Change Your Image
magicsinglez
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Invasion (2021)
Incredibly Horrible
Interesting, diverse cast. Good acting. The characters actions make no sense whatsoever. So, you house shakes, you witness a neighbor couple hugging each in the house across the street, you can see them because their house is on fire, damaged, and partially stripped away. There is fire and debris across your neighborhood. You spend a few moments collecting your own family. Then you all go into the basement? Don't you want to look out the window, or open your door to see what has happened? Do you want to check on your neighbors, or any other nearby, and see if they are alright? No, the whole family casually retreats to the basement. Is that a normal response to fire, to head down into the basement? Then, you're eventually forced from the house. Your actions outside don't make sense. I'd continue on explaining while the characters actions continue to make no sense whatsoever, but this post might actually be as annoying as the show.
Such an insult, and I LOVE these kinds of shows. I love them so much, I Might look at it some more, but to be honest, this is the dumbest show ever. Good acting. Entertaining, attractive, cast. Have the casting director complete the rest of the show. Whoever is directing it now is a total moron.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Closer to Gene Roddenberry's original vision? This movie has a heart.
The title Star Trek Into Darkness is misleading. The trailer, too, leads one to believe this is a tale of revenge. And this film features Khan. The film Star Trek II is dedicated to Khan's obsession with revenge. In one scene, released to the public before the movies premier, Captain Pike tells Captain Kirk something like, "The Federation isn't about personal vendettas". Captain Kirk replies, "Maybe it should be".
Instead what Captain Kirk learns, pretty much on his own, perhaps as a continuation of the end of the first film Star Trek 2009, is that justice is not about revenge. Human life isn't his to take. At least not in cold blood. Leonard Nimoy appears again in this film and he also provides a firm sense of moral grounding. Nimoy's performance here is not solely about bringing Vulcan sensibilities to the part? Surely we are seeing something of the real Leonard Nimoy in his performance. Nimoy would title his second autobiography, "I am Spock". Bringing something of his real character and morals to his performance in Into Darkness is why it's so meaningful, it's real. In the previous film, the Romulan Captain Nero destroys Spock's home world, in a quest for revenge of a sort. All the elder Spock can say about Nero, after pausing to think about it, is that Nero is 'troubled' as if he's concerned about Nero. The ending of this film, at least Kirk's medical recovery, leads one to wonder if perhaps Khan might return.
As other reviewers have noted, this film sails closer to Gene Roddenberry's 'humanistic vision'. Whether it's been made under the influence of Roddenberry or not, this film has a proverbial heart.
We also learn that friendship is more important than truth. For Spock, who cannot tell a lie, this is something he will learn, or be corrupted by, over a lifetimes worth of experience. When captain Kirk falsifies a report to Star Fleet, I was kind of hoping the lesson to be learned would be one about the importance of being truthful, but instead we're learning about the importance of friendship. And also that friends believe different things than we do and sometimes live in different ways than we do, but we should still be committed to them. It's what gives life meaning?
In a Star Trek episode from the original series, 'The Enterprise Incident', Spock does lie, convincing a Roluman Captain that he's defecting from Star Fleet. He's actually on a spy mission. He uses the fact that it's known Vulcan's cannot lie against this female captain. When she discovers the deception, Spock confesses that, "I was not unmoved" by this woman's advances. In one of the more famous episodes from the original serious, 'Mirror, Mirror' the crew are errantly beamed aboard an Enterprise that exists in an alternate universe where the Federation is an 'Empire' that rules by maintaining terror. When captain Kirk is talking to his concubine on the evil ship, a woman who's figured out something is wrong, captain Kirk tells her, "you're the captains woman until he says you're not". He plans on finding his way back to his own Enterprise.
I think I enjoyed the first film more, Star Trek 2009. Perhaps it was the joy of seeing these characters in action once again, because that movie had a, pardon the phrase, illogical plot. There was more dialog, I think, especially between the characters, in the film 2009. This new film has a heart.
Skyline (2010)
I liked it.
Aliens descend on Los Angeles out of the blue, surround the young casts condo, and prepare to finish them off, then the movie switches to "15 hours earlier". What more import information could we possibly need to know, what the characters exchanged for birthday presents? The switch-up kind of made me want to leave the theater. Instead of wondering, who got what as a housewarming present, I was wondering if the theater would give out a refund 10 minutes into a movie. Guess I'm OK with skipping character development. Skyline picks up quick enough after the reset, I did like the movie. In other films, such as the recent District 9, character isn't really developed - the hero's character is revealed as he's exposed to greater and greater stress.
I should admit I'm a fool for these alien invasion movies, I even give Battlefield Earth 8 of 10 stars. Some of the dialogue in Skyline seems a bit off, but at least it's not safe, politically correct or predictable. At times the dialogue is off on purpose. When one of the characters says something like, "we're OK now" you just know something really bad is about to happen. It's almost a cue.
For some Skyline will conjure up images of 9/11. Other's have already taken parts of the movie as a metaphor for rampant consumerism. I felt the attack was a metaphor for the 'illegal alien' invasion of the present day. More specifically, I guess, a replay of the phenomenon of black guys sleeping with a lot (I assume) of white girls. Tragedy after tragedy befall our young heroes and in the end one of the young girls sums it all up by saying, "I hate Los Angeles". In no way is it funny.
There was some infighting among the groups of survivors, perhaps less than in some movies but I felt there was still a bit too much of it. The sympathetic adult our cast befriend has to keep telling one of the young men something like, "Don't bury your head and hope this goes away", "It's real". When the alien machines turn out to be powered by human brains the guy beside me at the theater cringed. He had a valid reaction. White people aren't That smart. The evidence isn't looking too good on that. Besides, brains don't really seem to be what they are after.
At times the movie switches into the mode of fantasy. Some of the American aircraft appear to be models we've never seen before and they have odd sizes and shapes (not sure I've ever rooted for American airplanes this much before). At other times the cast remain remarkably unaffected by the action on screen. It's not even just narrow escapes. Skyline is such an intense movie, and frightening, the fantasy element may help cut down on the tension. I wonder if the disjointed beginning also keeps the movie from being too frightening. When it's revealed we're sort of fighting ourselves it adds even more creepiness and perhaps provides some afterthoughts (of hopelessness) to the experience.
Do we ever actually see the aliens? Did they even bother to land on Earth, or just send army sucking probes here? Why didn't the aliens use robot brains instead of harvesting zombies. Are they tapping into some kind of unknown 'life force'. Is it a matter of invading on a budget? We'll never know unless there's a sequel. Maybe instead of Alien vs Predator, Cloverfield vs Skyline. Both movies are very similar, actually. Maybe both attacks come from the same intelligence. A sequel seems unlikely, though, this movie can be summed up with the words 'we lose'. The main thing going for Skyline (aside from the fear, action and horror) is the ending. The ending is atypical: bleak, realistic, frightening, with again just a touch of fantasy to ease it through.
District 9 (2009)
This movie does nothing but aggrandize the main character
I got a little bit motion sick during the movie. I was pretty disappointed it didn't seem to be about anything. It was a standard, shoot-em up buddy movie. One partner just happens to be an alien. It wasn't till the very end, when you wonder if aliens from the home world are coming back, that it hints at being a Sci Fi movie, or a movie that has implications for all of us or one examining changes in society. Well there was the main character, Wikus, burning all the alien eggs. . .
There is a theme to District 9, tho. It is about one thing, and one thing only. Building up and exalting the main character, Wikus. It 'pimps' him. I even wonder if that was the insider name for the movie during production. Critic Roger Ebert wrote that the Wikus character, "isn't the brightest bulb on the tree". He's a follower. He's an every-man, perhaps. He's not concerned with petty or personal politics. It might even be physical, he's a thin man. The counter-argument (and it's an easy one to make) might be that he grows or changes, during the movie. The movie goes pretty fast. I think it merely reveals his character. Even when he finally goes against type, is finally pushed too far, and he blindly lashes out at his alien partner, I think even this sells him. Even he can be pushed too far.
It was absolutely an incredibly well-made movie, it accomplishes it's task very well. Sadly, it has to descend into a shoot-em up to accomplish this goal? Wikus must become a master of arms - really cool ones - to become acceptable? Yes, a very sad commentary on our times. Does he even have to become an alien, in the end, before he is really 'real'? It's possible that instead this movie was targeted toward folks like the main character in the movie (and folks like me). The movie isn't about selling Wikus, it's about selling a might-is-right, tattoo crazed world to folks like Wikus. Well, it never hurts to admire strength. It's working out so well for us.
