Summery
While neither revelatory nor outstanding, Bridesmaids is well written, well acted, and funny, and for the most part, it deserves two hours of your time.
Full Review
The word overrated is thrown around a lot today, and has been scorned by many, but I think it just might apply to Bridesmaids. Let me preface this review by saying that I actually liked Bridesmaids, it’s well made, well written, featuring great performances from the whole cast, and if you think in anyway that you just might enjoy it, then I’d give it a recommendation. However, given that this is a film that was nominated for a Golden Globe award for Best Comedy or Musical, and given that it has been suggested by more than a few people that it deserves an Oscar nod, it must be judged in accordance with these lofty heights. For all it’s prowess, for all it’s positives, and it has many, Bridesmaids never for a moment catches fire, never dazzles or amazes in any department. It’s a film best described as simply “good”. Nothing more, nothing less than a good, solid, well made film. Is this truly where the film watching population has got to? Have we really reached the point where we are shouting “Oscar” just because a comedy was made that didn’t completely suck? I shouldn’t hold any of these musings against the film though.
The plot is fairly straightforward. Our protagonist is named Annie, her best friend is getting married, and she asks Annie to be her maid of honour. However, as events unfold, Annie feels her role is threatened by the film’s dominant, overbearing antagonist, Helen. There’s nothing wrong with having a simple story, it can leave room for smart writing and good acting to shine, however, when one can accurately predict all the films major events by the 20-minute mark, then you need to try a little bit harder, in this reviewers’ humble opinion. The pacing is also a little clumsy, some scenes drag on for far too long, while in the films second half, without giving too much away, there are four events in the life of our protagonist that one would be inclined to think of as rather major events, all of which happen in the space of about 10 minutes. It doesn’t shatter the feelings of sympathy and empathy that the film has generated up to that point, but it does somewhat hurt the immersion level.
On the positive side, the films strong points are it’s acting and writing, and, if you’re going to have strong points, then those are two categories you would want them in. The acting is good for the most part, the whole cast does a pretty good job, the characters are all very believable and fit their solid, but somewhat uninventive roles, more than adequately. The writing is also good, occasionally showing flashes of greatness, the dialogue is all very believable and there are one or two genuinely very clever lines. Despite it’s somewhat poor plot, it tells it’s story in the right manner, it’s plot points aren’t force fed, exposition dumps are few and far between, and, though one would expect it to be simple to tell a simple story, credit must go where it is due.
Should I see it?
If you’ve already decided that Bridesmaids is or isn’t for you, then I doubt this review will change your mind. But, for what it’s worth, if you are considering checking it out, then you should. If you aren’t considering it, then I advise you do so.
Overall Score
68/100
22 January, 2012
10 January, 2012
The Story of Our Universe
I've seen many wonderful films, read many excellent books and played many immersive, epic video games, and many of them have told some wonderful stories. But the greatest story of all is one that you need only look around to appreciate in all it's wonder. For the greatest story of all is all around us. It's not a religiously rooted myth, nor a spellbending work of fiction. Rather, it is the story of reality its self. More specifically, the wonderful, majestic universe that we live in, the splendor of which trumps any religious myth or work of fiction. We've come to learn so much about our universe, and, though there are still answers that elude us, we know the tale of the world around very well, from it's incredible beginnings to it's bone chilling finale, with one particular primate species, floating around on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. For those who want to hear the real, scientific, evidence based story, then I invite you to read on, as I expound on our origins, explain the evidence for our eventual fate, and tell you The Story of Our Universe.
Coming Soon
Coming Soon
30 December, 2011
Speaking from Experience
So, back to religion…
You know, an argument has been put forward more often than one would hope, but as often as can be expected, giving the altogether dismal state of the average person’s way of thinking. The argument is traditionally called “the argument from personal experience”, and it goes a little something like this: “It is possible to know that God exists, based on personally experiencing the witness of the holy spirit”… or some such nonsense. Now, you may be thinking to yourself that surely that’s an argument only used by lay people who perhaps aren’t all that well educated or well versed on philosophical or scientific thinking or process. However, this is an argument that has been seriously used in debates by none other than the messiah of Christian apologetics himself…
Dr. William Lane Craig
The man who has two PhDs in Philosophy and Theology, the man who even many atheists admit has an impeccable debating record, Dr. William Lane Craig has actually used the argument from personal experience many times, in serious debating formats… am I the only one who can’t help but think “if this is the best the Christians have to offer, then boy, might as well declare God non-existent right now and save humanity another millennia of religious wars, poorly educated children, pastors earning more money in a year than many will earn in a lifetime, and many Christians attempting to propagate the idea that unless you’re a science hating, gay bashing bigot who’s afraid of his own brain, lest he accidentally start thinking and subsequently stop believe that there is an Genocidal, infanticidal, megalomaniacal, all knowing and all powerful but completely undetectable being, pulling the strings of fate behind his iron curtain of a cloud, then when you die you will be sent to a place of fire and burning and smoke and torture and choking where you will writhe and scream and wail and cry for eternity”
...
