Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated State of Play (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the corridors of the nation’s capital, Washington D.C. alliances and wheeling and dealing are the name of the game. With billions if not trillions of dollars hinging on new laws and policy, corporations clearly have an interest in which way the political winds are leaning and how it will affect their all important bottom line.
In the political thriller “State of Play”, Director Kevin MacDonald has combined a stellar cast with a strong script from Tony Gilroy, Billy Ray, and Matthew Michael Carnahan to craft one of the best dramas since Gilroy’s “Michael Clayton”.
When the lead researcher of Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), dies in an accident, it is a devastating blow to the young Congressman as he prepares for a series of hearings intended to cull the growth of a private security firm.
What is at first listed as an accident raises suspicion in veteran news reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), who has had a long friendship, with Collins. Despite tension in recent years, Collins turns to Cal when it is revealed that he had an affair with his researcher. As Cal looks into the story he is under pressure from his editor (Helen Mirren), to deliver a story to keep the papers new owners happy. If this was not bad enough, Cal is also dogged by an online reporter for the paper named Della (Rachael McAdams), who is looking to make a name for herself at the paper.
Cal soon learns that the assistant was killed in what was made to look like an accident, and that a shooting incident that occurred prior to the death may be related to the murder.
Cal teams up with Della and soon learns that some very big players may be involved and that they will stop at nothing to protect their secret.
In a race against time, Cal and Della must get to the bottom of the mystery and stay alive. Unsure who to trust and which way their leads will follow, Cal and Della look for the answers that unaware that the quest they have undertaken will affect the halls of power as well as the very nation itself.
“State of Play” is a very tight thriller that is filled with twists and turns. The characters are interesting and well developed and the performances are first rate. Crowe is powerful as the determined Cal and works well with Affleck and Adams. Robin Wright Penn and Helen Mirren also give very strong performances.
The story of the film seems ripped from the headlines and has an eerie sense of reality to it, and works much better than “The International” attempted to do with its conspiracy premise.
While I have avoided as many spoilers as I could, suffice it to say that the film does have a deep plot that twists and turns to a rewarding conclusion and will keep your attention. I would hope that the fine work in this film is not forgotten when the Oscars come up next.
In the political thriller “State of Play”, Director Kevin MacDonald has combined a stellar cast with a strong script from Tony Gilroy, Billy Ray, and Matthew Michael Carnahan to craft one of the best dramas since Gilroy’s “Michael Clayton”.
When the lead researcher of Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), dies in an accident, it is a devastating blow to the young Congressman as he prepares for a series of hearings intended to cull the growth of a private security firm.
What is at first listed as an accident raises suspicion in veteran news reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), who has had a long friendship, with Collins. Despite tension in recent years, Collins turns to Cal when it is revealed that he had an affair with his researcher. As Cal looks into the story he is under pressure from his editor (Helen Mirren), to deliver a story to keep the papers new owners happy. If this was not bad enough, Cal is also dogged by an online reporter for the paper named Della (Rachael McAdams), who is looking to make a name for herself at the paper.
Cal soon learns that the assistant was killed in what was made to look like an accident, and that a shooting incident that occurred prior to the death may be related to the murder.
Cal teams up with Della and soon learns that some very big players may be involved and that they will stop at nothing to protect their secret.
In a race against time, Cal and Della must get to the bottom of the mystery and stay alive. Unsure who to trust and which way their leads will follow, Cal and Della look for the answers that unaware that the quest they have undertaken will affect the halls of power as well as the very nation itself.
“State of Play” is a very tight thriller that is filled with twists and turns. The characters are interesting and well developed and the performances are first rate. Crowe is powerful as the determined Cal and works well with Affleck and Adams. Robin Wright Penn and Helen Mirren also give very strong performances.
The story of the film seems ripped from the headlines and has an eerie sense of reality to it, and works much better than “The International” attempted to do with its conspiracy premise.
While I have avoided as many spoilers as I could, suffice it to say that the film does have a deep plot that twists and turns to a rewarding conclusion and will keep your attention. I would hope that the fine work in this film is not forgotten when the Oscars come up next.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Nice Guys (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This is how it’s supposed to be done. Though it’s not the most original flick to grace the silver screen, Shane Black’s follow-up to his instant cult classic Kiss Kiss Bang Bang has everything you could want in an action/comedy romp. A solid dynamic between its two charming yet flawed leads, a strong plot that has enough twists and turns to keep you thrilled but not lost, and plenty of quotably razor-sharp dialogue. Imagine the Lethal Weapon type meets a less obtuse Inherent Vice. Besides the return of Jason Bourne in July, it will undoubtedly be the most entertaining thing you’ll see in another summer season of mediocrity. Is anybody really that interested in a ninth X-Men film?
