When a TV show endorses destruction of property and violence for religious reasons, we are in dark times.
When a TV show endorses destruction of property and violence for religious reasons, we are in dark times.
I'd like to remind everyone that no federal eyewitness who followed protocols have ever been killed by the people they informed on.
The only quibbles I have are with the actions being pushed towards the end, so the climax was a bit rushed. But then, that is what happens when the Family finds out that it's found out.
The brilliant female surgeon, who spots an angel, was made to renounce all her scientific beliefs, even training. She was reduced to asking what her roles or actions meant if people died on God's schedule.
The answer may have been glossed over a little, but the movie did not offer any alternative. The answer was most emphatically not much.
That's the kind of attitude that you need to enjoy this movie. Otherwise, stop after the first half an hour.
The poetry's nice, the songs melodic, the animation's pleasurable, and the voice-over is very well done. So it's worth a view on TV or something, and maybe the book (which obviously don't have the songs) is worth a read.
But the movie itself really has only enough materials for children or the simple-minded.
And that makes me forget whatever imperfections there were, if any.
The way Laura wanted to know if "he" will call, and disappointed when told "he won't". The way, after she ushered the client into "Mr. Steele's office" and hearing him greet "Mr. Steele", she was so happy she didn't know what to do, and her smile when she saw "Mr. Steele" sitting at the desk.
It all seemed so perfect a start.
Wow, I'm smitten too.
No one ever has claimed this is the true story of Hypatia. It's not perfect, and it's not for everyone, but like Agora said, question everything. Including this movie.
It's not like early Christians didn't slaughter women and children of the unbelievers. It's not like they didn't chase out the Jews. It's not like they didn't murder one of the brightest female (and human) minds ever.
If you're so focused on defending your faith, maybe you've missed the whole point of the movie.
So get over it.
The acting was, for the most part, fantastic. The camera-work was competent, and the story intricate. The dialog is well-written and when I thought I figured it out, there was another twist. It was very well worth the time.
I watched this in a mostly empty theater on a Sunday night. Americans, they told you so.
The plot is quite original, and it's a shame it wasn't used in a major feature production. Still, the plot was fast-moving and not too hole-y. And while it was a budget production, the effects were very serviceable and did not detract from the film. The second-to-final fight scene, in particular, sums that up. It has to be seen to be believed.
Having two leads from the Firefly cast didn't hurt, either. So it was a real surprise to find it getting 3.7 on IMDb. I think a bit of it has to do with a question posted on the message board here: what's an Egyptian God, "a false god", doing with the Ten Commandments?
If you're not a fundamentalist like that, I think you can enjoy this film.
I don't want to call anyone names, but I think the only people that calls this movie good is either involved in the production, or, well, let's not go there.
The plot revolves around Rose, a young woman who married her idol, local schoolteacher Charles Shaughnessy. She discovered on her wedding night that he is, well, frigid in bed. When a young English major arrived in town, predictable problems arose.
Father Hugh, described as sympathetic, helpful, and heroic, slapped Rose when she asked for more from her passionless marriage. This action, ultimately, made those of the protagonists inevitable.
The scenery is fantastic, however, with giant waves crashing against rocks on the beach, sun set over the horizon, grasses over the rolling hills. If only it could compensate for the formulaic, leaden script.
To be humane, the writers allowed Charles, the husband, to be understanding and offer half of their property when he realized how much Rose and the major were in love. In reality, Ireland did not remove its constitutional ban on divorces until 1996, in a move opposed by no political party, but the Catholic Church and Mother Teresa, who flew half way around the world to campaign against such an immoral act.
Without religious admonitions to the contrary, men and women would discover more about each other before committing to lifelong contracts.
And what of the political and military conflicts underlying the Irish story? They were not struggles for democracy. They were caused simply because one group, the Protestants, historically held the upper hand, but eventually another, the "Irish" would have it no more. Indeed, a more accurate description would describe the conflicts as between those two religious groups, not the English or Irish. After all, Northern Ireland would not have been a problem if there weren't those, the Irish Protestants, who had little problem with British rule.
And so without religions, most of the conflicts portrayed by this movie would have frittered away.
Oh yes, the acting is quite wooden, in no small part due to the one-dimensional characters.
You may wish to fast-forward through the scenes and immerse in the visuals. Five years and $12 million, that's what it took.
Yes, this is not a true documentary, and it shouldn't have been presented as such. It's a melodramatic, overly so at some points. It is not as high-quality as some people would like, or demand. But it saddens my heart that that's what they care about, because in their overzealous want for entertainment, they forget the problem they produce.
What's more crass than blaming the bears and walruses for becoming extinct? Never before in the history of Earth has one species destroyed, and continues to destroy the habitats of almost all major animals in the world, except those that have been domesticated or useful in some way. Volcanoes and asteroids may have led to the extinction of huge numbers of species at regular intervals; one group - the dinosaurs - may have dominated the world and probably made certain animals extinct. But it was a natural world. New species arise where others fall.
When we have melted - judging from the negativity here, it's a matter of when - the frozen poles, we not only have destroyed mighty species like polar bears to the history book, we'll have made sure that nothing but much smaller and less unique ones will fill their place. Evolution doesn't take decades to produce replacement. It needs hundreds of thousands, millions of years, and with human depopulation of the natural world, nothing will have the chance to do so.
