertaining and satisfying ride that the show takes you on over its 10 episodes and it is well worth your time.
Then late last year, I read that there was a Netflix adaption of the show being released and my curiosity was once again peaked. After reading some of the early glowing reviews from critics, I knew that I had found my next binge.
This show is fantastic, which for the most part is owed to it's well written and well acted characters. The members of the Umbrella Academy and their various odd relationships with one another, as well as the outsiders that have interaction with them throughout the show, make the character dynamics of this show as a whole pretty unique and exciting. The cast are all brilliant, with Robert Sheehan's Klaus being the clear stand-out. He gets all of the best lines and nails the American accent that he speaks with in the show.
It is cool to get an insight into the world that the show-runners have crafted, which is as odd as it is charming. It is similar to our own world, with a few pretty drastic changes that change the dynamic of the universe in a oddly interesting way. There were points while watching the show that I was reminded of other superhero stories like Watchmen and X-Men, but instead of Umbrella Academy blatantly ripping off these other stories, it instead takes some of the best parts from its respective influences and adapts them to suit the narrative that is unfolding. It comes off as more of a wink and a nod than just a lazy copy/paste job.
I also feel like the amazing CGI work on Pogo the chimp, - who is highly intelligent and serves as the family's butler, - deserves a shout-out. It is quite possibly the best CGI that I have ever seen in a TV show and is almost on the same level as the CGI on Caesar in the Planet Of The Apes movies.
Overall, The Umbrella Academy is a stellar example of what happens when a show embraces it's influences and presents them in a coherent way in collaboration with the original story that the show itself is telling. It is not the greatest superhero story ever filmed, but it is an extremely entertaining and satisfying ride that the show takes you on over its 10 episodes and it is well worth your time.
Noel Gallagher recommended La's by The La's in Music (curated)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Coming 2 America (2021) in Movies
Mar 16, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
Almost all of the original cast returns for this sequel (2 more)
Lots of laughs
Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprising many of the roles where they played multiple characters again.
Terrible character development (2 more)
Plot doesn't make sense at times or feels like missing scenes or plot development
Some jokes fall flat or feel forced and the trailer spoils some
Lots of Laughs and Callbacks But Not Enough Substance
Prince Akeem of Zamunda (Eddie Murphy) is visited by General Izzi (Wesley Snipes) who pushes for Akeem's eldest daughter Meeka (Kiki Layne) to marry his foppish son, Idi (Rotimi). Nexdoria is a hostile militaristic neighbor nation ruled by General Izzi, who is also the brother of Akeem's original arranged bride-to-be. Izzi threatens Akeem and says that it is better to be bound by blood and family then divided by blood and war. This occurs on the very day that Zamunda is celebrating the 30th anniversary of Prince Akeem and Lisa's wedding. King Jaffe Joffer (James Earl Jones) summons Akeem and Semmi (Arsenio Hall) and reminds them that only a male heir can inherit his kingdom. He summons his shaman Baba and they reveal that Akeem has a long lost son in America that he must retrieve in order to avoid a hostile takeover by Nexdoria.