Russell Crowe is the muscle-for-hire opposite Ryan Gosling as the P.I. referred to by his daughter as “the worst detective in the world”. They are thrust together by circumstance and, after a couple of amusing altercations, come to find out they are both involved in a larger case of conspiracy and cover-up as they race to find the girl at the center of it all. Crowe and Gosling make a winning team with chemistry in spades and, though the dialogue they’re given may not feel as fresh as what Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. had to work with in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; they still pull it off marvelously. Between Gosling’s unfortunate directorial debut, Lost River, and Crowe’s string of misfires since 2010’s Robin Hood, these were the type of roles their fading stars were in dire need of and they both certainly look at home in a 70’s-era Hollywood detective story. For Gosling especially, this is probably the most likable he’s ever been. Well done also to the casting department for finding Angourie Rice. As Gosling’s daughter, she’s does an admirably fine job of playing a girl who can stand up to an incredibly hostile world and give some back. Here’s hoping she’s got a decent agent that will keep her in rich, multi-dimensional characters.
Shane Black, already having proved that he knows his way around a screenplay or two, is firmly coming into his own as a director (though the Christmas thing has got to stop), and I’ll be eagerly anticipating his next foray behind the camera. It’s also another excellent job from Warner’s marketing team, with a trailer that gave just enough of the one-liners and snippets of action without spoiling too many of the fun and twisty plot points. The action beats and moments of violence themselves, due to a tightly-structured script, feel earned and well-placed. Not once did I get that overwhelming feeling of action fatigue I’ve been experiencing so much in film lately (I’m looking at you, Marvel). The Nice Guys is all-around great filmmaking and one I can’t wait to revisit. I wouldn’t doubt it’ll be a day-one buy for me when it hits the home video market.
Russell Crowe is the muscle-for-hire opposite Ryan Gosling as the P.I. referred to by his daughter as “the worst detective in the world”. They are thrust together by circumstance and, after a couple of amusing altercations, come to find out they are both involved in a larger case of conspiracy and cover-up as they race to find the girl at the center of it all. Crowe and Gosling make a winning team with chemistry in spades and, though the dialogue they’re given may not feel as fresh as what Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. had to work with in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; they still pull it off marvelously. Between Gosling’s unfortunate directorial debut, Lost River, and Crowe’s string of misfires since 2010’s Robin Hood, these were the type of roles their fading stars were in dire need of and they both certainly look at home in a 70’s-era Hollywood detective story. For Gosling especially, this is probably the most likable he’s ever been. Well done also to the casting department for finding Angourie Rice. As Gosling’s daughter, she’s does an admirably fine job of playing a girl who can stand up to an incredibly hostile world and give some back. Here’s hoping she’s got a decent agent that will keep her in rich, multi-dimensional characters.
Shane Black, already having proved that he knows his way around a screenplay or two, is firmly coming into his own as a director (though the Christmas thing has got to stop), and I’ll be eagerly anticipating his next foray behind the camera. It’s also another excellent job from Warner’s marketing team, with a trailer that gave just enough of the one-liners and snippets of action without spoiling too many of the fun and twisty plot points. The action beats and moments of violence themselves, due to a tightly-structured script, feel earned and well-placed. Not once did I get that overwhelming feeling of action fatigue I’ve been experiencing so much in film lately (I’m looking at you, Marvel). The Nice Guys is all-around great filmmaking and one I can’t wait to revisit. I wouldn’t doubt it’ll be a day-one buy for me when it hits the home video market.
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The Psychopath Test in Books
Sep 11, 2018
This book is remarkably entertaining – I can see why it’s having such a long stint in the bookseller’s shelves! It’s most definitely written for the lay person, and that goes some way to explaining the book’s longevity.
It logs the course of events taken by Jon Ronson as he interviews some people who are deemed crazy, or psychopathic, and some people who diagnose psychological traits. The start of Ronson’s journey is intriguing - it begins when various academics, predominately neuroscientists, are sent mysterious and cryptic packages. They all rush onto online forums trying to figure out what it’s all about. Unfortunately, this section comes to an abrupt and disappointing conclusion (no spoilers).