I'm going to say I agree with those who note the racism examined in District 9. I don't really care. . . not at all. I'm a white racist, I guess. Or perhaps I just think there are already enough folks concerned about 'racism' as it is. But I do 'agree' with the idea - if you accept the notion that the alien prawns are stand-ins for another race. The movie presents them as pretty base and even animal-like, both on the ship and then in the camps. Roger Ebert called them and their behavior 'disgusting', except for the hero's eventual partner and his son. Perhaps I missed something in the movie, the process where the prawns or refugees are 'dehumanized' against their better wishes. Also, when I say the movie isn't about anything, perhaps I was looking at the wrong thing. Maybe it was really about the alien and his mission to escape Earth and the camps. Almost forgot the scene where African girls prostitute themselves to aliens, and does it help that the Black Africans in the movie are portrayed as cannibals and even worse? Should I repeat that again. . ? Perhaps the movie makers feel racism can only be counteracted by further racism? Well of course they do. We all know liberals are the ones who make movies. This isn't discrimination against conservatives, it's just a coincidence. Although one it would seem in need of celebration.
One of the paradoxes of the movie, is that a lot of reviewers comment about how Wikus is evil or kind of shady. He's Still a bad guy! The brainwashing can't be overridden. Perhaps it simply can't be. This movie tries really hard. At the risk of an even larger number of negative votes, for the older readers, I'm going to quote someone else who is a lot more articulate than I am,
"Apparently many uber Liberals do well on the IQ tests which means they can assimilate and process bad information faster than the average. But if they encounter conflicting good information can they deprocess the bad and replace it with the good faster than the average? Doesn't seem so. In fact it appears that they cannot deal with conflicting information at all. Is there a test that can attach a useful number to this mental defect"?
This movie doesn't do anything but exalt the main character of the movie (it does it well). The problem is I'm not sure this movie can really convince us that Wikus' district has 9.
Star Trek: The Next Generation: Chain of Command, Part II (1992)
He's shown 4 lights in front of him and asked, "How many lights are there"? When Picard says "4" he's subjected to extreme pain.
In 'Chain of Command' Captain Picard (who knows Starfleet's battle plans for this sector of space), is captured by the Cardassians who are planning a surprise attack.
The entire episode consists of Picard being tortured by Cardassians. He's shown 4 lights in front of him and asked, "How many lights are there"? When Picard says "4" he's subjected to extreme pain. He's told, "you see 5 lights Captain, tell us how many you see". There are 4 lights, and Picard continues to tell him there are 4.
Other reviewers have said this is a scene taken from the story '1984' by George Orwell. Perhaps to highlight or explain the 'Orwellian' idea in the book, of being told one thing, while reality is something else. I did not notice this connection myself watching the episode, having never read '1984'.
Apparently, for the Cardassians, getting him to admit to something he knows is not true, even something as meaningless as this, is the first step in his brainwashing. They never ask Picard about battle plans, Starship numbers, or anything, but the number of lights. He's continuously subjected to extreme pain but even after extreme torture they can never get Picard to say he sees 5 lights. This is a terrible episode for the character of Picard, ranking up there with the one where Picard is assimilated by the Borg against his will.
After being rescued from the ordeal, Picard is counseled by Deanna Troi back aboard the Enterprise. He says, "You know, near the end. I could see 5 lights". Obviously with the torture he could 'see' 5 lights, something that wasn't even there (a powerful statement on it's own), but he continued to tell his captors he only saw 4.
The episode is done in such a way that the end is really an awakening of sorts, and potentially a beginning. There was never any doubt in my (overconfident) mind that they intended to make some kind of statement at the end. I've only seen the episode once, but I knew that what I felt at the end was not a figment of my imagination or something subjective or personal.
When the show ends; when Picard says those last lines to Deanna Troi, about being alone on the prison planet, he's looking almost directly into the camera and not at Deanna, "Near the end. I could see five lights". When he says those last lines at the end... we know he's talking to us.
Life Is Hot in Cracktown (2009)
Don't do crack
Don't do crack.
The message could also be, 'Don't move to NYC, anytime'. At least not if you are poor. It's a message a bit more timeless than don't do crack, and a message it wouldn't hurt to remind folks of even here in North Carolina.
The message could also be: buy a gun and be ready to use it. The movie shows a cast of characters willing to rape teenage prostitutes, hold hostage, and rape senior citizens, male ones, in a daily maneuver to get their welfare checks, and, when one tenant calls the police, not only do they not show up but the landlord kicks him out for making the call. It's inviting trouble apparently.
A third of the way through the movie finally someone fights back, a mumbling character who's the boyfriend of a transsexual being harassed. He's the good guy in the movie. It's good to know even a movie this depraved can still find room to put in a pro-gay theme. Robbery, murder, sexual harassment: You have to draw the line somewhere and apparently on those who won't march in favor of homosexuality is where.
A shopkeeper in the movie at what would amount to 'the arab store' (who is actually Hispanic, I think) fights back too, shooting a would be robber. It's this scene where we learn fighting back isn't good either, as it leads to ugly death. It's not even his store, he's just a worker apparently. The store clerk could not regret his decision more.
So the message seems to be don't anything. Don't feel anything. Ball up like a rollie-pollie on the floor and try to avoid being stepped on. Take no action in this world. Everything is bad. There are no good guys. Being neurotic, and being gay, is a small price to pay for there to be one less person out there being shot by a stupid guy. There was a book out once with the title, "The Pursuit of Loneliness". This movie is saying the opposite. We'd be better off alone. At least in Cracktown. It's probably up to you to determine the boundaries of 'Cracktown'.
Oh - and don't trust black guys. All the really-bad guys in this movie, getting away with everything, are black.
My favorite scene in the movie is when the transsexual goes to her friend Gabrielle's house, in tears, "My boyfriends been shot. They don't know if he's going to make it" unwisely adding "how are you". Gabrielle immediately launches into an explanation of how he can't be 'Gabrielle' anymore. His mother is going to take him back, if he ends his current ways. "I can't be poor" he says. So there are two heroines in this movie. 'Gabrielle' Gary now or something, says they can't be friends anymore and shuts the door on the crying transsexuals face! So white. So gay. How real can you get?
This is one of those ultra violent (and this particular one is dirty and desperate and ugly) movies we can gush about afterward saying how great and amazing (and artistic) and (sadly) how real? it is, because it is supposed to be an anti-violence film. And I suppose if we don't understand the action we're probably some kind of wimp. Apparently, the only way to curb violence is to show more and more of it. Anything less would be reactionary, or conservative, not to mention a lot less hip. I'm willing to bet the original title was intended to be 'Life is Hard in CrackTown' (certainly an adequate one-line review) but, 'too preachy'.
I was entertained but, while I didn't really like the movie a lot on a conscious level, I did enjoy myself watching the movie, I think. . . When I left the theater, as I was walking out (or as I am usually walking out) and that strange feeling I get? - after watching a film filled with splendor - I felt completely the opposite of that. On some kind of subliminal level this film brought those feelings close to the surface, but in an opposite way. The lives of those in Cracktown are so sad and desperate and the scenes so dirty and ugly, my own very sad life began to seem livable.
So, while you don't want to live in Cracktown, it's not so bad living a few blocks away.
Star Trek: The Way to Eden (1969)
Last time I watched it was one of my favorites.
Another reviewer commented, Star Trek was all about Kirk. He would outsmart the counter-culture figures on the show, presented in the guise of aliens or rogue factions of the Federation, correct the error of their ways, and then somewhere before or after, bed their women. It's a role Shatner would resurrect perhaps on 'TJ Hooker' playing a conservative cop. I'm not so convinced Star Trek was such a reactionary show, but since I'm a reactionary, I enjoyed seeing that in print. I've always loved the show.
Not sure where 'the Way to Eden' fits into this revisionist history. I don't think the episode was intended to make fun of hippies. Maybe to exploit them for ratings, or to dispel this, 'myth'. Interesting, to this day William Shatner has a questionable reputation of sorts. Is this the 'reason'? Am I supposed to suspect William Shatner is some kind of conservative in 'real life'? Am I supposed to believe it's personal? As in 'the personal is political'? Is that what I'm supposed to think? I'm actually too close to Star Trek, too much of a fan to be able to tell.
