Search
Search results
Crypto News (Bitcoin,Ethereum)
News and Finance
App
Crypto News application for iOS collects exclusively fresh news about cryptocurrencies and...
HuntWise: A Better Hunting App
Navigation and Weather
App
You’re invited to take part in the best hunting app community out there! Share hunting experiences...
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The Best Horror of the Year Volume 1 in Books
Apr 30, 2021
56 of 250
Book
The Best Horror of the Year Volume 1
Edited by Ellen Datlow
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments!
I will post in comments a short comment on each story!
An Air Force Loadmaster is menaced by strange sounds within his cargo; a man is asked to track down a childhood friend... who died years earlier; doomed pioneers forge a path westward as a young mother discovers her true nature; an alcoholic strikes a dangerous bargain with a gregarious stranger; urban explorers delve into a ruined book depository, finding more than they anticipated; residents of a rural Wisconsin town defend against a legendary monster; a woman wracked by survivor's guilt is haunted by the ghosts of a tragic crash; a detective strives to solve the mystery of a dismembered girl; an orphan returns to a wicked witch's candy house; a group of smugglers find themselves buried to the necks in sand; an unanticipated guest brings doom to a high-class party; a teacher attempts to lead his students to safety as the world comes to an end around them...
What frightens us, what unnerves us? What causes that delicious shiver of fear to travel the lengths of our spines? It seems the answer changes every year. Every year the bar is raised; the screw is tightened. Ellen Datlow knows what scares us; the twenty-one stories and poems included in this anthology were chosen from magazines, webzines, anthologies, literary journals, and single author collections to represent the best horror of the year.
Legendary editor Ellen Datlow (Poe: New Tales Inspired by Edgar Allan Poe), winner of multiple Hugo, Bram Stoker, and World Fantasy awards, joins Night Shade Books in presenting The Best Horror of the Year, Volume One.
1. Cargo by E.Michael Lewis
So chilling and so sad! This is short I dedication to the families of those children in Jonestown and the men and women who brought the bodies home.
2. If Angels Fight by Richard Bowes
This is about a man searching for his friend who was possessed by an Angel. On this journey you see and find out that this Angel left his friend and left a trail behind him to follow. His family never gave up he managed to find his friend and Angel Michael and return him to his home one last time. Only question was did he bring him home to find his sister to posses or to say goodbye to his mother?.
3. The Clay Party by Steve Duffy
A group of settlers embark on a journey for a new life in California in 1846, the journey does not go as expected. I was a bit bored at the beginning but certainly had a twist at the end.
4. Penguins of the Apocalypse by William Browning Spencer
This is brilliant! A man fighting his personal battles with alcohol! Now is the pulka and penguin freedom movement real or a fragment of his imagination while under the influence? Either way it was entertaining!
5. Esmeralda by Glen Hirshberg
This is a very strange little story involving the end of all books,pens and paper! Very odd!
6. The Hodog by Trent Hergenrader
A good old fashioned urban legend!
7. Very Low Flying Aircraft by Nicholas Royle
Not one for me didnt really grip me.
8. When the Gentlemen Go By. By Margaret Ronald
This was a bit chilling and I would love to have read more about these “Gentlemen” who come at night to make bargains!
9. The Lagerstatte by Laird Barron
Grief does strange things to our minds and body! This was quite chilling.
10. Harry and the Monkey by Euan Harvey
This really plays on every fear a parent has when their kids go missing especially in a place and time where children are vanishing!
11 Dress Circle by Miranda Siemeinowicz
12. The Rising River. By Daniel Kaysen
This was strange and after reading it I’m still not sure what’s happening 😂😂
13 Loup-Garou by R.B. Russell
I enjoyed this strange litte story set in my hometown of Birmingham. A little french film causes a little drama in this mans life.