This all changes in Chapter 2, however. Here, Ronson meets a man, Tony, who claims to have faked mental illness in order to get put into a psychiatric facility rather than a traditional prison. The Scientologists are on his side, and they send Ronson Broadmoor’s file on Tony, but with significant omissions, which shed a whole new light on why Tony should be incarcerated.
Chapter 3 describes how in the 1960’s psychiatrist Elliot Barker, held several nude LSD-induced psychotherapy sessions for psychopaths. In Chapter 4, Ronson goes on a conference to learn about Bob Hare’s psychopath checklist, and by Chapter 5, he’s using it in an interview with a leader of a death squad, Toto Constant. In Chapter 6, he uses it in an interview with Al Dunlan, who apparently enjoyed firing 6.000 people from their jobs.
Following a brief interlude to discuss the media, conspiracy theorists and the second coming, the theme of psychopathy is picked up again in Chapter 9 which looks at criminal profiling, and how it was once used to lure one particular suspect into an unwarranted arrest.
Ronson goes off on another tangent in Chapter 10, which discusses the (very real) problem of an apparent ballooning of mental illness diagnoses. Here he tells the tale of what happened when a 4-year-old girl was given 10 pills a day for “childhood bipolar” disorder.
In Ronson’s concluding chapter, he attends a tribunal for the Tony of Chapter 2, and Tony’s fate is decided (no spoilers). By this point, Tony’s charisma has got Ronson taken in, in spite of Tony showing several psychopathic traits.
My take away from the book is that people will have eccentricities, diagnosis or not, and the way to tell if someone is dangerous, is by their actions. Ronson himself has spotted psychopathic traits in himself, despite being overly anxious and not the slightest bit evil. The book sheds a lot of light, not only on the nature of obtaining a diagnosis, but also on its implications.
Whilst I do recommend the book, this book is most definitely not a thorough analysis of the mental health industry, nor the criminal profiling industry. But for entertainment purposes it gets top marks. If you are looking for a more authoritative book on the mental health industry and diagnosis, I recommend Saving Normal by Allen Frances.
It logs the course of events taken by Jon Ronson as he interviews some people who are deemed crazy, or psychopathic, and some people who diagnose psychological traits. The start of Ronson’s journey is intriguing - it begins when various academics, predominately neuroscientists, are sent mysterious and cryptic packages. They all rush onto online forums trying to figure out what it’s all about. Unfortunately, this section comes to an abrupt and disappointing conclusion (no spoilers).
This all changes in Chapter 2, however. Here, Ronson meets a man, Tony, who claims to have faked mental illness in order to get put into a psychiatric facility rather than a traditional prison. The Scientologists are on his side, and they send Ronson Broadmoor’s file on Tony, but with significant omissions, which shed a whole new light on why Tony should be incarcerated.
Chapter 3 describes how in the 1960’s psychiatrist Elliot Barker, held several nude LSD-induced psychotherapy sessions for psychopaths. In Chapter 4, Ronson goes on a conference to learn about Bob Hare’s psychopath checklist, and by Chapter 5, he’s using it in an interview with a leader of a death squad, Toto Constant. In Chapter 6, he uses it in an interview with Al Dunlan, who apparently enjoyed firing 6.000 people from their jobs.
Following a brief interlude to discuss the media, conspiracy theorists and the second coming, the theme of psychopathy is picked up again in Chapter 9 which looks at criminal profiling, and how it was once used to lure one particular suspect into an unwarranted arrest.
Ronson goes off on another tangent in Chapter 10, which discusses the (very real) problem of an apparent ballooning of mental illness diagnoses. Here he tells the tale of what happened when a 4-year-old girl was given 10 pills a day for “childhood bipolar” disorder.
In Ronson’s concluding chapter, he attends a tribunal for the Tony of Chapter 2, and Tony’s fate is decided (no spoilers). By this point, Tony’s charisma has got Ronson taken in, in spite of Tony showing several psychopathic traits.
My take away from the book is that people will have eccentricities, diagnosis or not, and the way to tell if someone is dangerous, is by their actions. Ronson himself has spotted psychopathic traits in himself, despite being overly anxious and not the slightest bit evil. The book sheds a lot of light, not only on the nature of obtaining a diagnosis, but also on its implications.