Whatever the reason for the episode, the shows producers do try and treat the hippies on the show with dignity, and make the episode as timeless as possible. You could cynically argue that the hippies on The Way to Eden are so far out there - there's little danger in treating them with a bit of dignity.
Spocks character did change a bit when you think about it. He went from the stoic and reliable friend you're glad you have on your side, who was sometimes unlikeable (playing up how different Spock was with his lack of empathy and emotions could make him unlikeable) - he would seem to change, though, in discussing Earth's history. Here he would perhaps become the shows 'conscience'. Not sure what order the episodes are in really. In the Way to Eden he's the crewman who can relate best to the anarchists.
I've seen this episode two or three times over about as many decades. It was always one of my least favorite episodes. Last time I watched, though, The Way to Eden was one of my favorites. Just doesn't have the power to embarrass me anymore perhaps. It's too late for that! The music is good, and it's priceless seeing Spock and the guest stars playing in a jam session. It takes place in an entertainment lounge kind of a precursor to the holodeck of Next Generation. At the end of the episode Spock tells them, "I hope you find Eden, or make it yourselves".
A couple of reviewers on Amazon noted the movie Star Trek V is an adaption of this episode. I would never have noticed (never would have noticed that earlier thing about Kirk either). It's hard to say what the connection is. Did they set out to remake 'The Way to Eden' with Star Trek V? Or is the connection just a passing one? Most likely there's a connection. You could easily hate one and love the other, which were my feelings for a long time. Star Trek V is one of my favorites. In fact, I'm going to say it's my favorite Star Trek movie.
In Star Trek V, it's Kirk and Spock who manage to escape the mind control of the Vulcan Sybok. He's a renegade mystic who takes over the ship by a kind of Vulcan suggestion, or, hippification. He convinces the crew to fly the ship through the great-barrier. He's trying to reach 'Shakari', or as Sybok says, "Shakari... the source... Heaven... Eden... call it what you will. The Klingons call it "Kuitu". For Romulans it's "Vortavor". The Andorian word is... is unpronounceable." In 'the Way to Eden' it's Kirk and Scotty and not Kirk and Spock who never really 'reach' the hippies in the episode.
I can't pretend to know what the politics really are behind Star Trek. I do know Gene Roddenberrry (along with Issac Asimov) were 'heathen' humanists. Before their time, slightly. There was a time around 1980 or so, where, ironically, if you weren't a humanist, it was considered evil. Humanism's not a term that's used much anymore (pretty much our society is a Marxist one nowadays, at least in outlook, in my opinion anyway). I know an episode of the Next Generation 'The Neutral Zone' even had captain Picard explaining to a 20th Century Earther, who had been errantly beamed aboard the Enterprise, we don't use money any more, "We have eliminated want" he says. And there are certainly at least an equal number of 'liberal' episodes as 'conservative' ones, even on the original Star Trek, which I'm going to comment about on more, later. Interesting that the final episode of Star Trek, Turnabout Intruder, is about 'sexism'. I suppose when you're writing a science fiction show about the future seen all across the globe, it's easy to get a little starry-eyed. Happens to the best of us Gene! You're only human!
I'm certainly not the first one to politicize Star Trek. . . And to be honest, I can't really say what The Original Series stands for, because I don't know. I don't know what the politics are for sure... left, right? Who knows... but the usual assumptions about it do show one thing. And what I'm about to say, I really should take further. I should add more to it, and in couple of different directions... what the assumptions show, is that the display of human decency is automatically assumed to be an attribute of the left.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
The media haven't been very kind to us, but they've always given us Sci Fi
You can watch these kind of 'allegorical' movies without thinking about the political undertones. It's usually more enjoyable if you don't. I certainly didn't when I watched this one and the 1978 remake with Leonard Nimoy and Donald Southerland. Was it really 30 years ago? Hard to believe. The remake was good but not as good as the original. It doesn't really have any connection to McCarthy either, that I can tell, but thinking about it, I definitely remember an overplayed focus on the 'transformed' people having no emotions. No love or hate. Only their minds have changed.
Thinking about the political aspect of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, however, for me, makes re-watching it even more frightening. Even the worst of us love a good scare from time to time. There have been a few movies done this way, and a lot more that you can argue were done this way, having allusions to events in the real world separate from the movie. Here I guess the idea is that, in a plot spreading out from 'Santa Mira' California, citizens are being transformed into shallow, 'emotionless', unfeeling, copies of their former-selves. They are being taken over. Forgetting about or even disdaining their former cares.
It's a very frightening paranoiac movie building up to total hysteria. One of those movies where, the audience and the main character know about some danger to the town, or to all humanity, but they have trouble convincing the townsfolk. Sometime the local sheriff listens. Sometimes he doesn't. Of course in the real life events this movie refers to no one listened to Joseph McCarthy - oops Kevin McCarthy.
There have been endless movies done in this paranoiac manner since, especially Sci Fi movies. This one is done pretty well. Was going to rate the movie as 9 out of 10 but I see I've already rated it as a 10. No need to change it now. By todays standards it probably only deserves an 8 or 9, but that's still very high.
I'm not sure what to make of the reviews that do discuss this movies hidden politics. Most of them reduce the truth by saying, "Does this movie stand for cold war paranoia and the evils of McCarthism, Or does it stand for McCarthy trying to warn us of danger?" In a sense providing a movie review version of moral relativism. Other reviews (not all of them intentionally) revise, or invert the truth, in the same way as would, say, the Body Snatcher, "This movie highlights the danger of McCarthyism" or something is the idea.
Must The Body Snatchers control every final thought? Is there no where safe? Can there be no happy ending?
They, the media, haven't been very kind to us, but they've always given us Sci Fi. Must even that be taken away?
Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)
A terrible reminder of the dangers of undirected feelings. Of having feelings.
Racism wasn't defeated in World War II. Fascism was not finally defeated with McCarthy. This is when they began. The president of Oberlin college once remarked, "I was a student during the McCarthy era, to tell you the truth there is less freedom now than there was then". Journalist Bernard Goldberg once said on TV, "(back then) all you had to do was not be a communist". More people are being fired today in a week, for endless reasons, than ever lost their job during the McCarthy era. But no one lionizes or aggrandizes them, they're not communists. These folks are getting what they deserve.
A more sensible reviewer might try and compare those who use the phrase 'McCarthyism', modern sensitive folks, to McCarthy himself - years ago my local paper wrote, "Hitler, McCarthy, Political Correctness: the totalitarian parade marches on", but McCarthy is actually a hero of mine. Perhaps I'm a masochist of sorts and enjoy a bit of pain. Perhaps my love for McCarthy serves as a warning, a reminder of the terrible danger of undirected feelings. Feelings lead to thoughts. Thoughts lead to ideas. Don't be too concerned, however. We live in a simpler time where a single word provides the incentive or 'correction' needed.
For me, though, Joseph McCarthy was the greatest American of the 20th Century. Is there someone, anyone, willing to stand up and say the truth! Is there someone not afraid to say the truth! I just can't bring myself to believe McCarthy is just another actor. Not McCarthy! Silly idea, I know. And what IS going on? Is it a crime to know? It's just a romantic notion, I really don't know all that much about the man, and I don't take it too seriously. 'Goodnight and Good Luck' didn't reveal much about McCarthy I hadn't heard before. True or not (and probably, not), this movie agrees with my silly notion. It presents the idea that something big was happening. This was a turning point in our history. McCarthy was not simply a final speed bump to be run over on the road to the Jerry Springer Show. No.
Some reviewers said there wasn't any tension or emotion (at least not the kind they expected). One objected to it's, "minimalist and neutral stance". One reviewer said, and I suspect he was being facetious in part, "(Murrow) stands as a symbol for the continuation of truth (someone) who is willing to bring it out to the public. The end has a very honest bleak tone to it--we want to see Murrow continue to let the public know what's actually going on in the country, but one man's fight isn't good enough. Clooney chooses a perfect and powerful ending. He makes a bold statement on how public interest in television has contributed to the decay of society, whether it is 1950 or 2005."