14. Girl in pieces by Graham Edwards
This was my favourite! So far fetched into a world of monsters a detective helps a Golum save a girl cut to pieces! So much fun
15 It washed up by Joe R. Lonsdale
Wow how to pack a punch in 2 pages! Loved it!
16 The Man from the Peak by Adam Golaski
Brilliant short full of mystery blood and gore! Very well written.
17. The Narrows by Simon Bestwick
This actually chilled me I’d hate sending my child to school and have something like this happen which of course is totally possible.
I loved this book of small tales and discovering those writers I wouldn’t normally be exposed too!
Book
The Best Horror of the Year Volume 1
Edited by Ellen Datlow
Once read a review will be written via Smashbomb and link posted in comments!
I will post in comments a short comment on each story!
An Air Force Loadmaster is menaced by strange sounds within his cargo; a man is asked to track down a childhood friend... who died years earlier; doomed pioneers forge a path westward as a young mother discovers her true nature; an alcoholic strikes a dangerous bargain with a gregarious stranger; urban explorers delve into a ruined book depository, finding more than they anticipated; residents of a rural Wisconsin town defend against a legendary monster; a woman wracked by survivor's guilt is haunted by the ghosts of a tragic crash; a detective strives to solve the mystery of a dismembered girl; an orphan returns to a wicked witch's candy house; a group of smugglers find themselves buried to the necks in sand; an unanticipated guest brings doom to a high-class party; a teacher attempts to lead his students to safety as the world comes to an end around them...
What frightens us, what unnerves us? What causes that delicious shiver of fear to travel the lengths of our spines? It seems the answer changes every year. Every year the bar is raised; the screw is tightened. Ellen Datlow knows what scares us; the twenty-one stories and poems included in this anthology were chosen from magazines, webzines, anthologies, literary journals, and single author collections to represent the best horror of the year.
Legendary editor Ellen Datlow (Poe: New Tales Inspired by Edgar Allan Poe), winner of multiple Hugo, Bram Stoker, and World Fantasy awards, joins Night Shade Books in presenting The Best Horror of the Year, Volume One.
1. Cargo by E.Michael Lewis
So chilling and so sad! This is short I dedication to the families of those children in Jonestown and the men and women who brought the bodies home.
2. If Angels Fight by Richard Bowes
This is about a man searching for his friend who was possessed by an Angel. On this journey you see and find out that this Angel left his friend and left a trail behind him to follow. His family never gave up he managed to find his friend and Angel Michael and return him to his home one last time. Only question was did he bring him home to find his sister to posses or to say goodbye to his mother?.
3. The Clay Party by Steve Duffy
A group of settlers embark on a journey for a new life in California in 1846, the journey does not go as expected. I was a bit bored at the beginning but certainly had a twist at the end.
4. Penguins of the Apocalypse by William Browning Spencer
This is brilliant! A man fighting his personal battles with alcohol! Now is the pulka and penguin freedom movement real or a fragment of his imagination while under the influence? Either way it was entertaining!
5. Esmeralda by Glen Hirshberg
This is a very strange little story involving the end of all books,pens and paper! Very odd!
6. The Hodog by Trent Hergenrader
A good old fashioned urban legend!
7. Very Low Flying Aircraft by Nicholas Royle
Not one for me didnt really grip me.
8. When the Gentlemen Go By. By Margaret Ronald
This was a bit chilling and I would love to have read more about these “Gentlemen” who come at night to make bargains!
9. The Lagerstatte by Laird Barron
Grief does strange things to our minds and body! This was quite chilling.
10. Harry and the Monkey by Euan Harvey
This really plays on every fear a parent has when their kids go missing especially in a place and time where children are vanishing!
11 Dress Circle by Miranda Siemeinowicz
12. The Rising River. By Daniel Kaysen
This was strange and after reading it I’m still not sure what’s happening 😂😂
13 Loup-Garou by R.B. Russell
I enjoyed this strange litte story set in my hometown of Birmingham. A little french film causes a little drama in this mans life.