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it the first time and thought that it was pretty funny. It definitely isn't a great movie but when compared to several other sequels that happen years after the original, I felt that it did better than most. It was for the most part a lesser version of the original but it's been years since I've seen the original and I didn't let my nostalgia for it to skew my opinion on this one. I do plan on re-watching the original soon though so I can see how much they differ. A big difference was that the original Coming to America is rated R and this sequel was PG-13. I usually hate when a company chooses to do this because I always feel what the fans/audience gets is a watered down version of the original but it's hard to say this time around. This movie was full of laughs and I was surprised how much they got away with it for being a PG-13 movie, however some of the jokes fell flat and a lot of them were given away in the trailer. Also there were somethings in the trailer that I didn't see in the movie; like the Wakanda joke in the barbershop. Wesley Snipes character General Izzi was quite a character and you could feel he was having fun portraying him. I also enjoyed Akeem's three daughters in the movie. I really liked the opening scene which showed Prince Akeem sparring with his daughters and stick fighting like the original movie. The middle daughter Princess Omma who had glasses was actually Eddie Murphy's daughter in real life, Bella Murphy. And I also heard that most of the palace scenes in Zamunda were actually filmed in rapper Rick Ross' house. As much as I liked this movie it also felt very thin and didn't have a lot of character development or much of a plot to speak of. It also felt like quite a few things didn't make sense and that characters that came out in the first movie were quite different personality wise or just by their actions. I feel like I should give this movie a lower score but I'm not sure if it's nostalgia again or the fact that since it's a comedy I'm not really letting some of those things bother me as much. I'll go over my many reasons for scoring it so low in the spoiler section but for now I give this movie a 6/10. I would say it's worth getting a free trial of Amazon Prime if you want to see it in good quality and for free, or if you already have Amazon Prime you should give it a shot if you're looking for some laughs, but if not you can totally wait to see this movie.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
Alright so let's get to it. Like I said I enjoyed this movie and thought that it delivered on the laughs even if some of them were forced or fell flat. I also felt that it was pretty thin on the plot and from what I remember of the first movie some of the characters were off or acted very different personality wise. I loved how the movie began with Prince Akeem training with his daughters and doing the stick fighting which was one of many call backs to the original film. The conflict begins in the beginning of the movie when General Izzi visits Akeem and tries to arrange a marriage between his son and Akeem's oldest daughter, Princess Meeka. You can tell that Akeem doesn't like General Izzi's son Idi but doesn't say anything other than his daughter didn't find him suitable. General Izzi threatens him after making a comment about the King being dead or near death and Akeem not having any male heirs. I still don't understand the conflict between the two nations and felt that this would have benefitted the plot more if they would have explained it better. Why would he need an heir so soon if he himself hadn't even inherited the kingdom from his father yet? Also the only explanation between the conflict of the nations was that Nexdoria was poor and Zamunda was rich. Anyways then Akeem is summoned to see his father and his shaman Baba and is told that he has an illegitimate son in America after a tryst with a woman while being drugged. I thought this was pretty funny scene where they did a flashback to when it happened. So now Akeem and Semmi must travel to America to retrieve his son so that he can take the princely tests and become heir to the kingdom. This totally doesn't make any sense to me plot wise other than this is how they wanted the movie to go. Akeem was totally a person who went against his father's wishes and traditions in the first film to find his wife Lisa and doesn't make sense that he would get this "son" to be his heir even if he was blood without getting to know him first. However I ignored that while watching because I figured he would get to know him while they met and he went back to Zamunda with them. Also before the leave there is a pretty cool scene where King Jaffe Joffer decides to have his funeral while he's alive and it was very lavish and elegant and full of cameos from great artists and performers. It was funny to see the barbershop scene and how Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprised their roles of some of the barbershop characters when they arrive in America but I felt that the funny parts were already spoiled in the trailer. Also the part about Wakanda wasn't even in the movie. From there they find out that his son is selling tickets near Madison Square when they're told about the mascot being a thunderbird that was part of Baba's vision. That was a cool details that I wish would have been developed more to make it more interesting. It would have been cool for them to have struggled to find his son but instead the first place they go tells them exactly where he is. Also when he meets his son Lavelle, it didn't even come off as awkward enough and Lavelle totally takes him back to his house to meet everyone or ask his mom. I didn't see this as realistic or how it would have played out in real life. Leslie Jones was a pretty annoying character but I feel she fit the job of the role she played and that people are too harsh on her as an actor for this role but I do feel that she is like Kevin Hart or The Rock in basically