Whilst I do recommend the book, this book is most definitely not a thorough analysis of the mental health industry, nor the criminal profiling industry. But for entertainment purposes it gets top marks. If you are looking for a more authoritative book on the mental health industry and diagnosis, I recommend Saving Normal by Allen Frances.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Eight Legged Freaks (2002) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: Eight Legged Freaks starts by showing us the Mike Parker (Terra) visiting Joshua the spider expert of the town who has been feeding his spiders enlarged crickets and of course they now escape. One week later when Mike goes to return his mother Sheriff Samantha Parker (Wuhrer) stops the visit because of waste being dumped into the local watering hole.
With this we get to see the rebellious teenage daughter Ashley (Johansson) who is dating bad boy biker Bret (Czuchry) step-son of Mayor Wade (Rippy) who is trying to cover up the fact the town is nearly broke. Chris McCormick (Arquette) a local who returned to town after his father’s death refusing to sell the mine in a deal which could save the town.
When Mike makes it back to Joshua’s he learns of the super-sized spiders that have been released into this small town, the resident must now fight against the spiders that have infested the town.
Thoughts on Eight Legged Freaks
Characters/Performance – Chris McCormick returns to his hometown to claim what is his, the mine, he also needs to make up for the mistakes he has made and this gives him the perfect chance too. Sheriff Parker is a single mother of two trying to keep the local community together and being the former love interest of Chris. Mike is the expert on everything going on playing out as the reminder to all the different spiders attacking styles. Ashley is the bad girl daughter of Samantha who is mostly trying to discover who she is. We have the rest of the town which includes the conspiracy crazed radio host, the greedy mayor the comic relief deputy.
Performance wise, David Arquette is great in this leading role managing the comedy side of everything as well as the action horror when needed. Kari Wuhrer fits the part of sexy sheriff very well too. Both Scott Terra and Scarlett Johansson are good choices too. The rest of the actors all give good performances to fit the films mentality.
Story – Small town gets invaded by giant spiders thanks to cost cutting measures. We do have a reluctantly hero needing to help save the day but otherwise this is everything you need in a creature feature, plenty of potential victims, plenty of creature and plenty of laughs.
Action/Comedy/Horror – The action is all big and plans into the idea of the comedy being used in the creature feature side of the film.
Settings – The small town setting helps with the story telling here because they have no communication with the outside world after the attack starts and not many escape routes of places to hide.
Special Effects – We have a mix of practical and CGI here which all help create the low budget feel behind this film and while moments have dated other parts are all fun.
Final Thoughts – This is by far one of my favourite creature features out there, it is fun, over the top and filled with perfect comic timing, never trying to be serious.
Overall: Purely fun creature feature.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/27/a-z-halloween-horror-eight-legged-freaks-2002/
With this we get to see the rebellious teenage daughter Ashley (Johansson) who is dating bad boy biker Bret (Czuchry) step-son of Mayor Wade (Rippy) who is trying to cover up the fact the town is nearly broke. Chris McCormick (Arquette) a local who returned to town after his father’s death refusing to sell the mine in a deal which could save the town.
When Mike makes it back to Joshua’s he learns of the super-sized spiders that have been released into this small town, the resident must now fight against the spiders that have infested the town.
Thoughts on Eight Legged Freaks
Characters/Performance – Chris McCormick returns to his hometown to claim what is his, the mine, he also needs to make up for the mistakes he has made and this gives him the perfect chance too. Sheriff Parker is a single mother of two trying to keep the local community together and being the former love interest of Chris. Mike is the expert on everything going on playing out as the reminder to all the different spiders attacking styles. Ashley is the bad girl daughter of Samantha who is mostly trying to discover who she is. We have the rest of the town which includes the conspiracy crazed radio host, the greedy mayor the comic relief deputy.
Performance wise, David Arquette is great in this leading role managing the comedy side of everything as well as the action horror when needed. Kari Wuhrer fits the part of sexy sheriff very well too. Both Scott Terra and Scarlett Johansson are good choices too. The rest of the actors all give good performances to fit the films mentality.
Story – Small town gets invaded by giant spiders thanks to cost cutting measures. We do have a reluctantly hero needing to help save the day but otherwise this is everything you need in a creature feature, plenty of potential victims, plenty of creature and plenty of laughs.
Action/Comedy/Horror – The action is all big and plans into the idea of the comedy being used in the creature feature side of the film.
Settings – The small town setting helps with the story telling here because they have no communication with the outside world after the attack starts and not many escape routes of places to hide.