14. Girl in pieces by Graham Edwards
This was my favourite! So far fetched into a world of monsters a detective helps a Golum save a girl cut to pieces! So much fun
15 It washed up by Joe R. Lonsdale
Wow how to pack a punch in 2 pages! Loved it!
16 The Man from the Peak by Adam Golaski
Brilliant short full of mystery blood and gore! Very well written.
17. The Narrows by Simon Bestwick
This actually chilled me I’d hate sending my child to school and have something like this happen which of course is totally possible.
I loved this book of small tales and discovering those writers I wouldn’t normally be exposed too!
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
Pic Scanner Gold: Scan photos and picture albums
Utilities and Photo & Video
App
Pic Scanner Gold makes scanning FAST and EASY. Check out its amazing features. So many ways to scan,...
Jack’d - Gay Chat & Dating
Dating, Lifestyle and Social Networking
5.5
Rate It
App
Jack’d is the most diverse and authentic app for gay, bi and curious guys to connect, chat, share,...
ZenScreen - Parental Controls
Lifestyle and Health & Fitness
App
ZenScreen allows you to see what apps your kids use and for how long, set daily limits, bedtime and...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Mar 5, 2018
Epic
There is so much to love about Black Panther that it's taken me awhile to figure out where to begin. I guess I'll start with the message. A message that leaves us with two options: We can all spend the rest of our lives hating each other or we can choose to work together. That's not just a message for black people, which the cast predominately represents, but a message for the human race.
The film would be nothing without the powerful cast surrounding it. Their performances were both memorable and deep. I could spend this entire review going into depth on the effect of each actor/actresses performance on the film, but instead I want to take a moment to recognize one particular actress who has been in the game for decades: Angela Bassett. She absolutely nails the role of Queen mother Ramonda. Because the other roles are so strong, her performance may go unnoticed but not by me. She's a picture of calm, always displaying the perfect amount of strength in her position of power. Her vulnerability doesn't diminish her role of power in this matriarchal society.
Critics and fans alike have been complaining about one-dimensional villains for years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. You won't find that in Black Panther as Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is extremely well-developed. The best villains make you sensitive to their plight. Not only did I understand where Killmonger was coming from, there were plenty of moments where I wondered whether or not he was wrong.
As much as the film creates a strong feeling of black empowerment, Black Panther creates a strong sense of women's empowerment as well. The Wakandan tribes revolve around a king, yet the society would be nothing without the strong matriarchal figures that keep things running smoothly. There is a scene in the beginning of the film where N'Jobu (Sterling K. Brown) is discussing underdealings in his apartment when there is a knock at his door. When asked if he should open the door, he responds, "They won't ask twice." You can read the fear in his eyes as he understands the power of the women waiting behind that door. The more of the film you watch, the more you understand the justification behind that fear.
The conflict in the film wasn't created, but happened naturally as a result of flawed characters with depth and strong minds. W'Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) loves his people but has a heart for vengeance which begins to consume him. His story is just one of many revolving pieces that provide layers to the story.
The set pieces throughout the film were absolutely stunning. From its beautiful waterfall overlooks to the wintery mountains of the Jabari Tribe, you can't help but feel the magic in this place. The casino set piece was easily my favorite, a location that's seedy on the outside yet full of glamour and ritz within.
Now for my one minor gripe: I can't go into detail without ruining the film for those that haven't seen it, but there was one particular relationship that I felt should have been fleshed out a bit more, especially since it impacted the tide of the movie as a whole. The original cut of this film is four hours long and I've read that my issue is a non-issue in that version so I won't deduct too much. Not to mention, there are so many moments that they got right, particularly in the action front, that it's hard being too picky. Even the fight scenes and sprawling battles (rhinos in vibranium armor? Yes, please!) are original, breathing fresh life into the MCU the same way Doctor Strange did.
