Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020) in Movies
Sep 15, 2020
Back in 1991, I thought that Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey was the greatest movie of all time. Sure, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure was pretty incredible too, but with the addition of Death… Station… evil robot Bill & Ted… it was all just genius as far as I was concerned. My movie watching habits since the nineties have shown me that neither of those films is actually the greatest of all time (well, maybe top 50), but that certainly didn't stop me from getting ridiculously giddy with excitement at the prospect of a third outing. Even more so after successfully introducing my youngest daughter to both movies recently, at which point I also concluded that Excellent Adventure was, in fact, the better of the two!
So, here we are. 29 years on from Bogus Journey, and we find Bill & Ted at a very difficult time in their lives. Dwindling popularity and record sales mean that their destiny of uniting the world with a single song is now becoming increasingly unlikely. A wedding reception where Bill & Ted are unveiling their latest musical creation to a less than lukewarm reception gives us a nice nostalgic chance to see some familiar faces from the previous movies and also brings us quickly up to speed on the lives of our two heroes. Still married to the medieval princesses (Jayma Mays and Erinn Hayes), they now both have grown-up daughters, Thea (Brigette Lundy-Paine) and Billie (Samara Weaving). Both girls are like younger versions of their fathers, making heavy use of the word ‘dude’, and with extensive musical tastes and knowledge. They worship their fathers though and truly believe in their music.
Following the wedding reception, a trip to couples therapy shows us that it's not just their music career that's heading for the rocks. There's even talk of breaking up the band - “We’ve spent our entire lives trying to unite the world. And I’m tired, dude” Ted confesses to Bill. And as their destiny begins to fracture, reality also starts to unravel, with historical figures randomly being sucked from their own time and dumped into another.
Arriving just in the nick of time is a traveller from the future. Kelly (Kristen Schaal) lands in an egg-shaped time machine and whisks the boys into the future where they find that they are now no longer being worshipped in the same way as they were before. They are told in no uncertain terms that they have just 77 minutes to come up with the song they were destined to write, or the past, present and future are all going to collide, resulting in the world collapsing in on itself. Whoah!
Resigning themselves to the fact that if they haven't been able to come up with the song in the last couple of decades, they're unlikely to come up with it in the next 77 minutes, Bill & Ted land on the genius idea that they can simply go to the future and steal the song from their future selves. So, they begin jumping forward to various points in time and meeting up with different versions of themselves. We get overweight rock star Bill & Ted, complete with dodgy British accents, muscular prison inmate Bill & Ted and even OAP nursing home Bill & Ted.
Meanwhile, daughters Thea and Billie come up with a slightly more solid plan of action that involves picking up prominent musicians from history and forming them into the ultimate band, in the hopes that their combined talents will come up with the song that saves the world. It's a race against time as both missions play out simultaneously, taking in a trip to hell, recruiting ex-band member Death (William Sandler) and trying to outwit a robot who's out to kill them. It's basically a greatest hits remix of the first two movies.
It took some time for me to adjust to seeing Keanu Reeves outside of his role as John Wick, clean-shaven and considerably less dangerous. Both he and Alex Winter are obviously much older than when we last saw them as Bill & Ted, but it was surprising just how well they slipped right back into the roles. It honestly felt so good to be back in the company of these guys. The daughters are also a welcome addition, although they feel underused, and being separated from their fathers for much of the movie means that everything feels a lot more chaotic than we’re used to.
Bill & Ted Face the Music rattles along at a fairly brisk pace and the ending felt very rushed and abrupt. Something about the whole thing just doesn’t feel right and I didn’t feel as though we were ever getting very much time to explore or experience a particular scene before we were straight onto the next. It’s funny at times, but with most of it essentially reworking themes and ideas from earlier movies it ends up as the weakest of the trilogy, which is a real shame.
I’ve got so much love for these characters and movies that I feel bad about being negative in any way. However, I can’t help feeling that Face the Music teeters on the edge of ‘maybe they should have just left alone with the last movie’ a little too often. At the end of the day though, I can't really knock a movie that's essentially all about harmless fun and, more importantly, carries with it a message about uniting the world, being excellent to each other. I think we all could appreciate that philosophy in our lives right now.
So, here we are. 29 years on from Bogus Journey, and we find Bill & Ted at a very difficult time in their lives. Dwindling popularity and record sales mean that their destiny of uniting the world with a single song is now becoming increasingly unlikely. A wedding reception where Bill & Ted are unveiling their latest musical creation to a less than lukewarm reception gives us a nice nostalgic chance to see some familiar faces from the previous movies and also brings us quickly up to speed on the lives of our two heroes. Still married to the medieval princesses (Jayma Mays and Erinn Hayes), they now both have grown-up daughters, Thea (Brigette Lundy-Paine) and Billie (Samara Weaving). Both girls are like younger versions of their fathers, making heavy use of the word ‘dude’, and with extensive musical tastes and knowledge. They worship their fathers though and truly believe in their music.
Following the wedding reception, a trip to couples therapy shows us that it's not just their music career that's heading for the rocks. There's even talk of breaking up the band - “We’ve spent our entire lives trying to unite the world. And I’m tired, dude” Ted confesses to Bill. And as their destiny begins to fracture, reality also starts to unravel, with historical figures randomly being sucked from their own time and dumped into another.