being the same character in every role. She admits that Akeem could be Lavelle's father and just like that they are whisked away to Zamunda. No paternity test, no lie detector test, no witnesses like her friend in the club saying yes it was true. This was very unrealistic to me because anybody would say yes to inherit the riches of Zamunda. When he returns Princess Lisa confronts him about him having a son and the particulars of how it occurred and she was shocked to find out that he brought not only his son but the son's mother back with him as well. General Izzi returns to Zamunda as soon as Prince Lavelle returns and makes it known that he has a daughter that he wishes for him to marry and Prince Akeem un-characteristically allows this arranged marriage to take place. Prince Lavelle must now pass the 3 princely tests first, which consist of knowledge of his ancestors/predecessors, getting the whiskers of a lion, and also one which involved ritual circumcision. I felt like there wasn't enough character development during these scenes and also the ones where Lavelle interacted with Mirembe, his royal barber to warrant the closeness that they all experienced. Princess Meeka, Akeem's oldest daughter is very upset about being passes up as heir for being a woman and rightly dislikes Lavelle and it totally seems out of character for her to aid him in passing his test to get the lion whiskers. They only had a small exchange about being written off or being judged for how they look or talk. And I felt that Lavelle also didn't have enough rapport with his barber Mirembe to be falling in love with her in under a week, or if they did it wasn't shown enough to us. There was a lot that didn't make sense or I feel was cut from the movie or even worse, just bad writing and poor plot development and it wasn't done right. The worse had to have been seeing Akeem's character become the opposite of who he was in the first movie. He passes over his daughter to give the throne to a stranger because he is a man and even when he loses his patience with a drunk or inebriated Lisa and tells her to shut her mouth after the celebration of the upcoming wedding between Lavelle and Bopoto, General Izzi's daughter. All in all I have to say that for me personally this movie was full of laughs but just had so much wrong with it that I should really be rating it a 5 or just an average movie. However there are so many sequels that happen 5 years or more after the original that are far worse or just as bad that I feel since this one was 30 years later it wasn't as bad as others are judging it. But maybe if I had seen the original right before seeing this one I would have changed by rating but for now I'm not sure if it's nostalgia or just bias but I rate this movie a 6/10. If you thought the original was funny then you more than likely will like this movie but if the original is a special movie to you that holds a special place in your heart then you might just think this sequel is utter trash.
https://youtu.be/-tT8Wy3YeI4
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it the first time and thought that it was pretty funny. It definitely isn't a great movie but when compared to several other sequels that happen years after the original, I felt that it did better than most. It was for the most part a lesser version of the original but it's been years since I've seen the original and I didn't let my nostalgia for it to skew my opinion on this one. I do plan on re-watching the original soon though so I can see how much they differ. A big difference was that the original Coming to America is rated R and this sequel was PG-13. I usually hate when a company chooses to do this because I always feel what the fans/audience gets is a watered down version of the original but it's hard to say this time around. This movie was full of laughs and I was surprised how much they got away with it for being a PG-13 movie, however some of the jokes fell flat and a lot of them were given away in the trailer. Also there were somethings in the trailer that I didn't see in the movie; like the Wakanda joke in the barbershop. Wesley Snipes character General Izzi was quite a character and you could feel he was having fun portraying him. I also enjoyed Akeem's three daughters in the movie. I really liked the opening scene which showed Prince Akeem sparring with his daughters and stick fighting like the original movie. The middle daughter Princess Omma who had glasses was actually Eddie Murphy's daughter in real life, Bella Murphy. And I also heard that most of the palace scenes in Zamunda were actually filmed in rapper Rick Ross' house. As much as I liked this movie it also felt very thin and didn't have a lot of character development or much of a plot to speak of. It also felt like quite a few things didn't make sense and that characters that came out in the first movie were quite different personality wise or just by their actions. I feel like I should give this movie a lower score but I'm not sure if it's nostalgia again or the fact that since it's a comedy I'm not really letting some of those things bother me as much. I'll go over my many reasons for scoring it so low in the spoiler section but for now I give this movie a 6/10. I would say it's worth getting a free trial of Amazon Prime if you want to see it in good quality and for free, or if you already have Amazon Prime you should give it a shot if you're looking for some laughs, but if not you can totally wait to see this movie.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