Goodnight and Good Luck isn't truly neutral. It has a message or two. Due to the low-key nature of the film, we'll call them 'suggestions'.
What this movie suggests (most of it probably not true).
1. This was a watershed moment in history.
2. Edward R Murrow, Don Hollenbeck, and also another CBS employee, working closer to Murrow, did attend some kind of 'subversive' meeting. The newsmen were motivated to go after McCarthy at least in part by self interest (providing a set up for us to agree with McCarthy).
3. The black lady singing Jazz or whatever during the interludes didn't seem very happy with the proceedings.
4. The outcome of this watershed event was determined by public opinion. Once public opinion turned against McCarthy, it was his undoing. The government and media bend to public opinion, they don't create it in the first place (coming from a film that subtly manipulates our opinions, this one is a bit rich?). I suppose the underlying message being next time we should support 'McCarthy'.
5. Don Hollenbeck's suicide, in a movie that was surprisingly 'balanced', is the event that must force the humane viewer to ultimately side against McCarthy.
6. Should the media themselves be monitored/regulated?
The last point I'll admit is a stretch - It may have been the scene with Murrow arguing with the president of CBS news. His boss says something like (while Murrow is arguing to protect an accused American soldier), "And who will protect McCarthy from you (your accusations)"? He ultimately comes down on the side of 'journalist freedom', allowing Murrow to do the story the way he wants. It may have been the scene (that made me think a bit outside the movie) near the end where Robert Downy JR, no relation to Morton Downy (who was taken off television for being too communistic, oops I mean too 'insensitive'), where he lies in bed looking up at the ceiling, saying, "I wonder if we did the right thing"?
'Goodnight and Good Luck' brings up the idea, should the content of television be overseen? Does freedom always lead to exploitation? Should 'whatever sells best' be the final arbiter? Perhaps I'm being alarmist, and am just engaging in more 'McCarthyism', and we already have a system in place that works just fine - well educated, conscientious employees themselves. And that in the battle between censorship and freedom, the debate between protecting citizens on the one hand and allowing them freedom on the other, there can be no contest. As a society, clearly we've come down on the side of forethought. Examining all the pertinent facts, we've decided that protecting ourselves from white men is more important than freedom.
Murrow may be right, we may not be descended from fearful men. But we have certainly descended into fearful ones. Fear has become a given, we expect fear. In fact it's considered enlightenment to make people afraid. Then we condemn and disparage them for it.
Enterprise: Breaking the Ice (2001)
I would like some dessert, please.
In the episode 'Breaking the Ice', Enterprise explores a comet. Two crewmen get trapped on the comet and have to be rescued by a Vulcan ship. That's all that happens. And yet this is such a well-filmed episode, the hour -er 38 minutes passes by very quickly. The story is told with symbolism, especially at the very beginning, and then again at the end. The camera itself tells the story.
While Enterprise is exploring the comet, a Vulcan ship approaches. Captain Archer puts the Vulcans on-screen and asks what they're doing. Captain Jonathan Archer resents Vulcans, these advanced first aliens we meet, thinking humanity is being held back by them. Their visit can't be a coincidence. . . The Vulcan captain replies saying they're not much interested in the comet. "We're more interested in watching you", he says. He boldly admits they are spying on Enterprise. He repeats this again. Archer is calmer about it than you'd expect he'd.
The two crewmen on the comet, Ensign Mayweather and Lt. Reed, run into a dangerous situation on the comet and need to be rescued. Commander Tucker and Sub-Commander T'Pol, suggest they ask the Vulcan ship for help. Archer insists Enterprise doesn't need help. But T'Pol speaks up, "Vulcan's see humans as arrogant and prideful, asking for help would be a sign of maturity". Here, I thought to myself, 'OK, Archer is going to correct himself and see the error of his ways'. Instead, T'Pol continues. She does what probably so many of us have wanted to do at one time or another, with a boss or co-worker, or, if we could somehow be on the bridge, she more or less takes control of Enterprise. She continues to explain why it would be best to ask the Vulcan ship for help as the crew obey her commands. Captain Archer remains silent and the crewmen are rescued. It turns out they probably would have died if Enterprise had tried the rescue without help.
When the Vulcan captain says good-bye to Enterprise, you can see the same Vulcan captain, with the same expressions, in a whole new light.
In 'Breaking the Ice', besides crew members coming to danger, the Vulcan science officer aboard Enterprise, T'Pol, has a personal problem. T'Pol's 'boyfriend' makes it known, thru contact with the other ship, that he'd like her to return to Vulcan. She's not sure what to do. 'Trip' (Commander Tucker) tells her not to follow logic. Do what you want to do.
In the ships galley, Trip encourages T'Pol to have a taste of pie from earth. She declines, as far as we can see. She does decide to stay on Enterprise. In the last scene, you can see a crewman in the dark standing before a desk in their quarters. It could be T'Pol, but it's hard to make out for sure. On the desk in front of them, you can clearly see a saucer of pie. Then the screen fades.
T'Pol of course ends up having an affair with Trip, and not, thank goodness, with the highest ranking guy around, Captain Archer. Archer and T'Pol had been put together quite often beforehand and it looked like it would be Archer if some kind of an affair was going to take place.
By the end of the series T'Pol isn't really acting much like a Vulcan. Instead of being emotionless, she usually has a basket full of emotions hidden barely beneath the surface. In one of the unintentionally funny lines of the series, when T'Pol is back on Vulcan visiting her mother her mom says, "Your emotions always were close to the surface". No kidding! Speaking of good lines in a bad place. . . In 'The Augments', three episodes after the Xindi-threat ended, after 30 episodes, and Earth coming one hair-width from being completely destroyed (in a couple of time-lines it was destroyed), after all that, Daniels, the crewman who visits Archer from the future, tells him, "If the Klingons retaliate against Earth, that'll make the Xindi incident look like a lover's quarrel". Even my roomie, whose not a Star Trek fan, rolled their eyes at that one.
I could be wrong but these 'emotions' T'Pol shows may have begun in season three with the episode 'Impulse'. The one where Enterprise finds a Vulcan ship whose crew have been overcome by Trellium D poisoning. T'Pol is also affected. She acts confused. It's hard to say exactly what emotions she's going thru in the episode but they are there close to the surface. They may have liked this effect and decided to continue using it some later in the series. It's hard to say exactly what she's feeling. They may have even put her in some kind of cold storage unit on the set or something, before some of the scenes. Some technique, to get this effect. You never see her shiver though. She trembles. Probably the actress who plays T'Pol is extremely accomplished.
Something about her did fit perfectly into the Star Trek franchise. She certainly made a fine first officer for the first mission of Enterprise.
Star Trek (2009)
I'm givin' her all shes got Captain. .
Two-thirds of the way through the movie 'Scotty' says something, and I realize, that's a part of his personality - and that even as a die hard Trek fan - I never noticed that about him before!
Looking at the movie 'quotes' I see there is a lot of dialog in Star Trek. The plot seems a poor rehash of Wrath of Khan. It doesn't make a lot of sense and with Star Trek the plot is usually carved in stone as a giant monolith. While the story doesn't make sense the crews actions and emotions do. In the best movie, Star Trek IV, the plot makes sense but it isn't taken too seriously. For what it's worth, I've alway been partial to Star Trek V too, a movie that for me went where no movie's gone before.
I've loved Star Trek since watching reruns growing up. A baby sitter must have sat me down in front of the original episodes when I was 3 or 4 corrupting me. The people who made this movie seem to love Star Trek too. Star Trek isn't perfect. . . but parts of it certainly were. Perfection. I'd like to see this crew return, not just for another movie but to a weekly TV show. The 'alternative-timeline' I think, makes it possible. Who wants to watch an adventure where you know what's going to happen in advance?
I was never quite comfortable with the humor. I enjoyed it, as well as the banter, but didn't laugh out loud? The closest being when Chekov couldn't pronounce 'Vessels' or something. One reviewer wrote (rightly pointing out the lack of fan-fare at Vulcan's destruction) "Exciting, inviting and a little bit frightening (the new Chekov's accent is as unsettling as any planetary destruction)." There was room for this movie to be embarrassing. I was certainly cringing right away. The longest cringe I've ever held in my life was when Kirk was being born. Kirk is being born while his father is going down with the ship - defending a Starship from attack. Was it some kind of extended baby-making commercial? A cheap attempt to pull on our heart strings, to inject some 'heart' into the movie? I might have been better with it if there were more humor here, say, in the manner in which race car driver 'Ricky Bobbys' birth is given levity. Then, 10 or 20 minutes into the movie a giant 'Star Trek' logo fills the screen. How long can one human being be stuck mid-cringe? I did enjoy Star Trek immensely, but it may be due to oxygen deprivation from having my face stuck in one position for 30 minutes.