Arriving just in the nick of time is a traveller from the future. Kelly (Kristen Schaal) lands in an egg-shaped time machine and whisks the boys into the future where they find that they are now no longer being worshipped in the same way as they were before. They are told in no uncertain terms that they have just 77 minutes to come up with the song they were destined to write, or the past, present and future are all going to collide, resulting in the world collapsing in on itself. Whoah!
Resigning themselves to the fact that if they haven't been able to come up with the song in the last couple of decades, they're unlikely to come up with it in the next 77 minutes, Bill & Ted land on the genius idea that they can simply go to the future and steal the song from their future selves. So, they begin jumping forward to various points in time and meeting up with different versions of themselves. We get overweight rock star Bill & Ted, complete with dodgy British accents, muscular prison inmate Bill & Ted and even OAP nursing home Bill & Ted.
Meanwhile, daughters Thea and Billie come up with a slightly more solid plan of action that involves picking up prominent musicians from history and forming them into the ultimate band, in the hopes that their combined talents will come up with the song that saves the world. It's a race against time as both missions play out simultaneously, taking in a trip to hell, recruiting ex-band member Death (William Sandler) and trying to outwit a robot who's out to kill them. It's basically a greatest hits remix of the first two movies.
It took some time for me to adjust to seeing Keanu Reeves outside of his role as John Wick, clean-shaven and considerably less dangerous. Both he and Alex Winter are obviously much older than when we last saw them as Bill & Ted, but it was surprising just how well they slipped right back into the roles. It honestly felt so good to be back in the company of these guys. The daughters are also a welcome addition, although they feel underused, and being separated from their fathers for much of the movie means that everything feels a lot more chaotic than we’re used to.
Bill & Ted Face the Music rattles along at a fairly brisk pace and the ending felt very rushed and abrupt. Something about the whole thing just doesn’t feel right and I didn’t feel as though we were ever getting very much time to explore or experience a particular scene before we were straight onto the next. It’s funny at times, but with most of it essentially reworking themes and ideas from earlier movies it ends up as the weakest of the trilogy, which is a real shame.
I’ve got so much love for these characters and movies that I feel bad about being negative in any way. However, I can’t help feeling that Face the Music teeters on the edge of ‘maybe they should have just left alone with the last movie’ a little too often. At the end of the day though, I can't really knock a movie that's essentially all about harmless fun and, more importantly, carries with it a message about uniting the world, being excellent to each other. I think we all could appreciate that philosophy in our lives right now.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is an interesting piece. Originally commissioned for a 30 minute documentary piece, Peter Jackson found so much footage and so many stories to tell that he managed to extend it into a feature length production.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated T2 Trainspotting (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The first time I saw Trainspotting was my senior year of high school. At the time, I knew that I wanted to get involved in film, and I really did for about ¾ of a year after I graduated. I looked at movies for their artistry and cinematography even at a young age. I was a band geek, so music was also things I would love about movies. I was deep for a 17-year-old, or so I thought any way. But I explain this to you so you don’t think that I loved this movie simply because of the drug use or humor it presented. I have always been of the mind to find something I like about a movie, watch it for what it is, and try to just find the enjoyment value (I know, weird coming from a film reviewer). I didn’t even have to try for Trainspotting. It was the complete package, and ground breaking. It also introduced me to Ewan McGregor, who is one of my favorite actors. I loved the movie so much, I bought Irvine Welsh’s book that the movie was based on of the same title, Trainspotting, which I highly recommend simply for the fact that it’s written in phonetic Scottish. I never picked up Porno, the literary sequel to Trainspotting, but I hear it is bizarre and will need to pick it up, but not because of this movie. I’ll explain in a moment.
Naturally, when the announcement was made for a second Trainspotting movie, I was both excited and terrified at the same time. The first was so good, why did Hollywood need to ruin it with a sequel that has a bigger budget. What was promising was that it was announced that the entire cast of characters (that survived from the first film) would be back, including Diane (Kelly MacDonald). But it’s been 20 years. Typically, when you see sequels come out even after only 10 years, the whole film seems a contrite, forced replication of the first. Hell, look at all the criticism for the Hangover films being exactly that, and they were only a few years apart. Whether the script feels forced just for the sake of a sequel, or the actors are trying too hard to be the character they played many years prior, it never quite works. So, as we neared the release date, I was getting more and more weary of seeing the film. Then, the trailer dropped.
Damn the trailer looked good. And I will tell you, the movie did not fall into the trap of forced sequels. The main cast came back and played the characters perfectly. Not as they were, but as the people they grew to be over the 20-year period. The plot was fun and pointless, with all of the same charm as its predecessor. I saw the movie with fellow SKNR staffer Joshua Aja, and we had a pretty good conversation following the film. We both came to the same conclusion, that neither of us could remember the last time we saw a film that just that good.
So now to the actual meat of the review itself. What was the movie about? Well, I won’t give away too much, but I will give you a quick recap of the events leading up to this film. Basically, do you remember the end of Trainspotting? Renton (Ewan McGregor), Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) had successfully pulled off a heist, and Renton was making off with the money while everyone slept, except Spud of course who saw Renton leaving but didn’t say anything. As a result, Renton left Spud’s share of the cash for him in a locker. Okay; all caught up.
