Search
Search results
Creating a Life Together: Practical Tools to Grow Ecovillages and Intentional Communities
Book
Everything you need to know to create an intentional community from scratch An intentional...
Persian Surgery Dervishes by Terry Riley
Album
This classic minimal music album is now available again on vinyl for the first time since the 70s....
Offering: Live At Temple University by John Coltrane
Album
'Offering: Live At Temple University' documents a legendary concert by John Coltrane at Temple...
Braving the Wilderness: The Quest for True Belonging and the Courage to Stand Alone
8.0
Rate It
Book
"True belonging doesn't require us to change who we are. It requires us to be who we are." Social...
Shadows in the Sun: Healing from Depression and Finding the Light Within
7.0
Rate It
Book
A first-of-its-kind, cross-cultural lens to mental illness through the inspiring story of...
Louis Theroux’s Weird Weekends - Series 3
7.9
Rate It
TV Show
Documentaries by writer and presenter Louis Theroux which delve into the weirder fringes of American...
KJV Bible Offline -Audio KJV
Book and Reference
App
King James Bible (Audio KJV) is a Bible that can be used without internet and for media/ audio...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated A Sherlock Holmes Devotional: Uncovering the Mysteries of God in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Every once in a while I read a book that is just trying way too hard to be cool. Sadly, this is one of those books.
Sherlock Holmes was an amazing detective. The Bible is an amazing book. So why not make a Sherlock Holmes devotional? The answer is because the two are about totally different things, and when you try to make a secular thing spiritual, you end up with poison.
I requested this book with suspicion (the same publisher had a bunch of other awesome-looking books, and this was the only one I was iffy about), but I hoped it would surprise and maybe impress me. Sadly, it’s actually worse than I imagined.
For example: The first devotional is about the Case of the Cardboard Box, where a woman has a package delivered to her with two severed ears. The devotional goes on to praise Sherlock for solving the crime, and then diverts to “We can hear the voice of God. Sherlock said the ear is amazing. See how these two are connected?” And yes obviously that’s a paraphrase. But it was the point of the devotional.
In staying in this same idea, let me tell you a story and give you a practical on how it made me feel.
Did you know in the Appalachian mountains, some people put Mountain Dew in their babies bottles? It’s cheaper than milk and the kids get addicted to it young. Obviously it causes major health issues like diabetes and sever obesity, the kids end up loosing their teeth before they even break skin, and (though I haven’t researched it, I’m sure) that some have died.
In the same way, the Bible tells us that newer Christians thrive on smaller amounts of doctrine, simple statements of truth. In the new testament, a Christian not moving past that stage is considered an adult still drinking baby milk. But the milk isn’t enough, and eventually, their faith will die if they don’t move forward. So Mountain Dew is like Baby Milk. See how the two are connected?
Sorry, but this book isn’t baby food. It’s poison. I love Sherlock and I love Jesus. But I find this book offensive
Sherlock Holmes was an amazing detective. The Bible is an amazing book. So why not make a Sherlock Holmes devotional? The answer is because the two are about totally different things, and when you try to make a secular thing spiritual, you end up with poison.
I requested this book with suspicion (the same publisher had a bunch of other awesome-looking books, and this was the only one I was iffy about), but I hoped it would surprise and maybe impress me. Sadly, it’s actually worse than I imagined.
For example: The first devotional is about the Case of the Cardboard Box, where a woman has a package delivered to her with two severed ears. The devotional goes on to praise Sherlock for solving the crime, and then diverts to “We can hear the voice of God. Sherlock said the ear is amazing. See how these two are connected?” And yes obviously that’s a paraphrase. But it was the point of the devotional.
In staying in this same idea, let me tell you a story and give you a practical on how it made me feel.
Did you know in the Appalachian mountains, some people put Mountain Dew in their babies bottles? It’s cheaper than milk and the kids get addicted to it young. Obviously it causes major health issues like diabetes and sever obesity, the kids end up loosing their teeth before they even break skin, and (though I haven’t researched it, I’m sure) that some have died.
In the same way, the Bible tells us that newer Christians thrive on smaller amounts of doctrine, simple statements of truth. In the new testament, a Christian not moving past that stage is considered an adult still drinking baby milk. But the milk isn’t enough, and eventually, their faith will die if they don’t move forward. So Mountain Dew is like Baby Milk. See how the two are connected?
Sorry, but this book isn’t baby food. It’s poison. I love Sherlock and I love Jesus. But I find this book offensive
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated The Possibility of Everything in Books
May 25, 2018
I wanted to read this book mainly because I have been to Belize - not the touristy cruise ship parts of Belize, but the tiny towns with 100 foot long air strips and as authentic in culture as it gets. And I love to read about anyone's experiences in this beautiful country with such rich culture. I am also well aware and intrigued by the Mayan healing that goes on deep in some of the rainforests there.
Hope writes a lot of Mommy books.. which I unfortunately do not relate to - so there is push and pull of my interests here.. but I find that it just brings my curiosity out when that happens. She writes in this one, a memoir, about a journey, to take her 3-year-old daughter Maya on a “journey of faith” because she is convinced her daughters imaginary friend “Dodo” is evil. Already I’m wanting to know more.
Her and her husband take her to a shaman in Belize who practices Mayan healing arts. Her journey is rich with Belizean culture and I imagine myself back in the beautiful surroundings with nostalgia. The beautiful people, the rich history - it’s all described so colorfully.
Her book is mostly nostalgia as well, as it’s written about 10 years after the fact. “In Belize, there is a greater sense of connection to other people. It was a tremendous relief to be in a culture where people treat the spiritual dimension quite practically. This gave me the clarity I felt lacking in my life.” I love this quote, and the strength behind it. Belize just has that effect on your soul.
I wonder what I would have done in this situation. I don’t know if I would have ever taken it to this extreme, but again, not a mother. And I imagine the family structure can suffer under such circumstances as hers does with Uzi. She’s doing the best she can, but it’s hard to read the of struggles families got though when a child is “ill.”
I’m glad I read this - it was interesting, and colorful, and I found myself enthralled just waiting to find out what would happen, and if Maya would get “better."
Hope writes a lot of Mommy books.. which I unfortunately do not relate to - so there is push and pull of my interests here.. but I find that it just brings my curiosity out when that happens. She writes in this one, a memoir, about a journey, to take her 3-year-old daughter Maya on a “journey of faith” because she is convinced her daughters imaginary friend “Dodo” is evil. Already I’m wanting to know more.
Her and her husband take her to a shaman in Belize who practices Mayan healing arts. Her journey is rich with Belizean culture and I imagine myself back in the beautiful surroundings with nostalgia. The beautiful people, the rich history - it’s all described so colorfully.
Her book is mostly nostalgia as well, as it’s written about 10 years after the fact. “In Belize, there is a greater sense of connection to other people. It was a tremendous relief to be in a culture where people treat the spiritual dimension quite practically. This gave me the clarity I felt lacking in my life.” I love this quote, and the strength behind it. Belize just has that effect on your soul.
I wonder what I would have done in this situation. I don’t know if I would have ever taken it to this extreme, but again, not a mother. And I imagine the family structure can suffer under such circumstances as hers does with Uzi. She’s doing the best she can, but it’s hard to read the of struggles families got though when a child is “ill.”
I’m glad I read this - it was interesting, and colorful, and I found myself enthralled just waiting to find out what would happen, and if Maya would get “better."