Special Effects – We have a mix of practical and CGI here which all help create the low budget feel behind this film and while moments have dated other parts are all fun.
Final Thoughts – This is by far one of my favourite creature features out there, it is fun, over the top and filled with perfect comic timing, never trying to be serious.
Overall: Purely fun creature feature.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/10/27/a-z-halloween-horror-eight-legged-freaks-2002/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Marauders (2016) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Marauders starts when a bank robbery which leaves the bank manager executed, the president of the bank Hubert (Willis) has an excellent reputation and with the FBI investigating the robbery, Montgomery (Meloni) and his team Stockwell (Bautista) and newbie Wells (Grenier) try to put the clues together.
When the second heist happens, the fingers start pointing back at Hubert and a bigger conspiracy comes to the top with connection to a previous incident.
Thoughts on Marauders
Characters – Hubert is the bank president, he has always kept the face that the bank puts their customers first, but when his banks start getting robbed, he must deal with the fingers pointing back at him. Montgomery is the lead investigating from the FBI trying to get to the bottom of the heists, he has his own demons which haunt him everyday after the death of his wife and will not stop until he learns the truth. Stockwell is Montgomery’s trusted second, he is the tired cop figure, he is good at his job and hates people getting in his way. Wells is the rookie agent, with the qualifications to make him the best, he gets the jobs the others don’t want to do, while noticing things they miss.
Performances – The performances in the movie are mixed, we know that Bruce Willis is mostly mailing it in and it is a strange role for him. Christopher Meloni is the star of this movie, the determination and broken side of his character makes him stand out. Dave Bautista does get the funniest lines, some hit or than others, while Adrian Grenier starts strong but fades away in the biggest scenes of the middle of the movie.
Story – The story follows the effects of a brutal heist, the FBI must investigate the heist which brings us into the new web of conspiracies which could bring down a political powerhouse. This a story which does keep us guessing from start to finish, which is something I was surprised to see, as I thought this would be a lot messier. The positive of keeping us guessing, does leave the bigger question about just why the heists needed to be as brutal as they were because of certain injuries or deaths not needing to happen for the cause.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action is brutal and often in your face when it comes to the gun sequences, the crime side of the film comes from the heists and just what they are aiming to achieve from the heists. The mystery is what draws us in because we don’t know what is happening which keeps us invested throughout.
Settings – The film is set in the city which shows how the panic of the robberies starts flying around we see how things get out of hand.
Scene of the Movie – The heists do feel very intense, which I did like.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The last sequence.
Final Thoughts – This was a surprisingly entertaining film, having no expectations going in, this did become intense and kept you guessing even if things unravel in the final scene.
Overall: Enjoyable crime thriller.
When the second heist happens, the fingers start pointing back at Hubert and a bigger conspiracy comes to the top with connection to a previous incident.
Thoughts on Marauders
Characters – Hubert is the bank president, he has always kept the face that the bank puts their customers first, but when his banks start getting robbed, he must deal with the fingers pointing back at him. Montgomery is the lead investigating from the FBI trying to get to the bottom of the heists, he has his own demons which haunt him everyday after the death of his wife and will not stop until he learns the truth. Stockwell is Montgomery’s trusted second, he is the tired cop figure, he is good at his job and hates people getting in his way. Wells is the rookie agent, with the qualifications to make him the best, he gets the jobs the others don’t want to do, while noticing things they miss.
Performances – The performances in the movie are mixed, we know that Bruce Willis is mostly mailing it in and it is a strange role for him. Christopher Meloni is the star of this movie, the determination and broken side of his character makes him stand out. Dave Bautista does get the funniest lines, some hit or than others, while Adrian Grenier starts strong but fades away in the biggest scenes of the middle of the movie.
Story – The story follows the effects of a brutal heist, the FBI must investigate the heist which brings us into the new web of conspiracies which could bring down a political powerhouse. This a story which does keep us guessing from start to finish, which is something I was surprised to see, as I thought this would be a lot messier. The positive of keeping us guessing, does leave the bigger question about just why the heists needed to be as brutal as they were because of certain injuries or deaths not needing to happen for the cause.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action is brutal and often in your face when it comes to the gun sequences, the crime side of the film comes from the heists and just what they are aiming to achieve from the heists. The mystery is what draws us in because we don’t know what is happening which keeps us invested throughout.
Settings – The film is set in the city which shows how the panic of the robberies starts flying around we see how things get out of hand.