T2 Trainspotting picks up 20 years later. Renton comes back to Scotland because his mother passed away, he ends up reuniting with Spud, and eventually Sick Boy, who we now know by his real name, Simon. Begbie is in prison because, well… he’s Begbie, but he doesn’t stay there long. Tempers fly, old feelings flare, and not every reunited moment is met with glee. But soon enough, Renton, Simon and Spud are drawn into old habits, though not old drugs, and start to build money up to open a ‘sauna’ (read: undercover brothel) for Simon’s girlfriend, Veronika (Angela Nedyalkova). It’s not long before Begbie shows up and starts mucking things up leading to a suspenseful conclusion between Renton, Simon and Begbie.
That’s all I can say. There was an excellent use of the history from the first film, and of course we get another fantastic ‘Choose Life’ speech from Renton. The soundtrack, while not quite as good as the first, still holds its own very well. And be sure to look for the Bowie tribute, since it was he who helped Danny Boyle obtain a lot of music rights on the cheap for the first film. And, you will find Spud’s writings throughout the movie to be lifted, verbatim, from the Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. But what’s interesting, is that there is not a lot that relates this film to the literary sequel, Porno. Much of the plot of this film is taken from, or at least inspired by, parts of the book that were not used in the first film. That combined with some new writing and storytelling from Irvine Welsh and John Hodge.
Bottom line: if you liked the Trainspotting even in the slightest, you will absolutely enjoy T2 Trainspotting. A phenomenal job by cast, crew, and writers, and an excellent soundtrack will leave you wanting a trilogy. This is only the third film I have given a perfect score to in my 7 years of reviewing films, and it is well deserved. Go see this movie.
Naturally, when the announcement was made for a second Trainspotting movie, I was both excited and terrified at the same time. The first was so good, why did Hollywood need to ruin it with a sequel that has a bigger budget. What was promising was that it was announced that the entire cast of characters (that survived from the first film) would be back, including Diane (Kelly MacDonald). But it’s been 20 years. Typically, when you see sequels come out even after only 10 years, the whole film seems a contrite, forced replication of the first. Hell, look at all the criticism for the Hangover films being exactly that, and they were only a few years apart. Whether the script feels forced just for the sake of a sequel, or the actors are trying too hard to be the character they played many years prior, it never quite works. So, as we neared the release date, I was getting more and more weary of seeing the film. Then, the trailer dropped.
Damn the trailer looked good. And I will tell you, the movie did not fall into the trap of forced sequels. The main cast came back and played the characters perfectly. Not as they were, but as the people they grew to be over the 20-year period. The plot was fun and pointless, with all of the same charm as its predecessor. I saw the movie with fellow SKNR staffer Joshua Aja, and we had a pretty good conversation following the film. We both came to the same conclusion, that neither of us could remember the last time we saw a film that just that good.
So now to the actual meat of the review itself. What was the movie about? Well, I won’t give away too much, but I will give you a quick recap of the events leading up to this film. Basically, do you remember the end of Trainspotting? Renton (Ewan McGregor), Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) had successfully pulled off a heist, and Renton was making off with the money while everyone slept, except Spud of course who saw Renton leaving but didn’t say anything. As a result, Renton left Spud’s share of the cash for him in a locker. Okay; all caught up.
T2 Trainspotting picks up 20 years later. Renton comes back to Scotland because his mother passed away, he ends up reuniting with Spud, and eventually Sick Boy, who we now know by his real name, Simon. Begbie is in prison because, well… he’s Begbie, but he doesn’t stay there long. Tempers fly, old feelings flare, and not every reunited moment is met with glee. But soon enough, Renton, Simon and Spud are drawn into old habits, though not old drugs, and start to build money up to open a ‘sauna’ (read: undercover brothel) for Simon’s girlfriend, Veronika (Angela Nedyalkova). It’s not long before Begbie shows up and starts mucking things up leading to a suspenseful conclusion between Renton, Simon and Begbie.
That’s all I can say. There was an excellent use of the history from the first film, and of course we get another fantastic ‘Choose Life’ speech from Renton. The soundtrack, while not quite as good as the first, still holds its own very well. And be sure to look for the Bowie tribute, since it was he who helped Danny Boyle obtain a lot of music rights on the cheap for the first film. And, you will find Spud’s writings throughout the movie to be lifted, verbatim, from the Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. But what’s interesting, is that there is not a lot that relates this film to the literary sequel, Porno. Much of the plot of this film is taken from, or at least inspired by, parts of the book that were not used in the first film. That combined with some new writing and storytelling from Irvine Welsh and John Hodge.
Bottom line: if you liked the Trainspotting even in the slightest, you will absolutely enjoy T2 Trainspotting. A phenomenal job by cast, crew, and writers, and an excellent soundtrack will leave you wanting a trilogy. This is only the third film I have given a perfect score to in my 7 years of reviewing films, and it is well deserved. Go see this movie.