I never knew Kirk was a genius. I remember an episode (that the original motion picture, and Star Trek IV, were loosely based off) where Kirk outsmarts a computer. Spock comments, "A dazzling display of logic." Kirk says, "You didn't think I had it in me, did you Spock?" Spock replies, "No". Here Kirk outsmarts Spock in one scene. No easy task. Star Trek does a good job making Kirk more human and at the same time building him up to almost God-like legendary status. Kudos to the movie makers.
One reviewer wrote, "Star Trek was the last refuge of an old-fashioned style of acting, more commonly seen in old black-and-white Hollywood movies. It was fake, but it was classy." The new movie seems more realistic. Another review said (and he did intend it as sarcasm), "It moves at a breakneck speed. Sometimes you aren't even sure what's happening on-screen but you are sure that you like it." There's meaning here but it comes in snippets of information. For example, early in the movie the villain says something but it doesn't really make sense until late in the movie. It is fast and furious in most parts. The action scenes do blend in well with the rest of the movie. Related or not, it's said IQ scores in industrial (TV watching) nations are rising.
It's one thing to like all the violence and fighting, action and special effects... I certainly did... it's another thing to say it's right. Star Trek reminded me of 'Cloverfield' in that sense. When I watched Cloverfield (also by JJ Abrams) I was thinking 'I love this movie' but maybe I shouldn't be? I give Cloverfield 10 out of 10. The visuals in the movie did make me sick. What's next? a movie has to make us laugh, cry, throw up for two days before it's good? It was only with thinking about Cloverfield, after the movie, that I realized what it was about: the bravery of the characters in the movie. Each braver than I would be, but believable.
I suspect there's something slightly 'American' about Star Trek. Star Trek is global so I suspect this is 'forgiven' (probably not the right word to use). It's also about the whole field of Science Fiction (some would say it's mostly about friendship). It is still 'idea' fiction, even if only in part. There's a story about how writers Isaac Asimov and John Campbell were invited to the moon launch. They shared a moment because they both knew science fiction played a small part in paving the way for the space program.
I know each generation forgets about the past, surpasses the previous generation... I know they are going to forget all about us... In 200 years they'll be saying in winter we put a tree in our houses and stood around and worshiped it. I don't mind being forgotten about. That would be a good thing. My opinion of the 20th Century and now the 21st is about what Bones McCoy's opinion of it would be. I know it is pride... and conceit... but it would be nice if there were a 'Star Trek' in that future.
Enterprise: Fortunate Son (2001)
serial mad-men, would be suicide bombers, and the various other malcontents with a mission. . .
Enterprise comes across the Fortunate, a freighter whose captain's been injured by Nausicaan pirates. Dr Phlox works on him in sick bay while their First Officer, Mathew Ryan, assumes command of the Fortunate. Much of the story is told from the perspective of the freighter.
We follow Ryan and his loyal, working class, cargo crew as they maneuver to hunt down the Nausicaans, making the shipping lanes safe for cargo crews.
With Ryan taking command, it's like, just an average guy, gets to undertake an important space mission. Fortunate's command chair looks really cool. Fortunate looks good. It's fitted with phase cannons, dumps it's empty cargo pod, and zooms off in search of Nausicaans. This episode was a lot of fun for me. I found myself talking back to the screen. It was a bit like 'Mystery Science Theater 3000' here at the house (a show where characters talk back to the television). It was a lot of fun. I suspect the actor playing Mathew Ryan read for the part of Captain Archer. For some reason I found myself waiting to see what the moral message would be. The crew have a Nausicaan prisoner on board, and actually torture him, certainly not a good thing, but I was waiting to see if their decision to go after the Nausicaans is right or not.
Nausicaans featured in a Next Generation episode. In an episode of season six, 'Tapestry', the all powerful alien being 'Q' lets Picard change his past. One regret Picard's had is that years ago as a young crewman he got into a brawl with a Nausicaan. He was nearly killed when the Nausicaan stabs him. Q lets Picard change things. This time Picard keeps a cooler head. As he continues on the ship he's assigned to, Picard is never considered for promotion. He realizes, if this fight hadn't effected him, he never would have risen in the ranks of Star Fleet. In a moment of defeat, and surprising candor, Picard says to Q, 'take me back'.
Nausicaans are a wild bunch and here they make their way as pirates. When the Fortunate meets up with them a space battle ensues. It turns out, First Officer Ryan doesn't have the Nausicaan's shield frequencies after all - the ace he's been counting on. Our freighter is on the losing end of a battle with two or three Nausicaan ships. The message seems to be, they simply didn't bring enough firepower.
Enterprise tracks down the pirates, too, and just in time, making it two ships versus three. At this point it's a standoff. Enterprise has an advantage but doesn't seem to want to press it's luck. Archer is trying to remain neutral perhaps. Enterprise can't stay and patrol this area of space. When Enterprise asks Ryan to return the captured Nausicaan and put an end to the fight, Ryan refuses. He won't give up.
At this point Enterprises' navigator, Travis Mayweather, himself a former cargo crewman, speaks to Ryan, to talk him down from this desperate act. But is he really talking to just Ryan, or perhaps also to other would-be captains out there? Other men on a mission. Other desperadoes. The serial mad-men, would be suicide bombers, and the various other malcontents of the world? Why is Ryan doing this. . .? "This isn't about those other cargo ships", Mayweather says. "It's not about them at all". "It's about, you".
It's about revenge, Mayweather implies.
Finally, Ryan gives in. It's over. The parties are parted, the real captain is returned to Fortunate, and Enterprise departs. At the end Archer contacts the real captain. Don't be too tough on Ryan, Archer says, "His heart was in the right place".
To be captain for a day. . .
'Fortunate Son' turns out to be almost a precursor to season three. Intentional or not, this episode is almost a microcosm of the Xindi-threat, where Archer is forced to use torture and space piracy, any and everything, in an effort to try and save Earth from the Xindi weapon.
Those darn Xindi
Enterprise (2001)
To me, it was like Star Trek, for women.
I never suspected Vulcan's were more advanced than we are. What a surprise. What was probably the shows biggest challenge (Making everything seem new, and fit seamlessly into the Star Trek omniverse) turned out to be Enterprise's best accomplishment.
The very first thing I noticed about 'Enterprise' was that the interior of the ship, and all the crews uniforms, are all dark blue and dark gray (OK, the first thing I noticed was that 'Scott Bakula' was going to be the new captain. I'm not a 'Bakula' fan. I think I actually cried. He ended up making an, OK, captain). The bridge and the crew's uniforms are so dark, that, standing on the bridge, to exaggerate some, it's almost as if they are faces without a body. For the longest time I guessed this effect was to highlight the crews expressions. I think, however, that the shows creators were trying to avoid the 'campy' feeling of TOS (the original series).
Myself, I don't find Star Trek, TOS, campy, tho I can see why people do. What people find campy about it, so I thought, was all the fist-fighting and Karate chopping. It could also be the way romance is portrayed. Perhaps it is the sets and the bright costumes though. There is actually more fighting on 'Enterprise' than there is on TOS. Admittedly, on Enterprise, more of the fighting is done with Phasors, tho, there's still plenty of, if not more, fist-fighting.
Deep Space Nine and 'Next Generation' have the least violence I think. To me, Next Generation was like Star Trek for women. Not just because there's considerably less violence. . . Perhaps the idea was, men would tune in no matter what. Next Generation has a lot going on, there are twice as many main characters as there are on Enterprise or on TOS. In Next Generation, it looked like the character of Spock had been split off into three separate characters (Data, Worf and Troi). Data is obvious. The connection between Worf and Spock, is that they both have alien rituals the crew get to explore/find out about, and they are both very strong. Troi, represents Spock's mind-meld and similar powers, he-he.
