nick_brown
Iscritto in data set 2000
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi2
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni18
Valutazione di nick_brown
It has no story to tell, a pretty serious defect for any film. It's a well made, well acted film but goes nowhere.
Frankly I was bored. It was just about interesting enough to keep me watching to the end - but only just.
Frankly I was bored. It was just about interesting enough to keep me watching to the end - but only just.
A high powered banker opts out of the rat race and takes a job as a bank manager in a small town. He impresses the local community by giving them a level of input to their financial issues that they've not had previously.
His artistic wife wonders what this is all about but supports his decision. But she also embarks on an affair with one of her thespian friends. However our hero wins her back in a non-violent way. Their teenage son is also confused by the whole thing.
As a chartered accountant I recognise the script weaknesses in that much of the brilliant financial advice is pretty obvious. On the other hand I remember some of the dramatic scenes twenty years later so it made an impression.
I came across this while browsing IMDB and noticed that no-one had commented. I thought it deserved at least one write-up.
His artistic wife wonders what this is all about but supports his decision. But she also embarks on an affair with one of her thespian friends. However our hero wins her back in a non-violent way. Their teenage son is also confused by the whole thing.
As a chartered accountant I recognise the script weaknesses in that much of the brilliant financial advice is pretty obvious. On the other hand I remember some of the dramatic scenes twenty years later so it made an impression.
I came across this while browsing IMDB and noticed that no-one had commented. I thought it deserved at least one write-up.
I agree with the comments made previously about the underlying Christian values of Harry Potter, but I notice that no-one who's commented so far has actually said anything about the content of this video. Given its provenance we can guess the contents, or think we can, but ought we not to see it before we condemn it? Otherwise we commit the same error as we accuse in the makers.
From reviews elsewhere by people who have seen it, I gather that it states that J K Rowling has (in the past) been a practising witch but no evidence for this is offered and she has explicitly denied it.
Apparently it also gives an inadequate account of the Biblical authority on witchcraft. The Bible refers to witchcraft or magic in 29 separate verses. Some are neutral, for example where King Saul approaches the Witch of Endor to summon the spirit of the dead Samuel (which she does, although he isn't pleased to be summoned) or when the King of Egypt's magicians try to replicate the plagues (they actually manage the first two but not the others). The other references are mostly hostile but it's interesting that nowhere does the Bible say that witchcraft is dangerous (I personally think that's true, but I'm just pointing out that the Bible doesn't say it). The basis of the condemnation is that magic and witchcraft rival the worship of God and it's usually bracketed together with the worship of idols.
Nowhere does the Bible condemn (or even mention) the use of magic in fantasy and imaginative literature. In fact Christians have produced more than their fair share of such literature e.g. C S Lewis (Narnia), JRR Tolkein (who was a Catholic), William Horwood (Dunction Wood) and Stephen Donaldson (The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant - which has a surprising level of violence from a Christian pacifist).
Lewis and Tolkein were friends and saw the revitalisation of fantasy literature as a Christian contribution to art. The sort of literature taken seriously in academic circles in the 50s and 60s was generally "realistic" and increasingly sexually explicit (e.g. D H Lawrence). Lewis and Tolkein wanted to show that "escapism" could explore themes like honesty and heroism and open up the world of the imagination, to adults as well as children. They certainly started a trend although their colleagues weren't too impressed.
I suppose there must be an argument that some of the appeal of Harry Potter is the idea that we might have hidden special powers and this might be a bad impulse to foster, but it's surely pretty thin and no-one criticises other literature that's open to the same charge.
There's obviously publicity to be had by attacking something that's popular and it satisfies the fundamentalist persecution complex which is a noted feature of their psychology, but this is mere supposition and I still think we all ought to see the thing (or at least talk to someone who has) before we go too far with our comments.
From reviews elsewhere by people who have seen it, I gather that it states that J K Rowling has (in the past) been a practising witch but no evidence for this is offered and she has explicitly denied it.
Apparently it also gives an inadequate account of the Biblical authority on witchcraft. The Bible refers to witchcraft or magic in 29 separate verses. Some are neutral, for example where King Saul approaches the Witch of Endor to summon the spirit of the dead Samuel (which she does, although he isn't pleased to be summoned) or when the King of Egypt's magicians try to replicate the plagues (they actually manage the first two but not the others). The other references are mostly hostile but it's interesting that nowhere does the Bible say that witchcraft is dangerous (I personally think that's true, but I'm just pointing out that the Bible doesn't say it). The basis of the condemnation is that magic and witchcraft rival the worship of God and it's usually bracketed together with the worship of idols.
Nowhere does the Bible condemn (or even mention) the use of magic in fantasy and imaginative literature. In fact Christians have produced more than their fair share of such literature e.g. C S Lewis (Narnia), JRR Tolkein (who was a Catholic), William Horwood (Dunction Wood) and Stephen Donaldson (The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant - which has a surprising level of violence from a Christian pacifist).
Lewis and Tolkein were friends and saw the revitalisation of fantasy literature as a Christian contribution to art. The sort of literature taken seriously in academic circles in the 50s and 60s was generally "realistic" and increasingly sexually explicit (e.g. D H Lawrence). Lewis and Tolkein wanted to show that "escapism" could explore themes like honesty and heroism and open up the world of the imagination, to adults as well as children. They certainly started a trend although their colleagues weren't too impressed.
I suppose there must be an argument that some of the appeal of Harry Potter is the idea that we might have hidden special powers and this might be a bad impulse to foster, but it's surely pretty thin and no-one criticises other literature that's open to the same charge.
There's obviously publicity to be had by attacking something that's popular and it satisfies the fundamentalist persecution complex which is a noted feature of their psychology, but this is mere supposition and I still think we all ought to see the thing (or at least talk to someone who has) before we go too far with our comments.