HerCrazyReviews (247 KP) rated Rent: The Complete Book and Lyrics of the Broadway Musical in Books
Aug 24, 2019
AIDs Representation (1 more)
LGBTQIA+ Representation
Great Representation, Horrible Characters
I have never seen the musical Rent nor have I ever seen the movie (though I heard it is not as good and different from the musical). Therefore, my rating is based solely on this book and because of that, I may not be able to understand or enjoy it as much as I would have if I had watched the movie or musical first.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (2022) in Movies
Apr 9, 2022
Knuckles (3 more)
How detailed the special effects are
Most of the action sequences
Jim Carrey
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is a bit of a weird sequel. It improves upon the original film in just about every way, but it also features some of the most unbearable material in any film released so far this year.
Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey), who is now bald and sports a mustache that is almost 100% video game accurate, hatches a plan to escape The Mushroom Planet and return to Earth to get his revenge on Sonic. As his plan unfolds almost exactly as he planned, Robotnik encounters a red echidna named Knuckles (voiced by Idris Elba). With a deep rooted history, Knuckles also has Sonic in his vengeful sights but also believes Sonic knows where the Master Emerald is; the seven Chaos Emeralds unite to form the Master Emerald (they existed separately in the games).
Meanwhile, Sonic has been trying to use his super speed as a hero on Earth. As Robotnik and Knuckles arrive and gang up on him, Sonic is saved by a fox with two tails named Miles Prower; better known as Tails (voiced by Colleen O’Shaughnessey). Sonic and Tails team up to try to find the Master Emerald before Robotnik and Knuckles as they travel around the world searching for something that Sonic always believed was just a myth.
It seems like the general consensus about the original Sonic the Hedgehog film was that there wasn’t enough Sonic. In the sequel, the Sonic sequences outweigh anything revolving around any human character that isn’t Robotnik. However, this doesn’t change the fact that just about anything that isn’t entirely focused on Sonic, Tails, or Knuckles is just outright trash. Tom (James Marsden) and Maddie (Tika Sumpter) travel to Hawaii for Maddie’s sister Rachel’s (Natasha Rothwell) wedding. Tom spends most of his time trying to impress Rachel’s fiancé Randall (Shemar Moore) and his groomsmen; who are all generic machismo obsessed characters.
The two sisters, Maddie and Rachel, end up out classing an entire army of federal agents in the second half of the film with the only reason being that the bride was scorned on her wedding day. The human characters in these two Sonic films seem to be trying too hard. It may just be the way they’re written because Wade (Adam Pally) is seriously dumber than anything just because.
That’s not to say the humans don’t serve their purpose. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is mostly about family; discovering that you’ve been a part of one all along and figuring out that you can choose who is a part of your tight knit group whenever you’re away from home. Most of the characters are trying to find their confidence; Sonic finding his footing as a hero and Tails learning to be a confident adventurer. Even though some may view you as a, “weird freak,” those unusual quirks that are unlike anyone else are what make you unique. It basically feels like Sonic is a teenager here. He’s technically still a kid, but he’s at that age where he feels like he’s an adult and wants to be treated as one.
The dance fight sequence is probably raising a few eyebrows here. The sequence begins as a train wreck since it seems to highlight the only reason they put people in movies where a CGI creature is the star; to act like a donkey that’s dressed as and acts like a clown to try to get laughs. Naturally the dance fight begins as a pile of puke with very few redeeming qualities until it suddenly isn’t. Seeing Sonic and Tails together even if they’re just dancing to Bruno Mars just unlocks these pivotal moments of your childhood.
While this doesn’t work for most, it is an element Jim Carrey has always thrived in. Carrey recently said in interviews that he is looking to retire from acting. If this is his last film or one of his last, then Robotnik is the perfect send off for the Canadian born actor. Carrey is completely hamming it up as Robotnik. His performance is over exaggerated, outrageous, and over the top and you can tell that Jim Carrey is having a blast the entire time.
Audiences are going to love Knuckles. He takes dialogue at face value and is far too serious, but his ignorance regarding how things work on Earth is what makes the character so entertaining. The entire snowboarding sequence down the mountain where Sonic is dodging lasers is pure cinematic bliss and the Sonic and Knuckles fight in the temple is straight out of the second and third Sonic the Hedgehog video games. The final twenty minutes of the film including the after credits sequence are stunning and goosebump-inducing. Robotnik is menacing, Sonic and his friends unite in a formidable way, and it’s a visual feast with solid writing. Apart from a few sequences that were likely done during crunch time, the CGI in Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is top notch. Sonic’s wet quills after he falls in the lake at the beginning of the film as well as the sand granules after him and Knuckles wash up on the beach near the end of the film are prime examples of how detailed the special effects can be.
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 embraces the nostalgia of Sega Genesis and the essence of the 90s with a film that is fun for absolutely everyone of all ages. Audiences will adore the new characters, the action is a memorable throwback to what we loved about the games the films are based on, and the special effects are top notch. Even with its flaws, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 may be the best video game adaptation ever.
Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey), who is now bald and sports a mustache that is almost 100% video game accurate, hatches a plan to escape The Mushroom Planet and return to Earth to get his revenge on Sonic. As his plan unfolds almost exactly as he planned, Robotnik encounters a red echidna named Knuckles (voiced by Idris Elba). With a deep rooted history, Knuckles also has Sonic in his vengeful sights but also believes Sonic knows where the Master Emerald is; the seven Chaos Emeralds unite to form the Master Emerald (they existed separately in the games).
