Change Your Image
mark-879-723660
Reviews
Silent Running (1972)
somehow it ended up a fun movie
Let's acknowledge up front: 1. This movie is one long heavy-handed social/political message. It's all about "save the Earth", "people are destroying the planet", etc, extreme environmentalist propaganda. Namely, in the movie people have destroyed literally all plant life on Earth through pollution and war, the only surviving plants are what is preserved on a space station in orbit. And only two people in the world care. To the extent that they decide to destroy these few remaining plants so they can use the space station for "commercial service", i.e. they're going to destroy the last plants in existence because they're in the way of making a few dollars.
2. The premise is seriously implausible. Does literally no one, anywhere in the world, have some seeds stashed away in a vault somewhere? Why are the last remaining plants kept in space rather than in some sealed location on the ground? If human beings have survived the wars and pollution, they must have some way to build rooms with breathable air, usable water, etc. Why can't they keep plants in such a room? And if we accept that for some reason these are really the last plants in the known universe, would people really callously destroy them? No explanation is given for doing this beyond one sentence that they want to return the station to "commercial service", and apparently only two people in the world think this is a bad idea.
The ending is equally implausible. I'm not going to give it away, but the hero is supposed to be an expert on plants, and yet, it takes him weeks? months? to realize that his plan to save these plants was fatally flawed because he hadn't considered one very basic requirement for all plant life.
So okay, it's an implausible heavy-handed message movie for a cause that I don't particularly support, with a stupid ending. And yet ... I still thought it was a really good movie.
For most of the movie there are just 4 characters: the hero and his three robots. But the robots have more personality than most movie characters. They are just ... cute! When one of the robots must go outside the ship to make repairs, you really worry about his safety. And the interaction between the hero and the robots is wonderful.
So the plot sucks, but the characters are great. It is definitely a movie worth watching.
Other People's Money (1991)
Extremely intelligent and fair treatment of a tough issue
It's been a few years since I saw Other People's Money, but I just watched Time Changer last night, and it brought this movie to mind. If you've seen both or read descriptions of both you might think they have nothing in common, but I think they share this: They are probably the two most "serious" movies I have ever seen, in the sense that both seriously present complex philosophical issues.
Other People's Money has a plot and a story, of course. But at heart, it is a discussion about a serious social question: How should we as a society deal with changing technology and economic circumstances? The movie sets up two opposing characters: Gregory Peck's character takes the position that society must be compassionate. Just because a business is no longer efficient or is producing an obsolete product doesn't justify putting them out of business and putting all the employees out of work. At one point he makes a moving speech for giving people a chance to adapt and find solutions to get the company back on its feet. Danny DeVito's character says that real compassion is to get everybody out of a losing enterprise and working someplace that is actually productive. In my opinion, both sides are given a fair hearing in the movie. This is one of the few movies that fairly presents both sides of a controversial issue.
From a dramatic, story-telling point of view, DeVito's character is great. MINOR SPOILER HERE: When we first see him he comes across as a crude, greedy jerk. But then gradually we see that this is just an act that he puts on. Watch especially for the scene in the Japanese restaurant: it sums up the paradoxes of his character.
Time Changer (2002)
Serious, thoughtful movie with a definite point of view
A lot of the reviews here condemn Time Changer for being "Fundamentalist propaganda" or some such words. Yes, it is absolutely true that this movie has a point of view that it pushes. So do lots of movies. When you agree with the point of view, it's "an intelligent movie with profound insights on our times". When you disagree it's "propaganda". Do I need to rattle off a list of movies that clearly are intended to be condemnations of the Iraq war? Of racism? Of big business? Or for that matter, of Fundamentalist Chrsitianity? But anyway ...
The gist of the plot is that two college professors from 1890 have a disagreement about the nature of morality. Dr Andersone says that a moral code that is not ultimately based on the authority of God is inherently without foundation and doomed to failure. Dr Carlisle agrees that people should have faith in God but believes morality can be founded on non-religious, pragmatic grounds. Furthermore, Anderson argues that it is more important that people be saved and spend eternity with God than that they live good lives; Carlisle agrees but insists that right living is still a good thing of itself. (Just reading that should make it apparent that this movie is much deeper and more philosophical than 99% of the movies made today.) Anderson then reveals that he came to his conclusions because he has invented a time machine and seen the future, and he knows how things turn out. He ultimately convinces Carlisle to travel to the future (our present) himself to see. The rest of the movie is about Carlisle's encounter with 21st century culture and morals.