This film should have made skeptics think twice and change their ways. That it fails to do so in so many cases shows what humans are capable of, not in compassion, or generosity, but in greed, self-importance, and apathy.
*spoiler* The walrus that gave its life for a "kid" walrus probably would have done better were it as "intelligent."
This movie is a breath of fresh air, made with care not only about the writing, the dialog, but also a care to avoid the clichés that make most TV movies so pedestrian and predictable.
I never read the book, so it could well be superior. All I know is, Carolina Moon ain't bad at all.
Oh, and the movie tempts you with some of the very same things "John Milton" used to tempt Lomax. Try to figure out what.
1) Religion is about fear of death. The last spoken line in Stigmata promises everlasting life for believers - exactly the same as the most translated passage of the Christian Bible.
2) Religion = violence. Ever wonder why virtually every popular, religious film is brutally violent? Ever wonder why most wars around the war involve different religious groups on each side?
3) Religion lies about its critics. Lilacs and roses didn't just spring up out of nothing. It took billions of years for life to evolve from basically self-replicating chemical compounds to flowers. The "scientific priest" in the film completely misrepresents evolution and science.
4) Religions lies about itself. There's no scientific investigative branch in the Vatican, or any other church for that matter. There's no scientifically satisfying explanations for incidents of stigmata because there are scientifically demonstrated cases of stigmata. When the Vatican looks into supposed miracles, such as the woman that supposedly was cured of sickness that didn't respond to medication, they ignore evidence, such as the doctors that insist she had a simple illness and was treated with drugs, or her husband who later corroborated the doctors' account.
Curiosly, the film talks about videotaped stigmata on a subway with nearly two dozen witnesses. It's not a coincidence that no real-life "miracles" happen that way?
4) Religion denigrates those who do not follow its teachings. Why must an atheist be so stereotypically a drug-using hedonistic party-goer? Sure, it doesn't really say it's wrong to smoke, or drink, or club, but all that combined is nothing but a stereotype that cannot help but be negative. Frankly a visit to a secularist group will shatter it in a second, but of course, religion is about belief despite the evidence.
5) Religion kills. Exorcism is still promoted by the Church and practiced by people around the world. American children have been killed but due to our religious population, most culprits are not even punished. It's not just limited to a defender of the Vatican Church.
The acting is magnificent. The plot is intricate. Violence and nudity, even action, are minimal (but they ought to be there; this is probably the one movie ever that can completely honestly claim that the nudity is necessary), yet you will not notice it.
Very few films dare to be honest because of the divisions in our society. Fewer still do not placate anyone. And among them, perhaps this alone should not, and did not.
I consider golf as much of a sport as video games, but remembering Miss Congeniality, I gave it a chance. I was underwhelmed.
The tale of Bobby Jones deserve to be told many times over. The world would be a far better place if people are impressed and inspired by such characters.
This movie, unfortunately, forgot at times it is titled Bobby Jones, not the game of golf. As I watched it, I thought to myself that all the beautiful scenery and mesmerizing musical scores only served to confirm my view of golf. It was not until it ended and I read various reviews that I remember the central character.
This story spanned roughly two decades. Unfortunately, we did not get to know the supporting cast beyond the simple and the obvious. We didn't even see Jones much outside of golf.
While this may stem from the director's desire to keep to historical facts, an admirable aim, it restricted the depth of the story. I'm not a film buff so I can't tell you what should have been done, but I can tell you it could have been much more than a golfer's favorite movie.
Like many other reviewers have pointed out, this movie lacks explosions and world-saving heroes, big bad conspiracies or someone with terminal illnesses. But it's honest and warm.
I wish Forlani would be given more lead roles. She has one of the most expressive faces in Hollywood - count the number of scenes where she doesn't speak a word. (Unfortunately, in last year's Carolina Moon she appeared to have caught the contagious Hollywood disease of anorexia.) Harvey Keitel seems relaxed and comfortable despite - or perhaps because of - this being an atypical role. He played it perfectly.
Joshua Jackson was probably weakest, partly because I felt his character wasn't as filled out as it could have been. Having "killed off" his family back in London and giving him a job with poor prospects, it seemed too easy to make him stay in Tuscany. The movie was about Keitel, though, so the producer or director probably didn't want to clutter it with too much going on. Jackson did the job though and supported by a talented cast, it was more than enough.
Not a movie to watch if you want to be thrilled or scared or interested in the lives of celebrities, but a good weekend afternoon experience it was for me.
A good portion is filled with sex scenes which would keep viewers from thinking too much about the non-existent plot. As a film where two people from separate relationships come together to have sex, you would probably expect a bit of back-story to establish it as cheating. But it virtually started out with unfaithfulness as a premise, thus making the cheating emotionally empty - why would they be so worked up about it then? And then there's the "love" that apparently developed between the two leads. It really seemed nothing close to it, as they rarely conversed and mostly just "got together." So maybe I'm wrong about it. As a drama, it really really sucked.
As erotica (for a lesbian audience), I guess it would be quite passable.
Why is meth so pervasively destructive in rural counties and states from Kentucky to Kansas? Why are mass shootings disproportionately a suburban/rural phenomenon? I don't won't to cross the line here, but Stand By Me, while undoubtedly poignant and innocent, is deeply unsettling to me, simply because of that which made it great.