Meanwhile, Sonic has been trying to use his super speed as a hero on Earth. As Robotnik and Knuckles arrive and gang up on him, Sonic is saved by a fox with two tails named Miles Prower; better known as Tails (voiced by Colleen O’Shaughnessey). Sonic and Tails team up to try to find the Master Emerald before Robotnik and Knuckles as they travel around the world searching for something that Sonic always believed was just a myth.
It seems like the general consensus about the original Sonic the Hedgehog film was that there wasn’t enough Sonic. In the sequel, the Sonic sequences outweigh anything revolving around any human character that isn’t Robotnik. However, this doesn’t change the fact that just about anything that isn’t entirely focused on Sonic, Tails, or Knuckles is just outright trash. Tom (James Marsden) and Maddie (Tika Sumpter) travel to Hawaii for Maddie’s sister Rachel’s (Natasha Rothwell) wedding. Tom spends most of his time trying to impress Rachel’s fiancé Randall (Shemar Moore) and his groomsmen; who are all generic machismo obsessed characters.
The two sisters, Maddie and Rachel, end up out classing an entire army of federal agents in the second half of the film with the only reason being that the bride was scorned on her wedding day. The human characters in these two Sonic films seem to be trying too hard. It may just be the way they’re written because Wade (Adam Pally) is seriously dumber than anything just because.
That’s not to say the humans don’t serve their purpose. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is mostly about family; discovering that you’ve been a part of one all along and figuring out that you can choose who is a part of your tight knit group whenever you’re away from home. Most of the characters are trying to find their confidence; Sonic finding his footing as a hero and Tails learning to be a confident adventurer. Even though some may view you as a, “weird freak,” those unusual quirks that are unlike anyone else are what make you unique. It basically feels like Sonic is a teenager here. He’s technically still a kid, but he’s at that age where he feels like he’s an adult and wants to be treated as one.
The dance fight sequence is probably raising a few eyebrows here. The sequence begins as a train wreck since it seems to highlight the only reason they put people in movies where a CGI creature is the star; to act like a donkey that’s dressed as and acts like a clown to try to get laughs. Naturally the dance fight begins as a pile of puke with very few redeeming qualities until it suddenly isn’t. Seeing Sonic and Tails together even if they’re just dancing to Bruno Mars just unlocks these pivotal moments of your childhood.
While this doesn’t work for most, it is an element Jim Carrey has always thrived in. Carrey recently said in interviews that he is looking to retire from acting. If this is his last film or one of his last, then Robotnik is the perfect send off for the Canadian born actor. Carrey is completely hamming it up as Robotnik. His performance is over exaggerated, outrageous, and over the top and you can tell that Jim Carrey is having a blast the entire time.
Audiences are going to love Knuckles. He takes dialogue at face value and is far too serious, but his ignorance regarding how things work on Earth is what makes the character so entertaining. The entire snowboarding sequence down the mountain where Sonic is dodging lasers is pure cinematic bliss and the Sonic and Knuckles fight in the temple is straight out of the second and third Sonic the Hedgehog video games. The final twenty minutes of the film including the after credits sequence are stunning and goosebump-inducing. Robotnik is menacing, Sonic and his friends unite in a formidable way, and it’s a visual feast with solid writing. Apart from a few sequences that were likely done during crunch time, the CGI in Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is top notch. Sonic’s wet quills after he falls in the lake at the beginning of the film as well as the sand granules after him and Knuckles wash up on the beach near the end of the film are prime examples of how detailed the special effects can be.
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 embraces the nostalgia of Sega Genesis and the essence of the 90s with a film that is fun for absolutely everyone of all ages. Audiences will adore the new characters, the action is a memorable throwback to what we loved about the games the films are based on, and the special effects are top notch. Even with its flaws, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 may be the best video game adaptation ever.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Oct 4, 2017
The cast are great (1 more)
Good tonal balance of horror and comedy
Sloppy technical elements (1 more)
Predictable jumpscares
Time To Float!
Contains spoilers, click to show
The 2017 remake of IT has been highly anticipated by Stephen King fans around the world and being a huge fan of King myself and growing up reading his stuff meant I was looking forward to seeing this. I also loved the original 1990 version when I was younger, so I was really hoping that this wouldn’t suck. Spoilers are going to follow for anyone that cares.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Rob P (30 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 6, 2019
Sheer scope and spectacle (2 more)
satisfying conclusion to the Infinity/Avengers saga
Pretty much a 90 minute end battle scene
Unfair arc for some characters (1 more)
The end of an era! #cry
Love you 3000 - *Seriously - S P O I L E R S*
Contains spoilers, click to show
Well, what a long, strange, amazing trip it's been.
Assuming that everyone who sees this film is invested in the MCU, this doesn't disappoint. Although I'm a fan of the comics, you can't really compare the comic universe to the cinematic universe in terms of plot, it stands alone with its own intricacies, strengths and weaknesses.
I don't have a lot of negative things to say about this one, it's an involving, dramatic, action packed and beautiful piece of work from the Russo brothers, but I'll start with the one or two gripes I had.