Biggest weak point to me: There's a sub-plot where Carlisle meets two men who become suspicious of his "cover story" and take steps to investigate him. I found this sub-plot very hard to believe. If I met someone at a party who casually said that he worked at a college in my city that I never heard of, I can't imagine that I'd immediately conclude that he was a fraud. Much more likely I'd say, "Huh, I never heard of that college. Maybe it's some tiny little school behind the mall." They investigate and find that this college used to be in this city but moved decades ago and that there was a professor there in the 1800's named Carlisle. They ponder how this man could be alive today if he was teaching college in 1890. They apparently never consider obvious, mundane explanations like, "maybe he has the same name as his grandfather who also taught at this school". Etc. Frankly, I think this whole plot-line was stuck in just to add some conflict and suspense.
Overall, I think this movie presented a serious philosophical question in an entertaining way. It mostly avoided adding nonsense action and chase scenes to make the story more "exciting" and kept the conflict serious and intellectual. It did add some amusing scenes to lighten the mood here and there. I thought the acting and cinematography were good, and the couple of special effects scenes were quite professional.
If you're looking for an exciting action movie, this isn't it. If you're looking for an hour or two of light, mindless entertainment, this isn't it. But if you're looking for a serious, thoughtful movie, you might consider Time Changer.
Persons Unknown (2010)
Promising beginning but ultimately disappointing
The premise promises a mystery: a group of seven seemingly random people are kidnapped and wake up in a fake town, with no idea who has kidnapped them or why. It's clearly nothing as simple as ransom.
And the series had a lot of strong points, building the mystery and gradually revealing the secrets step by step.
But ... the only thing that keeps the story going at many points is that the characters are too stupid to believe. Like -- minor spoiler here -- at one point one of the group reveals that he is, in fact, in league with the kidnappers, there to observe, but he has had a change of heart. And so, naturally they all ask him how they can escape and why there were kidnapped in the first place, right? They have someone right there who is ready and able to give them all the answers. But no. NOT ONE of the other six ask him the obvious questions. Several beat him up out of revenge, the rest just yell at him. I was left wondering, How stupid can these people be? A few episodes later he tells them "You're all in danger!" And so naturally they ask what the danger is and how to escape, right? Umm, no. One character explicitly tells him that she doesn't want to hear it. The rest ignore him.
Okay, I understand that people under stress may not behave in the way that a disinterested observer would say was the wisest course of action. But really now, this was just silly.
At another point -- big spoiler here -- two reporters are investigating the kidnappings, and so the people behind the Vast Conspiracy buy out their newspaper and fire them to shut them up. Okay, plausible I guess. But the reporters figure out who is behind the conspiracy when the conspirators have the front page of the newspaper changed to add, beneath the name of the paper, "A subsidiary of XYZ Corporation" (whatever the name of the company was, I forget). Let me give a hint here to anyone plotting a secret conspiracy: Don't print your name on the front page of the newspaper! Then the reporters come up with the brilliant plan of going to the headquarters of this organization and screaming at everyone in sight that they release the victims. Like, um, yeah, that would work. Of course the conspirators just have their security people throw them out of the building. But along the way one of the conspirators says to another, "No one has ever gotten this far before." Yes, these reporters certainly engaged in brilliant detective work, reading the front page of their own newspaper to see your name! How did they ever think of that? Okay, I've concentrated on the low points here. The series was good enough that I watched every episode. I'm just not sure why.
The Rapture (1991)
Fairly intelligent as one-sided diatribes go
I am surprised at the number of reviewers who describe this movie as thought-provoking and discussing profound questions of faith.
Umm, you realize, don't you, that this movie is a one-sided, anti-Christian diatribe? A "thought-provoking presentation" of a controversial issue is one that gives a fair presentation of both sides. This film has many characters who are portrayed as born-again Christians. Name one who is presented positively. As with most Hollywood portrayals of Christians, they are all either creepy weird or homicidal lunatics. (Well, maybe Mary, the daughter, could be considered not insane. But then she isn't in the movie to be one of the Christians: she's there to be the victim. Maybe possibly the policeman is supposed to be a positive Christian character, but he's only a Christian for about 3 seconds of the movie. Besides that he's a good, nice, upstanding atheist.) Name one Christian character in this movie who makes you say, "Yes, I want to be like him." Or even, "If that was what Christians were really like, I could get along with them." In a balanced, thought-provoking movie, there might be an atheist character who is intelligent and noble and makes a good case for atheism, and a Christian character who does the same for Christianity. Or there could be a positive Christian character and a negative Christian character. But all the Christians in this movie are absurd stereotypes of Christianity. They are all what orthodox Christian churches have always been against, not what we are for.
Yes, it ends with heaven and hell and the rapture turning out to be real. This does not make it a "Christian film". When a horror movie makes the man-eating monster turn out to be real, that does not make it a pro-man-eating monster movie. Indeed, that is exactly what the end of this movie is: This is a horror movie. The whole point of the ending is that, "What if those crazy Christians really are right? What a nightmare! We would be faced with a choice of eternity in hell or submission to a cruel tyrant."