At the heart of everything, Black Panther is shaped by memorable, powerful moments that impact the way you look at the movie. Killmonger's dream sequence is probably the most powerful scene in an MCU movie yet, just edging out the final confrontation between Vision and Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The film is a double threat as it not only packs a strong action punch, but an introspective one as well.
Wakanda is crowning a new king, but there is one who would oppose the throne for reasons of his own. One, coincidentally, is the same amount of points that I deducted from my rating. Just amazing, Black Panther gets a 99 from me.
The film would be nothing without the powerful cast surrounding it. Their performances were both memorable and deep. I could spend this entire review going into depth on the effect of each actor/actresses performance on the film, but instead I want to take a moment to recognize one particular actress who has been in the game for decades: Angela Bassett. She absolutely nails the role of Queen mother Ramonda. Because the other roles are so strong, her performance may go unnoticed but not by me. She's a picture of calm, always displaying the perfect amount of strength in her position of power. Her vulnerability doesn't diminish her role of power in this matriarchal society.
Critics and fans alike have been complaining about one-dimensional villains for years in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. You won't find that in Black Panther as Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is extremely well-developed. The best villains make you sensitive to their plight. Not only did I understand where Killmonger was coming from, there were plenty of moments where I wondered whether or not he was wrong.
As much as the film creates a strong feeling of black empowerment, Black Panther creates a strong sense of women's empowerment as well. The Wakandan tribes revolve around a king, yet the society would be nothing without the strong matriarchal figures that keep things running smoothly. There is a scene in the beginning of the film where N'Jobu (Sterling K. Brown) is discussing underdealings in his apartment when there is a knock at his door. When asked if he should open the door, he responds, "They won't ask twice." You can read the fear in his eyes as he understands the power of the women waiting behind that door. The more of the film you watch, the more you understand the justification behind that fear.
The conflict in the film wasn't created, but happened naturally as a result of flawed characters with depth and strong minds. W'Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) loves his people but has a heart for vengeance which begins to consume him. His story is just one of many revolving pieces that provide layers to the story.
The set pieces throughout the film were absolutely stunning. From its beautiful waterfall overlooks to the wintery mountains of the Jabari Tribe, you can't help but feel the magic in this place. The casino set piece was easily my favorite, a location that's seedy on the outside yet full of glamour and ritz within.
Now for my one minor gripe: I can't go into detail without ruining the film for those that haven't seen it, but there was one particular relationship that I felt should have been fleshed out a bit more, especially since it impacted the tide of the movie as a whole. The original cut of this film is four hours long and I've read that my issue is a non-issue in that version so I won't deduct too much. Not to mention, there are so many moments that they got right, particularly in the action front, that it's hard being too picky. Even the fight scenes and sprawling battles (rhinos in vibranium armor? Yes, please!) are original, breathing fresh life into the MCU the same way Doctor Strange did.
At the heart of everything, Black Panther is shaped by memorable, powerful moments that impact the way you look at the movie. Killmonger's dream sequence is probably the most powerful scene in an MCU movie yet, just edging out the final confrontation between Vision and Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The film is a double threat as it not only packs a strong action punch, but an introspective one as well.
Wakanda is crowning a new king, but there is one who would oppose the throne for reasons of his own. One, coincidentally, is the same amount of points that I deducted from my rating. Just amazing, Black Panther gets a 99 from me.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Amadeus (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Amadeus starts as an elderly Antonio Salieri (Abraham) admitting that he killed Mozart, leading to him getting taken to the insane asylum. Salieri recounts his story of his small town beginnings dreaming of being a composer and after a moment of fate he ends up in a position where he can learn music leading to him job as head conductor to the king of Austria. Mozart (Hulce) is the world renowned composer that has taken the notice of all around him with Salieri dreaming of one day being as good as Mozart.
We see how Mozart constantly ends up out shinning Salieri with his music leading to the rivalry between the two, with Salieri serious look on life and Mozart’s flamboyant style of just getting through each moment. Salieri moves into the position of being the connection to the Emperor to get his unique work out there but he is really just building him up for failure trying to break him down with criticize of his work.