From the start, they went with an odd route, one that I wasn't expecting . *SPOILERS* - Thanos as we know him, dies in the first 15 minutes of the film. Honestly was not expecting that. Robbed the satisfaction of build up for me, but ultimately the build up starts again, as the Avengers then go about stopping an alternate timeline Thanos from BEFORE the events of Guardians of the Galaxy by going to retrieve the infinity stones from different points in time (and the MCU movies), before Thanos finds them, so all is not lost on that front, there's still a Thanos to face.
One gripe was the arc of one particular character - our big green rage machine. After the events of infinity war, you'll remember, Hulk was left somewhat lacking, after getting his arse handed to him by Thanos and then refusing to come out for the rest of the film. I felt there was atonement due for him. Here we see Banner has now found catharsis with the Hulk, by staying in Hulk form with his own personality in the five years since the snap. That's all well and good, but after the death of a certain other member of the Avengers after retrieving the Soulstone, I thought - right. Now Hulk will smash. Now we have to see him go ham on someone. Nothing. Not even an action shot of Hulk fighting in the entire last battle scene, which only would have taken 20 seconds out of an entire 90 minute battle. I would have liked to have seen Hulk Vs Thanos, even if for a brief moment, whether Banner came out on top or not. Banner actually using his own anger, which by his own admission in Avengers Assemble, he has. All the time. It felt an unfair way to end one of the major characters stories, for seemingly what would have taken so little to make. it's not like they lacked the CGI budget, after all. Instead, Scarlet Witch gets a showdown with Thanos, and she's not even a particularly major player within the Avengers team, again don't get me wrong, after Vision she deserves a shot. But Hulk more so... It seemed silly to me.
The other negative for me, was Thor. Another slightly disappointing arc for the god of thunder. I felt he was robbed of all the awesomeness Taika rejuvenated him with from Ragnarok, which then continued into Infinity War. They turned him into God of amazing lightning and patron saint of badassery, with a new axe that just gives him a look as cool as they other side of the pillow. Now, the Russo's have had him drink himself to death, making him bloated and filled with sadness and regret. Don't get me wrong. Thor has more reason than most to be that way, he's lost everything over his story arc. I think that by letting him kill Thanos at the beginning, they robbed him of his real purpose, which is to be the strongest of the avengers (arguably) and just be the badass we all know he is. The one positive thing about this, is Thor's new aesthetic actually makes him look like a viking, which was amazing. Braided beard, heavy set, long hair. Great stuff, made him feel much more realistic in that sense, just again I think it was a bit of an unfair arc for him. Although, as he's now set to join GOTG, there's plenty of time to atone.
That's my two cents on the negs of this one. Now for positives:
My god, the scope and sheer spectacle of the MCU films rarely disappoint, this is no exception. just some absolutely jaw dropping sequences, especially when you have the big three (Stark, Cap and Thor) trying to stop Thanos before the major battle scene. It's stuff to make you weep tears of pure joy.
Following on from that, the moment where it's confirmed the snap has been reversed and the portals open up, the armies of Wakanda come out chanting along with just EVERYBODY, and that Avengers music starts up... goosebumps just thinking about it.
The involvement and rounding of previous MCU films in the first half of the movie is intense and satisfying, as the group split up into different places in time to retrieve the stones. Lots of nods to different franchises, nice bit of exposition, and certain parts in particular are just happy, like seeing Tony talking to his father back in the 70's without him realising who he is. Wonderful Stuff.
We all knew there would be deaths, I felt that these were handled gracefully and tactfully, giving the best service for the characters and fans. At the same time, they were not predictable, which i felt was definitely important.
As a last word, anyone who's ever watched a marvel film or had interest in the comics needs to see this. There is a list published of the films you need to see beforehand to fully appreciate the time travel segments, but it's not absolutely necessary. It just helps you appreciate the thought that has gone into rounding off the biggest cinematic series in history, all the in jokes and nuances that the Russo's included to really make this serviceable to the fans.
The end of an era, and as a crescendo to the the symphony started by the rest of MCU, it's just plain beautiful.
Love you 3000, folks.
- Rob
Assuming that everyone who sees this film is invested in the MCU, this doesn't disappoint. Although I'm a fan of the comics, you can't really compare the comic universe to the cinematic universe in terms of plot, it stands alone with its own intricacies, strengths and weaknesses.
I don't have a lot of negative things to say about this one, it's an involving, dramatic, action packed and beautiful piece of work from the Russo brothers, but I'll start with the one or two gripes I had.
From the start, they went with an odd route, one that I wasn't expecting . *SPOILERS* - Thanos as we know him, dies in the first 15 minutes of the film. Honestly was not expecting that. Robbed the satisfaction of build up for me, but ultimately the build up starts again, as the Avengers then go about stopping an alternate timeline Thanos from BEFORE the events of Guardians of the Galaxy by going to retrieve the infinity stones from different points in time (and the MCU movies), before Thanos finds them, so all is not lost on that front, there's still a Thanos to face.
