jruwaldt Reviews

Contact (1997)

Entertaining

[7/10 · 24 June 2005]

I don't usually go much for films that get into religious/philosophical concepts, but this one was fascinating nevertheless. The idea that another civilization might contact ours as a result of our telecommunications is wonderful.

There were also some nice touches in the film. My favorite is a charming allusion to the star Vega, which features so prominently. When everyone's communing in the desert, among them are the Vega Car Club of Southern California. Perfect, especially since the Vega is such a forgotten vehicle these days, with very few left running. Not that it was a very good car, but I suppose it was a decent small car, reasonably priced. At any rate, this was very amusing, and it was such a blast from the past.

Earthsea (2004–2005)

Entertaining but clichéd

[6/10 · 11 May 2005]

Not having read the books, I can't comment on the transition to screen as so many others have. However, I can comment on what I saw and contrast it with what others have written.

Yes, so much of what was in the film has been done before. In fact, most adventure stories are simply repetitions of previous stories. I haven't read Joseph Campbell, but what I've heard about his works indicates that there are common themes in all hero stories, many of which recur in most fantasy and science-fiction. The film's interpretation of these themes may have been more clichéd than most, but the story was nevertheless interesting.

I am intrigued by the comments regarding the two schools in the film. Although in the film, Roke was coed and the other all-female, apparently, in the book Roke was all-male. Additionally, wizards are apparently supposed to remain celibate, continuing the typical holy-man construct that we often see in these types of stories. I've heard that Star Wars' interpretation is not in keeping with the way the concept of Jedi was developed in the original films or in the books; however, that "a Jedi shall not know ... love" fits exactly with Le Guinian wizards. Regardless of how it fits with the books, it's interesting that, at the coed school, students go out drinking and go on dates, or at least flirt, while, at the women's school, they're essentially cloistered. Not only do they act like nuns, but they dress like them. This seems to me to be a not unusual dichotomy: men are allowed any fun they want, whether through alcohol, sex, sports, etc., while women must be content with their art or devotions, which are often presented as being the only things they're interested in, unless having babies is included, which then precludes the others. So, regardless of how the books presented the relationship between the chief male and female characters, the film essentially turns it into a forbidden relationship which enhances their desire for each other. It's interesting how popular that is, even now, when very few barriers, at least in the United States, exist between potential lovers. Perhaps that's why, but it may just be that we need two lovers to have some social tension between them. Additionally, the barriers that do exist may be so subtle that the older barriers work better in a story. Although only one school broke away from the typical religious themes, if only to some extent, it is nice to see that in the film, even if it contradicts the books. Perhaps there will eventually be more adult-oriented fantasy in which wizards or masters are not required to be ascetic.

Evolution (2002)

Very interesting and informative

[9/10 · 3 May 2005]

This is an excellent series, which explains a lot about evolution and demonstrates how it affects our everyday lives, particularly in reference to AIDS patients and Russian prisoners. The dramatization of Darwin's life and development of his theory provides a fascinating background to the science. My main complaint with series is in the final episode, "What about God?" I have nothing against the existence of the episode, for this is a very important concept, one which many people wrestle with and which affected Darwin profoundly. My main concern is that the creationists appear to have complete control over the episode. A reply may be that the "evolutionists" had complete control over the other episodes; however, evolution is a valid science, whereas creationism is religion presented as science. The creation/evolution controversy is an important topic for discussion, especially in a series on evolution, but they didn't discuss the controversy very much. When the high school students wanted to get some form of creationism taught in their school, they made vague references to evidence against evolution, but that evidence wasn't mentioned. Most likely, the evidence is simply alleged complications that only seem difficult when one doesn't have a good understanding of science. Scientists have probably refuted all of those claims many times over, but this wasn't addressed in the show. Nor was it mentioned that evidence against evolution isn't automatically evidence in favor of creationism. The discussion of how students at a conservative Christian college were attempting to accommodate evolution to their religious beliefs was also very interesting, although not sufficiently developed. Finally, the different forms of creationism also weren't mentioned, with the episode's becoming largely a forum for Ken Ham. Probably, there wasn't enough time, but it would have been interesting to see more of this discussed.