...
...
...But he loves you :)
Anyway, where was I…
The main problem with this argument (among the innumerable amount of them) is the fact that Christians tend to overlook the fact that this argument is actually a bigger problem for them than for an atheist. Most atheists are more than happy to chalk up any so called “experiences” to the overwhelming power of the mind, particularly after recent studies indicated that it is now possible to induce these alleged religious experiences, in an objective scientific environment, with special equipment. However, if you are to take the Christian approach to these episodes, then you must, as the religious are so often unwilling to do, ask the obvious next question in the chain: what about everyone else? What about every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc. who has ever claimed to have had a religious experience, and there have been many. As the great Christopher Hitchens once said “if you are to claim it for one, you must accept it for them all”. If you are to claim that your experiences that you chalk up to “the power of the holy spirit” are valid, then you must also grant the same validation that you think are false.
It’s a fairly simple train of thought to follow actually, when it comes to the faith ideology, there are three logical positions one can take. One is that all of the worlds religious people are deluded and are hallucinating, the traditional atheists position. The second is that none of the worlds religious people are deluded and hallucinating, a position that I don‘t think anyone takes. The third, the monotheistic position, is that every religious person in the world is deluded and hallucinating… except for those individuals pertaining to one particular denomination of one particular faith. Now, if the ridiculousness of the third position is not self-evident then no amount of persuasion will make it any more convincing. After all, I can’t prove that the third position isn’t in fact correct. But what I can say is that be it scientifically or philosophically, it is an ideology that is rationally and logically indefensible.
You know, an argument has been put forward more often than one would hope, but as often as can be expected, giving the altogether dismal state of the average person’s way of thinking. The argument is traditionally called “the argument from personal experience”, and it goes a little something like this: “It is possible to know that God exists, based on personally experiencing the witness of the holy spirit”… or some such nonsense. Now, you may be thinking to yourself that surely that’s an argument only used by lay people who perhaps aren’t all that well educated or well versed on philosophical or scientific thinking or process. However, this is an argument that has been seriously used in debates by none other than the messiah of Christian apologetics himself…
Dr. William Lane Craig
The man who has two PhDs in Philosophy and Theology, the man who even many atheists admit has an impeccable debating record, Dr. William Lane Craig has actually used the argument from personal experience many times, in serious debating formats… am I the only one who can’t help but think “if this is the best the Christians have to offer, then boy, might as well declare God non-existent right now and save humanity another millennia of religious wars, poorly educated children, pastors earning more money in a year than many will earn in a lifetime, and many Christians attempting to propagate the idea that unless you’re a science hating, gay bashing bigot who’s afraid of his own brain, lest he accidentally start thinking and subsequently stop believe that there is an Genocidal, infanticidal, megalomaniacal, all knowing and all powerful but completely undetectable being, pulling the strings of fate behind his iron curtain of a cloud, then when you die you will be sent to a place of fire and burning and smoke and torture and choking where you will writhe and scream and wail and cry for eternity”
...
...
...
...But he loves you :)
Anyway, where was I…
The main problem with this argument (among the innumerable amount of them) is the fact that Christians tend to overlook the fact that this argument is actually a bigger problem for them than for an atheist. Most atheists are more than happy to chalk up any so called “experiences” to the overwhelming power of the mind, particularly after recent studies indicated that it is now possible to induce these alleged religious experiences, in an objective scientific environment, with special equipment. However, if you are to take the Christian approach to these episodes, then you must, as the religious are so often unwilling to do, ask the obvious next question in the chain: what about everyone else? What about every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc. who has ever claimed to have had a religious experience, and there have been many. As the great Christopher Hitchens once said “if you are to claim it for one, you must accept it for them all”. If you are to claim that your experiences that you chalk up to “the power of the holy spirit” are valid, then you must also grant the same validation that you think are false.
It’s a fairly simple train of thought to follow actually, when it comes to the faith ideology, there are three logical positions one can take. One is that all of the worlds religious people are deluded and are hallucinating, the traditional atheists position. The second is that none of the worlds religious people are deluded and hallucinating, a position that I don‘t think anyone takes. The third, the monotheistic position, is that every religious person in the world is deluded and hallucinating… except for those individuals pertaining to one particular denomination of one particular faith. Now, if the ridiculousness of the third position is not self-evident then no amount of persuasion will make it any more convincing. After all, I can’t prove that the third position isn’t in fact correct. But what I can say is that be it scientifically or philosophically, it is an ideology that is rationally and logically indefensible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)