Alright so let's get to it. Like I said I enjoyed this movie and thought that it delivered on the laughs even if some of them were forced or fell flat. I also felt that it was pretty thin on the plot and from what I remember of the first movie some of the characters were off or acted very different personality wise. I loved how the movie began with Prince Akeem training with his daughters and doing the stick fighting which was one of many call backs to the original film. The conflict begins in the beginning of the movie when General Izzi visits Akeem and tries to arrange a marriage between his son and Akeem's oldest daughter, Princess Meeka. You can tell that Akeem doesn't like General Izzi's son Idi but doesn't say anything other than his daughter didn't find him suitable. General Izzi threatens him after making a comment about the King being dead or near death and Akeem not having any male heirs. I still don't understand the conflict between the two nations and felt that this would have benefitted the plot more if they would have explained it better. Why would he need an heir so soon if he himself hadn't even inherited the kingdom from his father yet? Also the only explanation between the conflict of the nations was that Nexdoria was poor and Zamunda was rich. Anyways then Akeem is summoned to see his father and his shaman Baba and is told that he has an illegitimate son in America after a tryst with a woman while being drugged. I thought this was pretty funny scene where they did a flashback to when it happened. So now Akeem and Semmi must travel to America to retrieve his son so that he can take the princely tests and become heir to the kingdom. This totally doesn't make any sense to me plot wise other than this is how they wanted the movie to go. Akeem was totally a person who went against his father's wishes and traditions in the first film to find his wife Lisa and doesn't make sense that he would get this "son" to be his heir even if he was blood without getting to know him first. However I ignored that while watching because I figured he would get to know him while they met and he went back to Zamunda with them. Also before the leave there is a pretty cool scene where King Jaffe Joffer decides to have his funeral while he's alive and it was very lavish and elegant and full of cameos from great artists and performers. It was funny to see the barbershop scene and how Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall reprised their roles of some of the barbershop characters when they arrive in America but I felt that the funny parts were already spoiled in the trailer. Also the part about Wakanda wasn't even in the movie. From there they find out that his son is selling tickets near Madison Square when they're told about the mascot being a thunderbird that was part of Baba's vision. That was a cool details that I wish would have been developed more to make it more interesting. It would have been cool for them to have struggled to find his son but instead the first place they go tells them exactly where he is. Also when he meets his son Lavelle, it didn't even come off as awkward enough and Lavelle totally takes him back to his house to meet everyone or ask his mom. I didn't see this as realistic or how it would have played out in real life. Leslie Jones was a pretty annoying character but I feel she fit the job of the role she played and that people are too harsh on her as an actor for this role but I do feel that she is like Kevin Hart or The Rock in basically being the same character in every role. She admits that Akeem could be Lavelle's father and just like that they are whisked away to Zamunda. No paternity test, no lie detector test, no witnesses like her friend in the club saying yes it was true. This was very unrealistic to me because anybody would say yes to inherit the riches of Zamunda. When he returns Princess Lisa confronts him about him having a son and the particulars of how it occurred and she was shocked to find out that he brought not only his son but the son's mother back with him as well. General Izzi returns to Zamunda as soon as Prince Lavelle returns and makes it known that he has a daughter that he wishes for him to marry and Prince Akeem un-characteristically allows this arranged marriage to take place. Prince Lavelle must now pass the 3 princely tests first, which consist of knowledge of his ancestors/predecessors, getting the whiskers of a lion, and also one which involved ritual circumcision. I felt like there wasn't enough character development during these scenes and also the ones where Lavelle interacted with Mirembe, his royal barber to warrant the closeness that they all experienced. Princess Meeka, Akeem's oldest daughter is very upset about being passes up as heir for being a woman and rightly dislikes Lavelle and it totally seems out of character for her to aid him in passing his test to get the lion whiskers. They only had a small exchange about being written off or being judged for how they look or talk. And I felt that Lavelle also didn't have enough rapport with his barber Mirembe to be falling in love with her in under a week, or if they did it wasn't shown enough to us. There was a lot that didn't make sense or I feel was cut from the movie or even worse, just bad writing and poor plot development and it wasn't done right. The worse had to have been seeing Akeem's character become the opposite of who he was in the first movie. He passes over his daughter to give the throne to a stranger because he is a man and even when he loses his patience with a drunk or inebriated Lisa and tells her to shut her mouth after the celebration of the upcoming wedding between Lavelle and Bopoto, General Izzi's daughter. All in all I have to say that for me personally this movie was full of laughs but just had so much wrong with it that I should really be rating it a 5 or just an average movie. However there are so many sequels that happen 5 years or more after the original that are far worse or just as bad that I feel since this one was 30 years later it wasn't as bad as others are judging it. But maybe if I had seen the original right before seeing this one I would have changed by rating but for now I'm not sure if it's nostalgia or just bias but I rate this movie a 6/10. If you thought the original was funny then you more than likely will like this movie but if the original is a special movie to you that holds a special place in your heart then you might just think this sequel is utter trash.