Indigo (2003)

Nonsense

[1/10 · 25 April 2005]

This is a very clever marketing scheme to give parents the opportunity to claim their children's inability to fit in is evidence of their being at a higher level of human evolution. No more ADD/ADHD! Instead they're...indigo. While it's necessary to accept people who are different and recognize what special skills they may have, it does them a disservice to ascribe to them mystical powers that aren't identified by any scientist. It only serves to isolate them further, by making them into freaks, even if they're "superior" freaks. People with ADD/ADHD apparently make good executives, because they're impatient when other people start discussing things, and they'd rather make their own decisions, which they have sufficient confidence to feel are correct. We should be fostering these abilities, not encouraging use of their "net" or their "healing touch," unless studies can demonstrate that such things exist. I am also curious as to how this phenomenon of "indigo children" can be so widespread but have escaped the attention of the mainstream media and psychological journals. Not only haven't the journals published articles on indigos, which could simply be the result of a "bias" among scientists, but there haven't even been editorials or letters, or, if there are, they aren't appearing in PsycInfo, which appears to be the most prominent psychological database. In the mainstream news media, the only articles have been about the film and the book. Other than that, there have been no comments on it, which suggests to me that Tappe developed this concept out of thin air, and plenty of people were gullible enough to buy it.

Even ignoring the fact that this film tried to preach a non-existent message, it wasn't even a very good show. The acting was what you'd expect for such a script, but the plot was terrible and existed only to showcase the girl's "special gifts." This film is only recommended if you believe that what science hasn't disproven must be real.

What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004)

Ridiculous

[1/10 · 25 April 2005]

I really can't add much to what many people have had to say about this film. Quantum theory is perhaps the most abused scientific theory of the past twenty or so years, much like natural selection was abused in the early twentieth century. At least the effects of abusing quantum theory are much more benign than of abusing natural selection. That said, this film takes some reasonable concepts such as accepting yourself for who you are and not getting overly stressed about things you can't change and says quantum theory shows us why we need to act like that. None of that follows from quantum theory, which has to do with the unpredictability of subatomic particles. Above the atomic level, objects behave in highly predictable ways.

The dramatization with the photographer was interesting, and I wouldn't have minded a film of just that story, but the comments from "experts", in particular J.Z. Knight, who probably almost broke the bank in agreeing to appear in the film, detracted considerably from the story, and they really could have shut up at least fifteen minutes before the end, since they just kept saying the same things. I really can't underrate this film, but at least it wasn't a total waste of an hour and forty-five minutes.

Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real (2004 TV Movie)

Interesting speculation, not what I expected

[4 April 2005]

I was expecting a show about the mythological origins of dragons, as well as the observations of real animals or misperceptions of other natural phenomena that may have inspired the myths. Instead, I was presented with a proposed account of the evolution of dragons, as if they were real. The narrator did mention in passing that dragons didn't exist, with such clauses as "if dragons were real," and there may have been a disclaimer at the beginning, which I missed. However, the program gives the impression that dragons did exist at one time and that hikers in the Carpathians actually did discover bodies of dragons and scorched knights. Perhaps the producers weren't really trying to deceive, but the program does seem like a hoax in the making. In any case, whether it had been presented purely as a work of fiction or as alleged science, it didn't belong on Animal Planet. Animal Planet is supposed to be about real animals. The show Animal X tends to push the boundaries a little too much as well, particularly with its spooky narrator who tries to encourage viewers to lower their skepticism. The Sci-Fi Channel or The History Channel would have been a much better choice for broadcasting this show.

All that said, however, this was a very fascinating program. The production values were excellent, and the science behind dragon evolution appears sound. As a "what if" program it's excellent.

The Odyssey (1997)

Enjoyable film, despite some technical flaws

[26 June 2001]

I realize filmmakers have to include some personal touches, but it would be nice for them to remember that this film is called "The Odyssey", not "The Life of Odysseus." To some extent the latter is what we've gotten, since it is essentially a chronological rendering of the legend, instead of repeating Homer's epic poem. Of course, flashbacks only work to a certain point in movies, so having Odysseus tell about his adventures to date at the Phaeacian court might seem a little tedious to most viewers. However, he does narrate most of the story, anyway, so it wouldn't seem too difficult for him to slip into that mode in Phaeacia.