I brought this idea up to a Star Trek fan once, that they simply took Spock and spun him off into three characters. . . This fan, really, enlightened me. He mentioned, it's been said Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, represent three aspects of one human being. The human ID, Ego, and conscience, respectively.
After watching Star Trek since, I believe this is true. Like in those old TV shows... where the figure of a devil will stand behind one side of a character, saying 'do it!' and an angel behind the other, 'you'll regret it!', McCoy will stand right behinds Spock ear... "all those colonist will have to die, that's the logical thing, isn't it Spock?". Spock is pretty easy to figure out too. Don't be confused by Kirk actually being in charge of the ship! (googling this there's some confusion as to who represents what lol).
It's interesting that Kirk has been the kindest of the captains so far. Of the five captains, in my opinion, he's been the nicest guy. I am biased. The original is my favorite. They do say your first will always be your favorite.
Something I noticed about Next Generation, is that each episode seems to have two themes going on. The first, the American way of life -er the Federation way of life, is in danger somehow, and the crew have to maneuver in order to save it. The second theme going on, is that someone, often a crew member, has some kind of personal problem they need to work out, and, as the episode progresses, not only is the Federation as we know it, saved, but the personal problem is resolved too. And both problems will be shown as having equal relevance! 'Enterprise' continues this trend albeit with considerably more emphasis on adventure.
There are things to complain about on Enterprise. The women on the show are too passive. Leaving perhaps Tasha Yar, Dax, Kira, B'Elanna and Captain Janeway to be among the few strong female characters over the years. T'Pol rarely uses her Vulcan fighting skills and is often even a damsel in distress. And could Hoshi Sato appear more vulnerable? One could speculate that Sub-Commander T'Pol and Ensign Sato, and the rest of the crew, are nice people from a nicer future. A better future. One, where, Earthlings at least, are encouraged to express all their feelings. Sometimes it worked well. Sometimes the damsel in distress theme got annoying.
I had some problems with season three, the one that focused on the Xindi threat, I think mainly because of some of the alien costumes. With the Xindi, however, Enterprise was really able to accomplish something. The Xindi threat is simply the most memorable Star Trek encounter. For me anyway. The Borg may be more famous, everyone may know the Vulcan friendship sign, and the phrase 'beam me up' may never die, but the Xindi? they left the strongest impression in my mind. Perhaps 30 episodes on one theme can do that.
Season four, tho, was an absolute joy. What began, and delivered, with such promise, ended in what may have been one of the best seasons of Star Trek ever. Every loose end from the past was explored, and explained. It never seemed forced. It all made sense! And was fun. I've wondered, if the writers knew the 4th season was the last, and so they just took the show where ever they wanted. They do rely a lot on during the final season.
Enterprise: successful as their mission.
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
One gay, anti-gay movie
Heath Ledger, as Ennis, is really on fire in this movie. Reviving the role of the romantic leading man. He, truly, becomes a sex symbol in Brokeback Mountain, and in his own way, with his warm relationship with his daughter, a symbol of how to become a good father. If anything 'Brokeback' is the promotion of hetero sexuality. Ledger is like a very cute, very hard working, very sexy Clint Eastwood.
Ledger is really amazing and Brokeback is a beautifully filmed movie. It is also patently anti-gay. From the first words spoken in the film. . . "You pair of deuces lookin' for work, I suggest you get your scrawny asses in here pronto", to the final credits.
The first scene, I think, where I kind of noticed there was an anti-gay theme going on in the background (I was mostly just watching and enjoying the film), was when Ennis and Jack are embracing, and then the film quickly, purposefully, cuts back to showing their wives and children back at home.
Late in the film, Ennis says, lost in thought, ". . . Up on Brokeback mountain", and I realized, he's not referring to the mountain. . . he's referring to their relationship. As he said the words, and I realized what he was really talking about, I kind of felt bad for them, shame for them, perhaps I was, amused, by them. . .
When we see Jack with his new boyfriend. . . there's really no indication the two are together, yet, I just knew what the deal was. While I may have found this realization to be amusing, too, one reviewer observed, there was some actual laughter among the young audience (particularly at the fooled wives). No one was laughing at the end.
During Thanksgiving, Jack, his wife and their kids, and Jack's mother and father in-law, are all at the kitchen table. Jacks father in-law's standing up and carving the Turkey. Jack turns off the ball-game playing on TV in the next room. His father in-law makes a comment then turns the game back on. Jack gets up and turns it off again. When his father in law goes to turn the game back on, Jack yells something like, "Sit down you old Jerk!", and he finds himself, without realizing it, standing over the Turkey beginning the chore. Jack has become the man of the house. This is the point in the movie the audience is expected to cheer.
When Jack died. . . Was he really killed by accident, by the rim of a car tire, or was he beaten to death, like the vision that appeared throughout the movie, for being gay? I believe he did die in the accident, and the accident sounded unpleasant, not something that I would want to see happen to anyone. But I agree with other reviewers who say what really happened is left open to interpretation. In fact, near the end, for just a moment, I couldn't believe what I was watching. . . Is the film encouraging us to violence here? It was definitely open to interpretation. For just a moment, I couldn't believe my eyes. . .
If this, is, what the film is suggesting we think about. . . it makes me wonder. . . what kind of other crazy things might people be walking around thinking every day? What else might people be thinking, but not saying?
Frantz Fanon observes, "There comes a time when silence becomes dishonesty."
To tell the truth, I didn't know what I was watching there near the end, I knew a good movie. It wasn't until the giant letters, 'Directed by Ang Lee' cut into the film, that I did know. When the large, words, Directed by Ang Lee, formed, I knew I just watched the best anti-gay movie ever made.
This is how I wanted to end the 'review'. It's a good ending, I think. And that's exactly what 'Brokeback' is, very skillful anti-gay propaganda. Or perhaps the promotion of 'traditional values'. Brokeback, could have easily been just another film using reverse psychology. A silly, misogynistic film, an obvious parody of scenes we've all seen before. Having Jack and Ennis overcoming prejudice and the evil townsfolk in the film, or, showing Jack and Ennis as constantly the victims of society, but, if the film was a parody, I don't think the audience would have enjoyed it near as much. If anything the film, very nearly, does the opposite.
In ultimately giving dignity to Jack and Ennis, Brokeback Mountain is a celebration of humanity. In giving dignity to Jack and Ennis, it opens the door to all of us being treated with dignify. Brokeback Mountain does it's best to celebrate the worth we each have in all of us. The worth that's shared by all of us. In celebrating our dignity, it's the best pro-gay/anti-gay movie I've ever seen. Or should I say - the best "anti-gay, pro gays", movie, ever.
Well, 'The Band Played On' was pretty good too.
The Return of the Living Dead (1985)
the governments solution is to drop a nuclear bomb. This is only going to make things worse. . .
This is a very funny spoof of zombie movies including the granddaddy of them all George Romero's 1968 'Night of the Living Dead'. This comedy turned out to be the best zombie movie I think. More effective than even Romero's 1978 sequel 'Dawn of the Dead'.
They capture one of the zombies and question it. Asking, what it wants? "Brains" Why brains? "Because brains ease the pain of being dead". Of course the zombies chasing them now, are their friends from earlier in the movie. . . One of them pleading to his former girlfriend, "If you love me. . . You'll let me eat your brains. . ."
Return of the Living Dead III, was made into - a love story. Honestly, I don't ordinarily like horror or zombie movies but Return of the Living Dead III is one of my favorite love stories! Melinda Clarke is just so hot in the movie.
Return of the Living Dead tho is my favorite zombie movie. It's so funny! and tragic, at the same time. It the most plausible of the zombies movies - the zombies being caused by 'Trioxine', escaping from the defense department. At the end, the governments solution is to drop a nuclear bomb on the infected city. And of course, the audience is cued in to the fact; this is only going to make things worse. . .
Malcolm X (1992)
Was he just a tool used to pacify the underclass - when they wouldn't trust the media, the government, academia. . . ?
This seems a well-crafted movie by Spike Lee. At the beginning of the movie, before Malcolm becomes politically aware, we see Malcolm and his friends, seemingly happy, emulating the larger societies dress and mannerisms. Is this a statement about the times? Personally, I noticed a parallel between these fawning citizens of the past, and contemporary, going along, happy whites of today -er of 1992.
Was this Lees point?