Scene of the Movie – The heists do feel very intense, which I did like.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The last sequence.
Final Thoughts – This was a surprisingly entertaining film, having no expectations going in, this did become intense and kept you guessing even if things unravel in the final scene.
Overall: Enjoyable crime thriller.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Loose Change (2009) in Movies
Feb 21, 2019
The fact that it was originally made conceived by a few students who did all of their research themselves and took the initiative to spread the word about what they learned is admirable and impressive. (1 more)
The soundtrack by DJ Skooly is full of bangers which really helps to boost the motivation of the film.
The Greatest Trickest That The Devil Ever Pulled, Was Convincing The World That He Didn't Exist
This is a fairly odd one to review. There are several different iterations of this film, of which I have seen 3 out of a total 6. This review will be based on the 3 versions that I have seen; Loose Change: Final Cut (2007), Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009) and Loose Change 2nd Edition: HD (2017).
There is also the debate whether to review the films based on how smooth and professional looking the films are presentation-wise, or whether to give merit purely on how important and essential the information is that is being shared through these documentaries.
Then there is the fact that most folk who don't believe that the, '9/11 was an inside job,' conspiracy holds any water, will probably dismiss these films right from the offset. Whereas most, '9/11 truthers,' will probably defend this film's technical shortcomings because it supports their own previous beliefs.
In my opinion, the best way to look at this film is as an introduction to the concept that the public weren't given the full truth in the fallout of 9/11 and go from there. Do your own research and try to separate the facts from the conjecture before making a decision for yourself and forming your own opinion.
My personal stance on 9/11 is somewhere in-between the two extremes of either camp. I think that the theories of the buildings being vaporized by energy weapons, or the idea of there not being any actual planes flown into the buildings that day is ridiculous and I feel that outlandish theories like that actually detract and are harmful to those trying to instigate another investigation into what went on that day. However, I do think that it is pretty irrefutable that the US Government did lie to their people and covered up a good amount of what went on around the event and there are so many huge discrepancies and inconsistencies in the official commission report that even the most sceptical patriots can't say that the Government have disclosed the entire truth.
If you are someone that isn't too well-versed on why there are so many people out there that don't believe the official story of 9/11, then this is a good place to start. As with all documentaries, don't take the filmmakers entirely at their word and do your own research to make up your own mind, but this is an impressive film. I have a great admiration for the guerrilla attitude of the filmmakers and the get-up-and-go mentality present in the filmmaking is great. Unfortunately, it does lack a level of polish that we are used to seeing in many modern day documentaries produced by streaming giants like Netflix. However, this doesn't tarnish the information that is being presented by the filmmakers and isn't a reason to ignore anything that is being said here.
There is also the debate whether to review the films based on how smooth and professional looking the films are presentation-wise, or whether to give merit purely on how important and essential the information is that is being shared through these documentaries.
Then there is the fact that most folk who don't believe that the, '9/11 was an inside job,' conspiracy holds any water, will probably dismiss these films right from the offset. Whereas most, '9/11 truthers,' will probably defend this film's technical shortcomings because it supports their own previous beliefs.
In my opinion, the best way to look at this film is as an introduction to the concept that the public weren't given the full truth in the fallout of 9/11 and go from there. Do your own research and try to separate the facts from the conjecture before making a decision for yourself and forming your own opinion.
My personal stance on 9/11 is somewhere in-between the two extremes of either camp. I think that the theories of the buildings being vaporized by energy weapons, or the idea of there not being any actual planes flown into the buildings that day is ridiculous and I feel that outlandish theories like that actually detract and are harmful to those trying to instigate another investigation into what went on that day. However, I do think that it is pretty irrefutable that the US Government did lie to their people and covered up a good amount of what went on around the event and there are so many huge discrepancies and inconsistencies in the official commission report that even the most sceptical patriots can't say that the Government have disclosed the entire truth.
If you are someone that isn't too well-versed on why there are so many people out there that don't believe the official story of 9/11, then this is a good place to start. As with all documentaries, don't take the filmmakers entirely at their word and do your own research to make up your own mind, but this is an impressive film. I have a great admiration for the guerrilla attitude of the filmmakers and the get-up-and-go mentality present in the filmmaking is great. Unfortunately, it does lack a level of polish that we are used to seeing in many modern day documentaries produced by streaming giants like Netflix. However, this doesn't tarnish the information that is being presented by the filmmakers and isn't a reason to ignore anything that is being said here.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Awaken Online: Catharsis in Books
Jan 4, 2019
Bloody loved it
Catharsis takes the ideas of LitRPG (see Ready Player One for the best known but lowest explored potential example) and goes to town on it, really showing how open such an online world would be to be exploited.