https://youtu.be/-tT8Wy3YeI4
Louise (64 KP) rated My True Love Gave to Me: Twelve Winter Romances in Books
Jul 2, 2018
This set of short stories were very interesting to read and I like that they were all different in there own way, with fantasy and LGBTQ elements. I am fairly new to young adult so many of these authors I haven't read before but I will be delving into some of their works in 2016.
I was a little let down with this collection of short stories, there has been so much buzz going around for this book. I felt that the stories were too short and that you didn't really build enough connection with the characters to feel the warm fuzzy feeling of romance.
I will try to put a brief synopsis of each story but I don't want to ruin it for anyone.
Midnights by Rainbow Rowell is a story about Mags and Noel who have been friends over the past 4-5 years and it is told on every New Years eve and gradually they grow closer every year to more than just friends. 3 stars. Now everyone should know that I am a fan of Rainbow Rowell, but for me she is better at longer novels with the slow burn of a romance, for me this was much too short and I didn't feel the connection with the characters.
The Lady and the Fox by Kelly Link is a fantasy love story (to be honest I can't remember too much about this) 2 stars. It was ok, but things weren't explained enough.
Angels in the snow by Matt de la Pena is about a guy called Shy and he is cat sitting for his boss, when he gets a knock on the door from a women called Hayley , she has problems in her flat and Shy is the only guy to help out.3.5 stars. I really enjoyed this book, the characters were super cute, the romance was cute and a lovely short story.
Polaris is where you'll find me by Jenny Han is a about Natalie, she was abandoned as a baby, found and adopted by Santa, she grows up in the North Pole. Love between her and an elf develops. 3.5 stars This was super cute and reminded me of the film Elf.
It's a yuletide miracle Charlie Brown by Stephanie Perkins was another cute story of Marigold buying a Christmas tree just to speak to a guy. 3.5 stars.I don't know how many times I am going to say cute but this is what it was.
Your Temporary Santa is a LGTBQ story, which is great to see in this mix of stories, however it wasn't for me 2 stars.
Krampuslauf by Holly Black has elements of fantasy, however I didn't like the story for me it felt a bit juvenile. 1.5 stars
What the hell have you done, Sophie Roth, I loved this story, it has to be my favorite in the book, it's just a basic romance story but written and developed really well. 4 stars.
Beer buckets and baby Jesus by Myra McEntire, Vaughn Hatcher is the local prankster, however one day he gets arrested but saved by the local priest in exchange for community service, there he meets the girl he has been seeking attention. 2 stars
Welcome to Christmas, CA by Kiersten White was a really cool story, a girl hating her family, the town she lives in and the people until they get a new chef in the kitchen of the diner that her mum owns and somehow everything starts to become clearer. 3.5 stars This was an enjoyable read.
Star of Bethlehem by Ally Carter was a cute story of a girl trying to escape her life and swaps plane tickets with an Icelandic girl and pretends to be her when she meets her destination. 3.5 Stars
The girl who woke the dreamer by Laini Taylor is a fantasy story, which starts off very sad and gripping, but I wasn't sure about the ending. It was very strange. 2 stars
I know that Stephanie Perkins has another collection of short stories coming out in 2016 and will be interested in reading them aswell
Overall I gave this book 3 out of 5 stars
I was a little let down with this collection of short stories, there has been so much buzz going around for this book. I felt that the stories were too short and that you didn't really build enough connection with the characters to feel the warm fuzzy feeling of romance.