Malcolm himself becomes politically aware, and thinks back about his relationships with whites. Realizing, at best, he's simply been used by them. He decides to join the black Muslims. The movie follows him on his rise to prominence, "That's too much power for one man to have".
I remember when this movie came out. Everyone was wearing Malcolm X T-shirts and Malcolm X hats. I'd never seen anything like it before. Malcolm X's influence and legacy loom larger than ever. Certainly large in 1992.
What is Malcolm X's legacy tho?
Was he just a tool used to pacify the underclass - when they wouldn't trust the media, the government, academia, their women, or whites?
Is his legacy the opposite? One of keeping resistance alive? Certainly people of all kinds seem angrier now than ever. Do the powers-that-be simply think we work harder when we're angry? Or is this resistance needed now more than ever?
Is Malcolm X's religious vision the most true worship of God, and is this his legacy?
Did Malcolm X create his own legacy. . . ?
In the movie, Lee focuses intensely on the scene where Malcolm and his friend (Shorty?), and their girlfriends, play a game of Russian Roulette that Malcolm forces on them. Malcolm is a bad-character at this time, but he becomes aware of the effect this gun and his attitude have on his surrounding friends. . .
Is this his legacy?
The problem is. . .
People don't condone violence forever. . . What happens when people turn their backs on violence? Unimpressed. What happens, when everyone turns their back on violence?
When you no longer have faith in your great 'accomplishments'. Then what are you left with?
Where do you go then?
Blast from the Past (1999)
Like in many movies, the children here have a lesson for the adults.
I'm not surprised there are negative reviews of this movie that don't discuss this movies politics. I am surprised there are 199 reviews of this movie (200 now), and not a single review discusses politics.
Director Hugh Wilson (Police Academy) seems to be to making a political or social point here. The romance/comedy between Adam (Brandan Frasier) and Eve (Alicia Silverston) seems an incidental add-on. So much care and attention to detail went into creating the look and feel of 1960 America, the whole point of the movie must be to contrast that time with today. I don't buy the Webber family going down into their elaborate back yard shelter in 1960 and then returned to the surface in 1999, as simply a vehicle for this romance comedy.
The Webbers are a nice family if not perfect. Mr Webber dresses and acts a lot like Michael Douglas in the movie 'Falling Down'. During a period of tension during the cold war, while the Webber family is in their bomb shelter - a plane crashes in the families yard - they assume nuclear war. They educate and train their only child Adam underground as best they can inside the bomb shelter. Time passes. Mr Webber sends his son Adam, 35 now, above ground for the first time to get supplies for the family. Telling him, "be careful for mutants, son". When Adam gets up top, he mistakes half the people he meets for mutants (transsexuals, punk rockers, etc).
Adam does meet Eve, falling in love with her. First, prudently asking if she's a mutant or not. The characters in the film are all likable - the Webber family, and Eve, playing a redemptive role here, and Eves' friend Troy - as is the movie itself likable.
As is the case in many movies, the child here, Adam (who's only ever meet 2 people in his entire life, his mom and dad), has a lesson for the adults. Adam saying, "Manners, are just a way for us to show other people we care about them". Later adding, "A 'gentleman' is, someone who always tries to make sure people around him or her are as comfortable as possible." Eve asks about Adam, "Where do you think he got all that information?" Eves' friend replies, "From the oddest place - his parents."
By Dawn's Early Light (1990)
The unthinkable has happened. They look back thru their bomb scope, and the base is gone.
A B-52 bomber crew is scrambled into action. After the plane takes off there is a nuclear strike on their base. The unthinkable has happened. They look back thru their bomb scope, and the base is gone. One of the crewman can't believe it. He thinks the base is still there. His wife and children are - were - down there. He can't believe it and they can't convince him the base is gone. He refuses to take his position on the plane. He's consumed with grief. Inconsolable he ejects himself out the bomber without a parachute.
Meanwhile the presidents helicopter has crashed and he's been injured. It's only been a limited nuclear war so far and he's determined to stop the war from escalating, the only problem is, he's no longer in control of the military.
The bomber continues on it's way to Russia, minus one crewman. The flight is almost exactly like the flight of the bomber in the movie 'Dr Strangelove' - "It's just one bomber Demitri", "I don't know why it's so hard to find it", "they're trained for that Demitri". Except in this flight, the female pilot convinces the crew to turn around and not drop their bombs on Russia. It turns out their inaction keeps the war from escalating and the president is able to regain control of the military.
A Spinal Tap Reunion: The 25th Anniversary London Sell-Out (1992)
They turn the tables on film maker Marty DiBergi, showing up at his 'office' and putting him on film.
The original movie 'This is Spinal Tap', filmed by amateur movie maker Marty DiBergi (Rob Reiner), is a very funny spoof of a heavy metal band. The actors playing 'Spinal Tap' made up songs for use in the documentary -er 'Rockumentary' -er mockumentary. We see the band at the coliseum - unable to find their way to the stage, or saying, "hello Detroit" when they're in Cleveland, or on stage in the midst of various technical or prop-difficulties. It's very funny. Listed as one of the top cult films of all time I think. I give the original 9 stars.
In the original movie, at times the jokes go too far. When the guitarist repeatedly insists his amp is goes louder, because, "it goes to 11", it's obvious the guitarist couldn't really be that dumb and so it's obvious the he's just an actor repeating a line. When a joke becomes too mean, perhaps, it's not funny anymore, except for nervous/fear laughter. Still, today, radio stations across the dial advertise, "crank it up to 11. . ."
To a certain extent, in hind-site, I think the joke is on the fearful who do laugh 'at' Spinal Tap rather than laughing with them. Their big song in the original mockumentary is 'Big Bottoms' - "Big Bottoms, big bottoms, talk about bum-cakes my girls got'em". And there's the scene where their record label won't print the cover photo for their album 'Smell the Glove' because it's too 'sexist'. I know, to this day, if someone says something to me, like, "Talk to the hand", I'm liable to respond with, "Smell the Glove".
Spinal Tap's actually helped me appreciate metal bands. For example, I'm not a fan of hard or punk rock, or metal bands that mostly have a hard rock sound, tho I am a big metal fan - each song in these mockumentaries seems to spoof a different band/style of metal music, and Spinal Tap are just so harmless and amusing they've helped me appreciate some of these other styles more.
In '25th Anniversary Sell-Out' they continue the joke from the previous movie, pretending to be a real band. Of course, they now know Marty DiBergi, who filmed 'This is Spinal Tap', made fools out of them in the first movie! as witnessed by this extra footage added on after the end of the first movie,
Nigel Tufnel: I think his real last name is DiBergarmo.
David St. Hubbins: No!
Derek Smalls: No, his real last name is DiBergowitz.
Nigel Tufnel: Yeah! DiBergowitz.
David St. Hubbins: No! He's like one of those...
Derek Smalls: Yeah, he is one of those. Check it out: DiBergowitz!
It's pretty funny. For this movie, '25th anniversary sell-out', Spinal Tap operate the cameras themselves. They turn the tables on film maker Marty DiBergi, showing up at his 'office' and putting him on film. Marty's office seems to be a pay phone inside a pub (he's given the phone number of this public phone out as his office number) and he's waiting by the phone fruitlessly for other offers to come in after his movie 'This is Spinal Tap'.
They don't have 'Martyy DiBergi' for this film, so, of course, this film isn't that good! Duh. It's a bit funny but 'The 25th Anniversary Sell-Out' isn't as amusing, or a good as 'This is Spinal Tap'. I like the music tho, so I go ahead and give it an extra star or two.
Space: 1999: The Last Enemy (1976)
It turns out, these two planets have been at war with one another, but neither side can gain an advantage. That is, until the Moon shows up
'Space 1999' has been compared to Star Trek Voyager. If you can get past the premise of the show, that astronauts on 'Moon Base Alpha' are stranded on the Moon after a nuclear accident causes the Moon to leave the solar system, it's a great show. There's a hot shape-shifting alien (Maya), and each week, as the Moon travels thru the galaxy those on Moon Base Alpha meet various other aliens. They have small fighter-like spacecraft, and, who knows, maybe they did have some kind of super-reactor powering their base.