Jason has always been fairly downtrodden in his high-achieving school and is neglected by his parents. One day, Falling Down-style, events transpire to make him snap and shout at his teacher and headmaster, and is expelled. He rushed home and immerses himself in the brand new online world of AO (Awaken Online).
As with Euphora Online (Phil Tucker), AO has been designed with the help of AI to try and maximise the time gamers would want to spend in the game. We are treated to flashbacks by the developers/testers who are seeing the changes the AI is making to the game's code and are trying to assess whether it remains safe for release.
Jason starts the game from scratch but due to an unusual reaction to an initial test is aligned to evil, and is therefore treated with suspicion by the in-game characters meant to help him train and become familiar with his new surroundings. This begins the chain of events that lead Jason to the path of in-game evil, in true Walter White style as one slightly dubious decision after another sees him become embroiled in some very nasty events.
Over the course of the game, Jason is honest with himself and knows what he's doing is bad but hey its just a game, why not have some fun with it. And he does. As his power grows, so does the nastiness of his actions and he soon becomes very powerful in certain ways (but thankfully more strategically and directing the action than suddenly becoming a battle master or he-man).
The world around Jason develops as he does, and his actions truly start to shape his game experience, and that of other people. I can't really go into much more detail without dropping spoilers but there are some absolutely fantastic sequences.
The game supposedly uses time compression so that an hour in the real world will feel like 3 or 4 hours in the game. My one gripe with the book is that when the game developers notice Jason's unprecedented progress through the game they begin to watch his actions and this seems to be real-time - there is no real attempt to explain how they can watch it as it unfolds (or the fact that what they are seeing will have happened quite some time before and events will have continued from there).
This book has more interaction between Jason's real life and in-game life than Euphoria Online did, which helps to explain his motivation for decisions. His real life troubles and requirements drive his desires in-game.
As usual, there is the evil AI/conspiracy aspect to the world, but this doesn't yet feel quite as big a deal as in other books, but I think that is the groundwork laid for the next two books (plus two side-quests).
I heartily recommend this book, but readers should not expect something like Ready Player one, much more like D&D or The Witcher style gaming.
Jason has always been fairly downtrodden in his high-achieving school and is neglected by his parents. One day, Falling Down-style, events transpire to make him snap and shout at his teacher and headmaster, and is expelled. He rushed home and immerses himself in the brand new online world of AO (Awaken Online).
As with Euphora Online (Phil Tucker), AO has been designed with the help of AI to try and maximise the time gamers would want to spend in the game. We are treated to flashbacks by the developers/testers who are seeing the changes the AI is making to the game's code and are trying to assess whether it remains safe for release.
Jason starts the game from scratch but due to an unusual reaction to an initial test is aligned to evil, and is therefore treated with suspicion by the in-game characters meant to help him train and become familiar with his new surroundings. This begins the chain of events that lead Jason to the path of in-game evil, in true Walter White style as one slightly dubious decision after another sees him become embroiled in some very nasty events.
Over the course of the game, Jason is honest with himself and knows what he's doing is bad but hey its just a game, why not have some fun with it. And he does. As his power grows, so does the nastiness of his actions and he soon becomes very powerful in certain ways (but thankfully more strategically and directing the action than suddenly becoming a battle master or he-man).
The world around Jason develops as he does, and his actions truly start to shape his game experience, and that of other people. I can't really go into much more detail without dropping spoilers but there are some absolutely fantastic sequences.
The game supposedly uses time compression so that an hour in the real world will feel like 3 or 4 hours in the game. My one gripe with the book is that when the game developers notice Jason's unprecedented progress through the game they begin to watch his actions and this seems to be real-time - there is no real attempt to explain how they can watch it as it unfolds (or the fact that what they are seeing will have happened quite some time before and events will have continued from there).
This book has more interaction between Jason's real life and in-game life than Euphoria Online did, which helps to explain his motivation for decisions. His real life troubles and requirements drive his desires in-game.
As usual, there is the evil AI/conspiracy aspect to the world, but this doesn't yet feel quite as big a deal as in other books, but I think that is the groundwork laid for the next two books (plus two side-quests).