I will try to put a brief synopsis of each story but I don't want to ruin it for anyone.
Midnights by Rainbow Rowell is a story about Mags and Noel who have been friends over the past 4-5 years and it is told on every New Years eve and gradually they grow closer every year to more than just friends. 3 stars. Now everyone should know that I am a fan of Rainbow Rowell, but for me she is better at longer novels with the slow burn of a romance, for me this was much too short and I didn't feel the connection with the characters.
The Lady and the Fox by Kelly Link is a fantasy love story (to be honest I can't remember too much about this) 2 stars. It was ok, but things weren't explained enough.
Angels in the snow by Matt de la Pena is about a guy called Shy and he is cat sitting for his boss, when he gets a knock on the door from a women called Hayley , she has problems in her flat and Shy is the only guy to help out.3.5 stars. I really enjoyed this book, the characters were super cute, the romance was cute and a lovely short story.
Polaris is where you'll find me by Jenny Han is a about Natalie, she was abandoned as a baby, found and adopted by Santa, she grows up in the North Pole. Love between her and an elf develops. 3.5 stars This was super cute and reminded me of the film Elf.
It's a yuletide miracle Charlie Brown by Stephanie Perkins was another cute story of Marigold buying a Christmas tree just to speak to a guy. 3.5 stars.I don't know how many times I am going to say cute but this is what it was.
Your Temporary Santa is a LGTBQ story, which is great to see in this mix of stories, however it wasn't for me 2 stars.
Krampuslauf by Holly Black has elements of fantasy, however I didn't like the story for me it felt a bit juvenile. 1.5 stars
What the hell have you done, Sophie Roth, I loved this story, it has to be my favorite in the book, it's just a basic romance story but written and developed really well. 4 stars.
Beer buckets and baby Jesus by Myra McEntire, Vaughn Hatcher is the local prankster, however one day he gets arrested but saved by the local priest in exchange for community service, there he meets the girl he has been seeking attention. 2 stars
Welcome to Christmas, CA by Kiersten White was a really cool story, a girl hating her family, the town she lives in and the people until they get a new chef in the kitchen of the diner that her mum owns and somehow everything starts to become clearer. 3.5 stars This was an enjoyable read.
Star of Bethlehem by Ally Carter was a cute story of a girl trying to escape her life and swaps plane tickets with an Icelandic girl and pretends to be her when she meets her destination. 3.5 Stars
The girl who woke the dreamer by Laini Taylor is a fantasy story, which starts off very sad and gripping, but I wasn't sure about the ending. It was very strange. 2 stars
I know that Stephanie Perkins has another collection of short stories coming out in 2016 and will be interested in reading them aswell
Overall I gave this book 3 out of 5 stars
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.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Birds (1963) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Strong Suspense by the Master of Suspense
THE BIRDS is often listed amongst the great works of Alfred Hitchcock and I could never really understand the attraction. I thought it was a so-so fright-flick, so when I tripped across it on TV the other day, I started watching it with one eye, figuring I'd flip to something else in a few minutes.
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I was watching The Devil Wears Prada the other day on ITV2 and forgot just how brilliant a film it is, it really did exceed expectations back then in 2006 and even now in 2011. Here’s the review I wrote all those years ago. Enjoy!
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Sun Is Also A Star (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
At some point I may get bored of YA adaptations that throw two young people together with a bit of adversity. I'm not saying that this wasn't good but there are other typed of YA books out there that could be done.
After years living in the US, Natasha and her family are a day away from being deported back to Jamaica. She's determined to find a way to have them stay so instead of packing she's off to make one last attempt to stay in the city she loves.
Daniel is about to have the biggest interview of his life, his whole future is resting on it, but he throws all thoughts of it aside when he sees Natasha looking up in a crowd of people ignoring the world. She's a beautiful anomaly in his life and he needs to find her no matter the consequences.
Circumstances bring the two together and Daniel manages to convince her that even an hour with him could change their lives forever.