REPORT THIS AD
Amadeus gives us a brilliant look at one of the greatest musical minds in the history of man. We know the basic idea of what happened to him but now we get to see it through the eyes of one of his closest friends even if he is filled with envy for him. What starts as envy is filled with respect and seeing how a talented person can get used by all the people close to him which will drive him into his bad ways. Overall this really is a brilliant drama that is told in a way we can just enjoy.
Actor Review
F Murray Abraham: Antonio Salieri admits that he killed Mozart, but now he is confessing to how he believes he was responsible for the death from inside an insane asylum. We watch how he got his dreams of working with music and constantly found himself lacking the complete flair and natural ability of Mozart leading to jealous and planning to bring him down slowly. F Murray gives us a brilliant and well deserved Oscar winning performance in this role.seleir
Tom Hulce: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is the flamboyant and brilliant composer who lives life on the edge spending every penny he ever received for his work, he pushes the boundaries to what is accepted even if his work is loved. He gains inspiration from his personal stories which will gain him enemies from his own confident in the government. Tom gives a performance that could easily have won him an Oscar too.morzart
Elizabeth Berridge: Constanze Mozart is the wife of Wolfgang, she supports him in all the work he does but just wants him to actually get paid for the work so they can look after the family, even after she lives him she feels guilty. Elizabeth does a good job in this role.
Roy Dotrice: Leopold Mozart is the overbearing father who pushed Amadeus into this career path making him the puppet when he was younger as he was leading him to become the biggest name in music of his time. After his death we learn about the control he had over Amadeus. Roy is good in this supporting role.
Support Cast: Amadeus has a well performed supporting cast that each hold their own in the characters they are playing.
Director Review: Milos Forman – Milos gives us one of the best biographical films of all time.
Biographical: Amadeus shows the troubles of the great man and how it was his eventual downfall.
Music: Amadeus uses all the music of the great man and how it would have look on stage for the fans witnessing it all.
Settings: Amadeus recreates all the settings that would have been used during the time the film is set.
Suggestion: Amadeus is one that could have been watched by anyone to learn about a part of history. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: If you are not a fan of classical music you will struggle.
Believability: Yes
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Actor, Director and Writing also nominated for a further 3.
Box Office: $51 Million
Budget: $18 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 40 Minutes
Tagline: Everything you’ve heard is true.
Trivia: When the movie won Best Picture at The 57th Annual Academy Awards (1985), Sir Laurence Olivier was presenting the award. He went up to the podium, opened the envelope and said “Amadeus.” The problem was he forgot to read the nominees first.
Overall: Brilliant drama about one of the greatest musicians of all time
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/06/amadeus-1984/
We see how Mozart constantly ends up out shinning Salieri with his music leading to the rivalry between the two, with Salieri serious look on life and Mozart’s flamboyant style of just getting through each moment. Salieri moves into the position of being the connection to the Emperor to get his unique work out there but he is really just building him up for failure trying to break him down with criticize of his work.
REPORT THIS AD
Amadeus gives us a brilliant look at one of the greatest musical minds in the history of man. We know the basic idea of what happened to him but now we get to see it through the eyes of one of his closest friends even if he is filled with envy for him. What starts as envy is filled with respect and seeing how a talented person can get used by all the people close to him which will drive him into his bad ways. Overall this really is a brilliant drama that is told in a way we can just enjoy.