One gripe was the arc of one particular character - our big green rage machine. After the events of infinity war, you'll remember, Hulk was left somewhat lacking, after getting his arse handed to him by Thanos and then refusing to come out for the rest of the film. I felt there was atonement due for him. Here we see Banner has now found catharsis with the Hulk, by staying in Hulk form with his own personality in the five years since the snap. That's all well and good, but after the death of a certain other member of the Avengers after retrieving the Soulstone, I thought - right. Now Hulk will smash. Now we have to see him go ham on someone. Nothing. Not even an action shot of Hulk fighting in the entire last battle scene, which only would have taken 20 seconds out of an entire 90 minute battle. I would have liked to have seen Hulk Vs Thanos, even if for a brief moment, whether Banner came out on top or not. Banner actually using his own anger, which by his own admission in Avengers Assemble, he has. All the time. It felt an unfair way to end one of the major characters stories, for seemingly what would have taken so little to make. it's not like they lacked the CGI budget, after all. Instead, Scarlet Witch gets a showdown with Thanos, and she's not even a particularly major player within the Avengers team, again don't get me wrong, after Vision she deserves a shot. But Hulk more so... It seemed silly to me.
The other negative for me, was Thor. Another slightly disappointing arc for the god of thunder. I felt he was robbed of all the awesomeness Taika rejuvenated him with from Ragnarok, which then continued into Infinity War. They turned him into God of amazing lightning and patron saint of badassery, with a new axe that just gives him a look as cool as they other side of the pillow. Now, the Russo's have had him drink himself to death, making him bloated and filled with sadness and regret. Don't get me wrong. Thor has more reason than most to be that way, he's lost everything over his story arc. I think that by letting him kill Thanos at the beginning, they robbed him of his real purpose, which is to be the strongest of the avengers (arguably) and just be the badass we all know he is. The one positive thing about this, is Thor's new aesthetic actually makes him look like a viking, which was amazing. Braided beard, heavy set, long hair. Great stuff, made him feel much more realistic in that sense, just again I think it was a bit of an unfair arc for him. Although, as he's now set to join GOTG, there's plenty of time to atone.
That's my two cents on the negs of this one. Now for positives:
My god, the scope and sheer spectacle of the MCU films rarely disappoint, this is no exception. just some absolutely jaw dropping sequences, especially when you have the big three (Stark, Cap and Thor) trying to stop Thanos before the major battle scene. It's stuff to make you weep tears of pure joy.
Following on from that, the moment where it's confirmed the snap has been reversed and the portals open up, the armies of Wakanda come out chanting along with just EVERYBODY, and that Avengers music starts up... goosebumps just thinking about it.
The involvement and rounding of previous MCU films in the first half of the movie is intense and satisfying, as the group split up into different places in time to retrieve the stones. Lots of nods to different franchises, nice bit of exposition, and certain parts in particular are just happy, like seeing Tony talking to his father back in the 70's without him realising who he is. Wonderful Stuff.
We all knew there would be deaths, I felt that these were handled gracefully and tactfully, giving the best service for the characters and fans. At the same time, they were not predictable, which i felt was definitely important.
As a last word, anyone who's ever watched a marvel film or had interest in the comics needs to see this. There is a list published of the films you need to see beforehand to fully appreciate the time travel segments, but it's not absolutely necessary. It just helps you appreciate the thought that has gone into rounding off the biggest cinematic series in history, all the in jokes and nuances that the Russo's included to really make this serviceable to the fans.
The end of an era, and as a crescendo to the the symphony started by the rest of MCU, it's just plain beautiful.
Love you 3000, folks.
- Rob
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Resurrection: A Zombie Novel in Books
May 23, 2019
Resurrection: A Zombie Novel by Michael J. Totten is a marvelous book about a post-apocalyptic world in which a virus leaves millions of humans in a crazed state that makes them only wish to eat the flesh of their fellow mankind. With so many twists and turns, you are able to develop ideas on how the characters were before the virus spread, how they have changed, and different things that could easily affect how you would view another human. It was delightful to be able to read about some of the history leading up to the outbreak on each character, while being able to learn what made them tick. The way the characters interact had me laughing from time to time as they are so different and stubborn in their own ways that it makes it hard for them to agree on things. I loved how it brought up a lot of different ideas and thoughts one might have before an outbreak like this happens as well as how it could change the way one might feel or think once they realize they may be the last alive to help set up a new society. Not to mention, how some things we know can go out the window when your life is depending on you being super careful and cautious out the window.
Watching the characters deal with issues with their first major problem, other survivors definitely gave me the impression that in a world with no rules, people no longer try to make friends or even help each other out. I had felt completely anxious and sad that other healthy humans couldn’t be bothered to be kind to our main group of characters. I understand they had their reason, but it did remind me how in real life, without a zombie outbreak, the majority of the human race will only look out for themselves and what they believe belongs to them. It was refreshing to see how even though sometimes you don’t get along with your team, how a common enemy can pull you together, even if the enemy is survivors who could be potential assets to your group. I also found that the idea of us, humans, and thinking we know a ton, to be quite lacking.