In this episode, 'The Last Enemy', as the Moon passes by another star system a ship from one of the planets lands near Moon Base Alpha. The alien ship launches some hellacious looking missiles towards the Moon Base, and, a commercial is cued. After commercial - the missiles roar over Moon Base Alpha - towards another planet in the solar system. The aliens on the ship contact Commander Koenig, saying, 'Not to worry, we have nothing against you, this is a private matter between us and the other planet of the solar system'.
Are these two planets at war?
Commander Koenig takes a Moon-buggy out and visits the alien ship. Their commander isn't just female, they're all females. Their whole planet is populated by females. Of course, Koenig (Martin Landau) has a small affair with the commander of the alien ship.
Meanwhile, Moon Base Alpha receives a transmission from the other planet (and they're all men) - a planet filled with men. Their leader saying, 'if you don't put a stop to what's happening yourselves we're going to destroy this enemy ship and you along with it'.
It turns out, these two planets have been at war with one another, but neither side can gain an advantage. That is, until the Moon shows up.
There are some negotiations in 'The Last Enemy', but in the end, Koenig destroys the alien ship, saving Moon Base Alpha once again.
Star Trek: Voyager: Endgame (2001)
In the institution, Tuvok cries, asking for 'Janeway' to come back to him
This final Voyager episode begins 23 years in the future. Voyager has made it back home. In the many years it took to return tho, the Vulcan Tuvoks' mind has been destroyed. He carried a disease they were too late getting home to cure.
Captain Janeway comes across aliens who have time travel technology. She realizes, there's a Warp Conduit in the Delta Quadrant that could bring Voyager home immediately - if she could go back in time and notify Voyager. There's one problem. The Conduit is deep inside Borg Space.
Janeway visits Tuvok. He's like a child. He scribbles tho, obsessed, working on math problems or movie reviews or something, he's convinced are important somehow. In the institution, Tuvok cries, asking for 'Janeway' to please, please come back to him.
Janeway decides to commandeer a federation shuttle and equip it with weapons technology 20 years ahead of the Borg, in the hopes of going back in time and using this new technology to guide Voyager to the Warp Conduit.
When she goes back in time and links up with Voyager, Janeway meets her younger self. The two captains disagree, arguing about the plan. The real-captain visits Tuvok asking him if it's true he has a brain disorder. Tuvok admits it's true, but it can't be cured by the facilities on the ship so he's kept it to himself.
The young Captain agrees to the older Captains' plan. To increase their chances of success the older Janeway plans to distract the Borg with her shuttle craft. The Borg actually capture Janeway and her shuttle. The Borg Queen personally assimilates Captain Janeway. But Janeway's expected this! the Borg Queen has assimilated a virus into herself that kills her. With the Borg Queen dead Voyager makes it thru the Warp Conduit back to federation space.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Far Beyond the Stars (1998)
Is he, 'Captain Sisko' federation officer, dreaming he works for 'Incredible Tales'? Or is he a simple writer dreaming he's dashing 'Captain Sisko'?
Captain Benjamin Sisko falls into a dream. In the dream, he's back on earth. The year is 1953. He's writer Benny Russel, and former crew members on Deep Space 9 are his co-workers at the magazine where he works, 'Incredible Tales'.
Benny and Kira (the female writer for Incredible Tales) are told, not to come in to work the next day, Photo Day. Benny's given an illustration called 'Air Force Space Station 9' (which looks similar to Deep Space Nine) and asked to build a story around the illustration.
Is he, 'Captain Sisko' federation officer and emissary, dreaming he works for 'Incredible Tales'? or is he a simple writer, dreaming he's dashing 'Captain Sisko'?
When the story is complete Benny turns it in to his editor (Odo). Everyone likes the story, but Odo balks at the Negro Captain in the story. "It's not believable", he says. Odo can't decide what to do with the story. Benny's told to come back later, to give Odo some time to think it over.
Odo Calls Benny into his office, saying, he really likes the story about Captain Sisko and Space Station 9, but, can you change it? "Make the story, a dream of the Negro kid". Benny doesn't want the story changed. Odo finally gives in, and decides to publish the story.
Later Benny's called back to the office. Odo tells him, he wanted to publish the story but higher ups turned it down. In fact he's been given orders to fire Benny. Benny has a nervous break-down and collapses, "It's real!". "It's all real".
Star Trek: Spock's Brain (1968)
All the men on the planet are imprisoned by 'pain belts' as a means to keep them under control
An alien, Kara (Marj Dusay), beams aboard the Enterprise, knocks the crew out, and steals Spocks brain! The search is on for Spock, the search for his brain anyway, as McCoy keeps his body alive with electronics.
Locating the aliens planet the crew beam down to investigate. The crew are quickly captured, and imprisoned by 'pain-belts'. All the men on the planet are imprisoned by 'pain-belts'. Women, who rule this society, need these belts to keep men in line. Why didn't they think to bring along Uhuru...
His brain's alive. They find and communicate with Spock - realizing his brain's been taken by these aliens in order that it can run their society. For example, Spock senses he's breathing, but he's only activating environmental controls. These women aren't very technologically advanced themselves. They're only using technology left over from olden times and the crew manage to escape and free Spock. McCoy uses their advanced technology to set things right, and this society is returned to it's 'normal' course.
This episode is known for being 'bad', however, this episode has many great Star Trek themes: showing disembodied consciousness, technology that can vastly speed up learning, and primitives who have access to advanced technology (either technology from their own past or alien technology {in one Trek episode, Errand of Mercy, they come across the 'Organians' who appear to be very primitive, only to find out at the end, they are extremely advanced. Their leader saying, "While it's true, in time, you and the Klingons will become fast-friends...". Spock observes, "I should think the Organians are as far above us on the evolutionary scale, as we are above the Amoeba"}). Of course, the pain-belts, being needed to control the men is unique to this episode...
'Spocks Brain' is known as being the worst Star Trek episode, it's like the kid in class everyone picks on. Like the kid in class everyone picks on, is this one really that much different from the others?
It's no big deal to poke fun at this episode. I suppose it's fun. Even the biggest fans sometimes enjoy making fun of this or that about Star Trek. Is it a good thing to make fun of oneself? Sometimes I wonder whether it is or not...
Perhaps tho, the criticism of this episode reveals more about the critic than it reveals about the episode. Perhaps, in the way bullying takes place in the story 'The Mysterious Stranger' by Mark Twain; kids pick on other kids, because ultimately they are afraid of being picked on themselves.
Lets laugh at ourselves and not be afraid of being made fun of? Or, lets protect ourselves and others, and show real human sympathy towards someone who is being made fun of? We all love to laugh. Why is it no one ever cries?
Star Trek: Dagger of the Mind (1966)
"It's hard to believe someone could die from loneliness"
'It was the... Neu...ral... neut-ralizer!' The Enterprise picks up a deranged lab assistant, Dr Van Gelder, formerly assigned to a prison for the insane. Kirk beams down to this prison planet to make sure every thing's alright. Kirk soon finds himself subject to the Neural Neutralizer, a brainwashing device used by prison director Dr Adams, that, 'empties the mind'. Fearing Kirk is in danger Spock beams down to the planet and disables the power grid. With the power outage Kirk knocks out Dr Adams and escapes. But Adams was knocked out under the Neutralizer. When the power is turned back on, he's killed by his own device. McCoy saying, "It's hard to believe someone could die from loneliness", "Not if you've sat in that chair" Kirk says.
This is a memorable episode. I like it. There are some, I will say, 'continuity' issues with the episode. As far as I know, and I'm just a fan and not a critic, this is the only episode with this problem. Maybe it was just the editing for TV. . . but it seems as if scenes that would have better explained the action were never filmed. Or as if scenes explaining the plot and action were edited out. Perhaps the edit here just had a good 'feel' to it. It is a memorable episode.
Star Trek: The Trouble with Tribbles (1967)
There's light comedy throughout the episode. And there's some kind of trouble with Tribbles...
Another comedy episode, 'A Piece of the Action', is my favorite Star Trek episode, and while 'The Trouble With Tribbles' is not one of my favorite episodes, for a lot of fans it is a favorite. An episode of Deep Space Nine had the crew go back in time and actually participate in this episode. The images of the crew of Deep Space Nine are superimposed on this original footage. 'The Trouble With Tribbles' is mostly a comedy episode. There are Klingons, but the scenes with Klingons aren't just funny, they are especially funny. This is a light-hearted, comedy episode. And there's some kind of trouble with Tribbles...