When I write it down like that the story doesn't sound quite so... magical? Man sees attractive young woman and attempts to stalk her... yeah, slightly creepy, but thankfully the film doesn't feel like that.
Nicola Yoon is two for two with her novels (the first being Everything, Everything) and we've got another lovely film in The Sun Is Also A Star. Of course it's yet another book I haven't read, if only there were a few more hours of leisure time in our lives.
Thinking back on this I find the timeline for the film a little confusing, which is strange considering you know that the majority happens over the space of two days. Perhaps it's because it's a little far fetched, perhaps it's also because they're constantly going from place to place and it seems like more than just a day's worth of activity.
Natasha is played by Yara Shahidi, the only thing I know her from recently is Black-ish, which I love. I had reservations about this casting, actors going from long-running shows into films doesn't always end well, partly because of the different acting style needed and partly from my side and being very familiar with their character. I shouldn't have worried, she does a great job with this role, and it's nice to see a character that doesn't have a typical backstory.
The same can be said for Daniel, played by Riverdale's Charles Melton. Watching his struggle with the path of his life is really interesting and I liked the small flashback to where everything was decided. If we ignore the creepiness of the couple's meeting then Daniel is a nice down to earth character and Melton strikes a nice balance between his home life and his actual life around people he knows.
Together they make a captivating couple on screen, and I like how they're each other's support even though they don't know that much about each other. They have great chemistry and that definitely boosted the enjoyment of the film.
I hardly made any notes when watching this, those that I did were about the nice use of voiceovers (that sounded very much like nature documentary), some good songs at the beginning, and then the intriguing and nice way they ended it. It's an enjoyable watch but I think it's come at the wrong end of the YA adaptation trend, everything is very similar despite having some individual charm.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-sun-is-also-star-movie-review.html
After years living in the US, Natasha and her family are a day away from being deported back to Jamaica. She's determined to find a way to have them stay so instead of packing she's off to make one last attempt to stay in the city she loves.
Daniel is about to have the biggest interview of his life, his whole future is resting on it, but he throws all thoughts of it aside when he sees Natasha looking up in a crowd of people ignoring the world. She's a beautiful anomaly in his life and he needs to find her no matter the consequences.
Circumstances bring the two together and Daniel manages to convince her that even an hour with him could change their lives forever.
When I write it down like that the story doesn't sound quite so... magical? Man sees attractive young woman and attempts to stalk her... yeah, slightly creepy, but thankfully the film doesn't feel like that.
Nicola Yoon is two for two with her novels (the first being Everything, Everything) and we've got another lovely film in The Sun Is Also A Star. Of course it's yet another book I haven't read, if only there were a few more hours of leisure time in our lives.
Thinking back on this I find the timeline for the film a little confusing, which is strange considering you know that the majority happens over the space of two days. Perhaps it's because it's a little far fetched, perhaps it's also because they're constantly going from place to place and it seems like more than just a day's worth of activity.
Natasha is played by Yara Shahidi, the only thing I know her from recently is Black-ish, which I love. I had reservations about this casting, actors going from long-running shows into films doesn't always end well, partly because of the different acting style needed and partly from my side and being very familiar with their character. I shouldn't have worried, she does a great job with this role, and it's nice to see a character that doesn't have a typical backstory.
The same can be said for Daniel, played by Riverdale's Charles Melton. Watching his struggle with the path of his life is really interesting and I liked the small flashback to where everything was decided. If we ignore the creepiness of the couple's meeting then Daniel is a nice down to earth character and Melton strikes a nice balance between his home life and his actual life around people he knows.
Together they make a captivating couple on screen, and I like how they're each other's support even though they don't know that much about each other. They have great chemistry and that definitely boosted the enjoyment of the film.
I hardly made any notes when watching this, those that I did were about the nice use of voiceovers (that sounded very much like nature documentary), some good songs at the beginning, and then the intriguing and nice way they ended it. It's an enjoyable watch but I think it's come at the wrong end of the YA adaptation trend, everything is very similar despite having some individual charm.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-sun-is-also-star-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