Actor Review
F Murray Abraham: Antonio Salieri admits that he killed Mozart, but now he is confessing to how he believes he was responsible for the death from inside an insane asylum. We watch how he got his dreams of working with music and constantly found himself lacking the complete flair and natural ability of Mozart leading to jealous and planning to bring him down slowly. F Murray gives us a brilliant and well deserved Oscar winning performance in this role.seleir
Tom Hulce: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is the flamboyant and brilliant composer who lives life on the edge spending every penny he ever received for his work, he pushes the boundaries to what is accepted even if his work is loved. He gains inspiration from his personal stories which will gain him enemies from his own confident in the government. Tom gives a performance that could easily have won him an Oscar too.morzart
Elizabeth Berridge: Constanze Mozart is the wife of Wolfgang, she supports him in all the work he does but just wants him to actually get paid for the work so they can look after the family, even after she lives him she feels guilty. Elizabeth does a good job in this role.
Roy Dotrice: Leopold Mozart is the overbearing father who pushed Amadeus into this career path making him the puppet when he was younger as he was leading him to become the biggest name in music of his time. After his death we learn about the control he had over Amadeus. Roy is good in this supporting role.
Support Cast: Amadeus has a well performed supporting cast that each hold their own in the characters they are playing.
Director Review: Milos Forman – Milos gives us one of the best biographical films of all time.
Biographical: Amadeus shows the troubles of the great man and how it was his eventual downfall.
Music: Amadeus uses all the music of the great man and how it would have look on stage for the fans witnessing it all.
Settings: Amadeus recreates all the settings that would have been used during the time the film is set.
Suggestion: Amadeus is one that could have been watched by anyone to learn about a part of history. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: If you are not a fan of classical music you will struggle.
Believability: Yes
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Actor, Director and Writing also nominated for a further 3.
Box Office: $51 Million
Budget: $18 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 40 Minutes
Tagline: Everything you’ve heard is true.
Trivia: When the movie won Best Picture at The 57th Annual Academy Awards (1985), Sir Laurence Olivier was presenting the award. He went up to the podium, opened the envelope and said “Amadeus.” The problem was he forgot to read the nominees first.
Overall: Brilliant drama about one of the greatest musicians of all time
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/06/amadeus-1984/
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 26, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Zack Snynder's Justice League is the original cut of the Justice League film that was released in 2017 which was started by by Snyder and re written / cut by Josh Whedon, cutting the film from Snyders 4 hour, R/15 rated vison to a 1.30 pg/12 rated version. The film was meant to be the big connecting point for the DC equivalent version of the MCU after following on from 'Man of Steel' and Batman vs Superman' but the Whedon cut was met with a lot of criticism as fans felt that it didn't give what was promised and so the DCCU seemed to stall, or go in a different direction with 'Birds of Prey'. We don't know if, with the release of the Snyder, the DCCU will be restarted.
Zack Snyder's Justice League follows the same basic story of the Whedon cut, after the events of 'Batman vs Superman', Batman begins to form a super hero team to be ready for the invasion Lex Luthor warned of.
The film is of a similar dark tone as the two previous films, with some humour added by Ezra Miller's Flash, and adds more back story to both the flash and Cyborg as well as more information about the villains, Steppenwolf and Darkseid.
The biggest problems of the Snyder cut is the 4 hour run time and I wonder if that would have been cut if; 1) it had been originally released without Josh Whedon's input and 2) if marvel hadn't already released the 3 hour long Avengers end game.
Any other problem I have with Justice League are minor, I'm still not sure if DC have handled the resurrection of Superman right but that's based off what they did in the comics and Snyder did... well I'll get to that in a bit.
The inclusion of Martian Manhunter was good but his first appearance in the film was a bit odd.
The last main problem I had were Stepenwolf's eye's, part way through the film his eyes seem to get too big for his face, almost giving him a cute, Anime girl look. At least until they go blue.
Zack Snyder's Justice league did a lot of things right, the inclusion on Darkseid is the big one as it makes Steppenwolf's motivation more believable and adds to the history of the DCU earth, not to mention introducing the Green Lanterns (with out CGI costumes).