I heartily recommend this book, but readers should not expect something like Ready Player one, much more like D&D or The Witcher style gaming.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Valkyrie (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Bringing historical films to the screen can be a challenge for a number of reasons. First, the filmmakers often have to condense events that happened over several weeks and months down to a two to three hour format. Secondly, holding the audience can be tricky especially when it covers an event where the outcome is well known. The final and perhaps most important obstacle is that of casting. For every George C. Scott who nailed the iconic figure of Patton there are countless others that have to be kind, not been up to the task.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Moon (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Sam Bell is at the end of his rope. He's an astronaut that took a job on the moon whose contract lasted three long years. The job requires him to send storage containers of Helium-3 back to Earth, which would essentially help with the planet's power situation. Other than his computer assistant, GERTY, Sam is alone. He's started talking to himself and basically feels like he's losing his mind since he's been on the moon for so long in this lonely state. The only thing that's really keeping him straight is the fact that he's supposed to go home in two weeks. Sam just wants to get home and see his wife and daughter, who's already growing up without him in her life. As Sam ventures outside for some everyday maintenance, he discovers something disturbing. An accident occurred while somebody was behind the wheel of one of the lunar vehicles and the unconscious man Sam pulls out of the vehicle looks exactly like him. Sam is then given the unfortunate task of trying to figure out if he's lost his marbles or if some conspiracy scheme has been transpiring right under his nose this entire time.
Moon has been one of my most anticipated films of the year ever since I saw the trailer a few months ago. Everything about the trailer pulled me in. Sam Rockwell looked to put in an incredible performance, the score sounded incredibly solid and fit the film like a glove, and it just looked like a really amazing sci-fi film. Have you ever walked away from a film completely satisfied? That feeling you have when you see a film that just sticks with you as its most memorable moments play through your head and you smile a little as you walk to your car? That's the feeling that pulsed through me after seeing Moon. A feeling that I've only felt a handful of times (The Dark Knight, Benjamin Button, Up, and Moon come to mind).
Sam Rockwell is really in top form here. I've always wanted to like him, but had always seen him in films where it felt like he was holding back and not showing his full potential. Moon definitely corrected that as Rockwell is really able to portray his acting range and how wonderful he really is. When I saw 1408, the first thing that crossed my mind after it ended was that John Cusack really carried that film. It was just him alone in a hotel room the majority of the film and he was able to make that worth watching. What John Cusack is to 1408, Sam Rockwell is to Moon as it's just Sam reacting to himself during the film's duration.
It's not often that I get to say a film met my expectations or satisfied me in every way, but Moon did just that. This is Sam Rockwell at his best. The film pulls you in as soon as the opening scene hits with Sam running on a treadmill and that familiar music from the trailer kicks in. My craving for an incredible and original sci-fi film for quite some time was met with this and it delivered in every aspect. It's definitely in the running for my favorite film of 2009.
Moon has been one of my most anticipated films of the year ever since I saw the trailer a few months ago. Everything about the trailer pulled me in. Sam Rockwell looked to put in an incredible performance, the score sounded incredibly solid and fit the film like a glove, and it just looked like a really amazing sci-fi film. Have you ever walked away from a film completely satisfied? That feeling you have when you see a film that just sticks with you as its most memorable moments play through your head and you smile a little as you walk to your car? That's the feeling that pulsed through me after seeing Moon. A feeling that I've only felt a handful of times (The Dark Knight, Benjamin Button, Up, and Moon come to mind).
Sam Rockwell is really in top form here. I've always wanted to like him, but had always seen him in films where it felt like he was holding back and not showing his full potential. Moon definitely corrected that as Rockwell is really able to portray his acting range and how wonderful he really is. When I saw 1408, the first thing that crossed my mind after it ended was that John Cusack really carried that film. It was just him alone in a hotel room the majority of the film and he was able to make that worth watching. What John Cusack is to 1408, Sam Rockwell is to Moon as it's just Sam reacting to himself during the film's duration.
It's not often that I get to say a film met my expectations or satisfied me in every way, but Moon did just that. This is Sam Rockwell at his best. The film pulls you in as soon as the opening scene hits with Sam running on a treadmill and that familiar music from the trailer kicks in. My craving for an incredible and original sci-fi film for quite some time was met with this and it delivered in every aspect. It's definitely in the running for my favorite film of 2009.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of “true crime” as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we don’t “enjoy” or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we won’t engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.