Totten had brought a valuable point up in the book, whether he meant to or not. If something should happen, where we needed to live off the earth and a huge portion of our population is dead, or heavily diseased and dangerous to be near, how would be survive? A lot of people take for granted the fact they have heat, running water, electricity, and food, so without out being able to just purchase it and having to resort to growing it and such, our survivors would need to learn a lot of information. I enjoyed the idea of the characters going to look for books on farming, building, and anything else they would need to learn how to do, but it got me thinking about how everything today is slowly becoming that of a digital world. Yes there are still libraries out there with millions of books, but most libraries are in areas that could easily be surrounded by the infected. Even in Resurrection, that could be an issue and yet when Kyle brings up they could just obtain the books to teach them how to do things, the other characters didn’t seem as concerned about the idea, as I was upon reading that. After all, reading how they have to be careful just going to a sporting goods store and all the concerns they have when doing things, makes the idea of going into a library very worrisome.
However, it wasn’t just the knowledge most people don’t have that brought this story to my mind in some serious thought, it was seeing how something as simple as knowing your blood type and how blood transfusion work, seems to leave you in times of panic. We all know that certain blood types just can’t be mixed with others and often this knowledge isn’t needed. Most of us don’t even know our blood types, myself included, because we just don’t always see the need to know such information, or we just simply forget it. So I wasn’t surprised that the characters didn’t know their blood types off the back of their hand, but I found how simple things we have learned since grade school about other people’s blood containing diseases and even allergic reactions if placed in your own body without proper care could just disappear until after doing just that. I can’t say I would have thought of it either, but at the same time I would like to think that it’s something I wouldn’t feel right about. Though, how could any of us be sure we would do something different?
Totten seemed to be able to use the characters to remind us of how important some of the things we take for granted are. I enjoyed seeing how friendships can be broken or made easily, how teamwork is important in the matter of survival, and how people would truly act in a post-apocalyptic world. To see common sense that we have go out the window in some situations and in other situations seem create stealthy humans with common sense and the ability to have sound judgement. Not everyone would have been able to write about such a world, and have characters make mistakes that leave you shaking your head. To be able to see the characters as imperfect humans doing their best to get by in the world, definitely makes this novel a delightful read. I would rate Resurrection: A Zombie Novel 5 stars out of 5 stars. Definitely a must read for the zombie lover. I would say if you love zombie movies and shows, you would find this book right up your alley. With characters you could relate to, and situations that aren’t impossible to imagine, you will fall in love with the writing style and story that Michael Totten gave to us in this short, page turner.
Watching the characters deal with issues with their first major problem, other survivors definitely gave me the impression that in a world with no rules, people no longer try to make friends or even help each other out. I had felt completely anxious and sad that other healthy humans couldn’t be bothered to be kind to our main group of characters. I understand they had their reason, but it did remind me how in real life, without a zombie outbreak, the majority of the human race will only look out for themselves and what they believe belongs to them. It was refreshing to see how even though sometimes you don’t get along with your team, how a common enemy can pull you together, even if the enemy is survivors who could be potential assets to your group. I also found that the idea of us, humans, and thinking we know a ton, to be quite lacking.
Totten had brought a valuable point up in the book, whether he meant to or not. If something should happen, where we needed to live off the earth and a huge portion of our population is dead, or heavily diseased and dangerous to be near, how would be survive? A lot of people take for granted the fact they have heat, running water, electricity, and food, so without out being able to just purchase it and having to resort to growing it and such, our survivors would need to learn a lot of information. I enjoyed the idea of the characters going to look for books on farming, building, and anything else they would need to learn how to do, but it got me thinking about how everything today is slowly becoming that of a digital world. Yes there are still libraries out there with millions of books, but most libraries are in areas that could easily be surrounded by the infected. Even in Resurrection, that could be an issue and yet when Kyle brings up they could just obtain the books to teach them how to do things, the other characters didn’t seem as concerned about the idea, as I was upon reading that. After all, reading how they have to be careful just going to a sporting goods store and all the concerns they have when doing things, makes the idea of going into a library very worrisome.
However, it wasn’t just the knowledge most people don’t have that brought this story to my mind in some serious thought, it was seeing how something as simple as knowing your blood type and how blood transfusion work, seems to leave you in times of panic. We all know that certain blood types just can’t be mixed with others and often this knowledge isn’t needed. Most of us don’t even know our blood types, myself included, because we just don’t always see the need to know such information, or we just simply forget it. So I wasn’t surprised that the characters didn’t know their blood types off the back of their hand, but I found how simple things we have learned since grade school about other people’s blood containing diseases and even allergic reactions if placed in your own body without proper care could just disappear until after doing just that. I can’t say I would have thought of it either, but at the same time I would like to think that it’s something I wouldn’t feel right about. Though, how could any of us be sure we would do something different?
Totten seemed to be able to use the characters to remind us of how important some of the things we take for granted are. I enjoyed seeing how friendships can be broken or made easily, how teamwork is important in the matter of survival, and how people would truly act in a post-apocalyptic world. To see common sense that we have go out the window in some situations and in other situations seem create stealthy humans with common sense and the ability to have sound judgement. Not everyone would have been able to write about such a world, and have characters make mistakes that leave you shaking your head. To be able to see the characters as imperfect humans doing their best to get by in the world, definitely makes this novel a delightful read. I would rate Resurrection: A Zombie Novel 5 stars out of 5 stars. Definitely a must read for the zombie lover. I would say if you love zombie movies and shows, you would find this book right up your alley. With characters you could relate to, and situations that aren’t impossible to imagine, you will fall in love with the writing style and story that Michael Totten gave to us in this short, page turner.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.