Now back to Superman, I've already said that DC may have missed a trick with his resurrection but Snyder left him in his black outfit (I'm sure you se him back in his original outfit, in the present in the Whedon cut ) and anyone familiar with the 'Reign of the Superman' Comics/animated film know that the Black costumed superman is in fact the Eradicator so, depending on what DC have/had planned in Superman's future they could be planning something else, especially now the Green lanterns have been introduced .
Because of the longer runtime the new characters did seem more filled out which helped with the overall motivation and flow of the film.
Like the previous two films (I'm not counting suicide squad because it's only linked by the end scene) Justice league is quite slow paced and dark, taking time to build up to the action but the narrative does fit the pace and doesn't let it feel rushed or leave any loose ends. In fact the only part that almost felt like something was missing was when Flash repapered after breaking the speed of light however that may be because I've read a few comics and know that something normally happens when he does that.
I do hope that DCCU does continue from Zack Snyder's Justice league, if only to find out what they are planning with the whole 'nightmare future/Lois is the key' storyline they started in 'Batman vs Superman' and continued here.
Even if you have seen the Whedon cut and if you can find the time I would recommend watching the Snyder cut as there is a lot more to the film even though there are a few scenes from the Whedon cut missing and the Snyder cut does pull on a lot more law from the comics that was only hinted at in the shorter version. (I still find hard to believe they left Darkseid out of the Whedon cut considering the story they were trying to tell.)
Zack Snyder's Justice League follows the same basic story of the Whedon cut, after the events of 'Batman vs Superman', Batman begins to form a super hero team to be ready for the invasion Lex Luthor warned of.
The film is of a similar dark tone as the two previous films, with some humour added by Ezra Miller's Flash, and adds more back story to both the flash and Cyborg as well as more information about the villains, Steppenwolf and Darkseid.
The biggest problems of the Snyder cut is the 4 hour run time and I wonder if that would have been cut if; 1) it had been originally released without Josh Whedon's input and 2) if marvel hadn't already released the 3 hour long Avengers end game.
Any other problem I have with Justice League are minor, I'm still not sure if DC have handled the resurrection of Superman right but that's based off what they did in the comics and Snyder did... well I'll get to that in a bit.
The inclusion of Martian Manhunter was good but his first appearance in the film was a bit odd.
The last main problem I had were Stepenwolf's eye's, part way through the film his eyes seem to get too big for his face, almost giving him a cute, Anime girl look. At least until they go blue.
Zack Snyder's Justice league did a lot of things right, the inclusion on Darkseid is the big one as it makes Steppenwolf's motivation more believable and adds to the history of the DCU earth, not to mention introducing the Green Lanterns (with out CGI costumes).
Now back to Superman, I've already said that DC may have missed a trick with his resurrection but Snyder left him in his black outfit (I'm sure you se him back in his original outfit, in the present in the Whedon cut ) and anyone familiar with the 'Reign of the Superman' Comics/animated film know that the Black costumed superman is in fact the Eradicator so, depending on what DC have/had planned in Superman's future they could be planning something else, especially now the Green lanterns have been introduced .
Because of the longer runtime the new characters did seem more filled out which helped with the overall motivation and flow of the film.
Like the previous two films (I'm not counting suicide squad because it's only linked by the end scene) Justice league is quite slow paced and dark, taking time to build up to the action but the narrative does fit the pace and doesn't let it feel rushed or leave any loose ends. In fact the only part that almost felt like something was missing was when Flash repapered after breaking the speed of light however that may be because I've read a few comics and know that something normally happens when he does that.
I do hope that DCCU does continue from Zack Snyder's Justice league, if only to find out what they are planning with the whole 'nightmare future/Lois is the key' storyline they started in 'Batman vs Superman' and continued here.
Even if you have seen the Whedon cut and if you can find the time I would recommend watching the Snyder cut as there is a lot more to the film even though there are a few scenes from the Whedon cut missing and the Snyder cut does pull on a lot more law from the comics that was only hinted at in the shorter version. (I still find hard to believe they left Darkseid out of the Whedon cut considering the story they were trying to tell.)