Other minor quibbles: Menelaus is consistently referred to in the literature as "blond Menelaus," so why does he have black hair in this film? The Phaeacian ship should not have any crew, since their ships were able to sail themselves. Odysseus' men did not merely run out of Polyphemus' cave; they tied themselves to the undersides of the sheep. The film does get close, however. Some of the men crawl out with sheepskins on their backs. Eumaeus raised pigs, not sheep. Finally, what happened to Laertes (Odysseus' father) and Argus (his dog)? Argus definitely should have been included, since the scene where he lifts his head and wags his tail, being one of the few characters who recognizes Odysseus, then dies, is one of the most touching and tragic scenes in the book. Laertes isn't even mentioned, even though Anticleia appears for most of the film.

But, as I say, minor quibbles. This is overall an enjoyable film, much reminiscent of the epic films of the '50's and '60's.

The First Wives Club (1996)

Silly, fun movie

[22 December 2000]

This is a silly movie with plenty of entertaining comedy. Any male-bashing in it is clearly intended in good fun, even if it's dead serious for the characters. I found absolutely nothing offensive about this film, recognizing it for the light-hearted fun it is. A lot of men ARE scum. This just isn't the sort of comedy where generalizations and stereotypes are dangerous and offensive. In contrast, I was rather frustrated by Waiting to Exhale, because I felt it was too serious in its male-bashing. The women in First Wives Club seemed clever and delightfully devious, whereas the women in Waiting to Exhale seemed to prefer to sit around discussing how evil men are and plotting bits of petty revenge that showed how superior they are, not to mention setting fire to their husbands' property. First Wives Club takes a more constructive and intelligent approach to the problem and does so with much hilarity. I don't see how anyone can be offended by something as fun as this. I also find a comparison to Birth of a Nation to be very stretched, particularly since the attitudes in First Wives Club are not as dangerous, and, as I have reiterated several times, they are not intended to be serious. Overall, I would rate this film at least a seven.

Waiting to Exhale (1995)

Mediocre film about jealous, spiteful women

[22 December 2000]

I did not find this film to be particularly enjoyable. I haven't read the book, so I don't know how they compare. However, the film didn't seem to have anything that appealed to me. It appears to be about a group of women who become bitter and spiteful when their husbands leave them. Then they sit around talking about how all men are terrible. While one can sympathize with the women for being upset, they quickly become extremely unsympathetic. The whole point of their conversations seems to be that women are superior to men, because a woman would never do such evil things. Additionally, the main focus of their concern seems to be that the men have left them for white women. I thought these ideas of racial purity went out with the civil rights movement. One almost senses that they wouldn't have minded so much if they'd been replaced by other black women. I was also irritated by the one woman's burning her husband's possessions after he left her. I realize she's angry about the whole situation, but that destruction is very childish. Her first thought was probably to burn him, but she felt that burning his things would be better, particularly since he'd be alive to suffer.

I was generally disappointed by the film and frustrated by the characters. I would never have considered it to be a comedy, although I'm sure I would have liked it better if it had been funnier, since that would have softened the impact of the unappealingly bitter and spiteful nature of the women. As it was, however, the film did nothing but irritate me.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

One of the worst films of all time

[1/10 · 19 December 2000]

This is undoubtedly one of the worst films of all time. The characters are totally unsympathetic, not to mention they're complete idiots. I wasn't frightened. I wasn't even amused, which can save some horror films. Maybe I'm lacking just a little in imagination, but my girlfriend, who had plenty of imagination, was equally disgusted with the film. The acting was horrendous, the script idiotic, and the plot nonexistent. I have never detested a film as much as this one, although Clerks did come close. I definitely rate it a zero, since it seems to have no endearing qualities, whether in technique or entertainment value.

Peter's Baby (1961)

A charming Danish film...

[8/10 · 18 December 2000]

A charming film about two young men in Denmark. Peter (Langberg) is returning from his bachelor party with his friend William (Passer), when he finds a letter from a Paris hospital, indicating him as the father of a young Danish woman's baby. Peter catches the next plane to Paris, leaving a bewildered William behind, though not for long, since William joins him soon after. William's French is horrendous, and at one point he tries to get his point across in French, Danish, and English. Don't miss the hilarious scene with William as a dishwasher.