Tagged: movie philosophy
Why Am I So Nervous About The Odyssey?
Some first reviews are out. Hollywood Reporter has a smattering of headlines.
The professional class, our betters, are gushing.
They are gushing about set pieces and Nolan’s bravery in embracing horror, as well as many other non-book parts of the movie.
If you haven’t been following, the influencers have taught me a new word, “ratio’d”, during the ramp up to this movie. Apparently the young’ns are trying their own hand at reading entrails and the pairing they have noticed and named lately is when a trailer has less likes than either dislikes or comments. (No news is still good news, it seems. Meaning, comments are never in support of trailers.)
So The Odyssey trailer has been ratio’d. And it has terrible casting.
What does it have in the pro’s category?
IMAX film. Live Action/limited CGI—maybe none. (Not quite sure). Nolan’s reputation. The title matches an epic poem, the epic poem of Western Civilization, that no one has read recently.
That’s about it.
Will I go? No. I have been reading and the honest truth is that it is starting to take its toll on my movie watching. Books are just so much better than their movie adaptations, especially when the adaptations are woke. So no. I’m sure I’ll watch it at work. But no money will support these things.
Beneta, A Review of The Accountant by Gavin O’Conner
Which is it? Do people with “autism” save the day Greta-style? Or do people with “autism” save the day, Ben Affleck style?
A co-worker recommended the film, casually, saying, “He plays someone with autism well.”
I will say this about the film. It held my attention. And it tied a nice bow, leaving very few, if any, plot points unresolved.
And yet. Who cares if someone, for tons of money, can convincingly not make eye-contact and recite lines methodically?
The real question for those in the “autism-as-superpower” camp, is can an “autistic” person act like a normal person? IE, Greta cannot be a Hollywood A-Lister. Shouldn’t that mean something?
(To be clear: No, my child, autism is not cool or a superpower or a much needed solution to the human’s dilemma on earth.)
SBVI (Speech for the Blind or Vision Impaired), A Review of Nuremberg, by James Vanderbilt
There used to be an option to turn on CC (closed captions). Now, that is pretty much always on by default. But for the deaf or hard of hearing, there is a new option called SDH, which is all that CC is, but also includes text descriptions like “intense music” or “dog barking” or “door slams”, if the sounds are off camera but deemed important to the story.
Well, I just turned off Mr. Vanderbilt’s Nuremberg, after a mere twenty minutes. Why? Because the script was terrible. In a word, the dialogue ran on as I had enabled some option to enhance a movie for people who are blind or vision impaired (SBVI).
In other words, the movie would show a man riding on a train, and then one character would say to another, “I am sitting here on this moving train, on a seat.”
Just terrible. What a waste. That I made it twenty minutes is embarrassing. First scene of some weird AI looking smoke blowing around behind abandoned cars was when I could tell it wasn’t for me. Oh well. Mortal Kombat II is only two months away!
Beasts vs. Bits, A Joint Movie Review of Beasts of the Southern Wild by Benh Zeitlin and Tron: Ares by Joachim Rønning
How does one land on 2012’s Beasts of the Southern Wild in 2026? Easy—if you’re a helicopter pilot.
Here’s how.
You call a friend, a fellow helicopter pilot, and while talking entertainment, he recommends True Detective (only S1). You watch it. During the call to discuss and thank for the recommendation, the conversation includes “really like the setting as character” and turns to Louisiana, and fears and love of that place. Next you recall that your friend has spent some time there because of “flying in the gulf”. Intermix some marriage and family chatter, mostly involving cross-cultural marriage, and the self-same friend mentions Beasts.
That said, here is what I sent him after my viewing.
1. Not in category of my “favorite movies” but definitely in category of “perfect movies”.
2. Can’t say I have ever seen a better performance by an actress than that girl.
3. I’ve been reading books on Jesus’ parables for a couple months now (on second book…) and this movie definitely fits as parable or allegory—but on steroids. It is amazing how many aspects of life it covers, and that I want to think more about all of them.
4. I think a lot about death and dying, and the lack of dignity we give it. The “plug you into a wall” line is the best summary of what is wrong with modernity’s handling of it that I have ever heard. And I cannot think of a better way to go than while holding someone I love.
Today I will add another thought I had—which will connect to Tron: Ares.
5. I love when a movie is clearly made by one and only one person. Beasts is so singular in its focus there is no doubt in my mind that we are watching a true artist at work—not the shapings a committee or AI.
Tron: Ares on the other hand is clearly, and unsurprisingly, the work of a ‘system’. The ‘system’ being the largest contributor to the death of art. Even when only one director is named, everyone (who cares) knows Mr. Fancy “O” didn’t make the movie he wanted to make. Instead, he made the movie he was allowed to make. Who gave him permission? Unspoken facial expressions. Indirect, latent meanings to rhetorical questions. The lowest common denominator of risk aversion. At every level, Tron: Ares was adulterated. I’m not trying to start a new conspiracy theory, but very really and truly Tron was made using the precise methods AI uses. Unfortunately for us, that is not how good art is made.
As far as the movie goes, the visuals were exactly what I wanted to see and watch. The jet ski chase seen being a definite win. The story was lame for anyone who knows the word that follows “paperclip” when talking about AI.
But the nuance I want to emphasize here is that Tron fails for every reason that Beasts succeeds, and yet Beasts is not made by Beasts.
In short, there is a terrifically false urban legend that tribal peoples have some great “lore” or stories from which they draw strength and unity of purpose and longevity. The sober truth is nothing could be farther from the truth. It is the leading civilizations, it is Western Civilization that has the great “lore” or stories from which we draw strength and unity of purpose and longevity.
To be clear, all that needs to occur for me to be proven wrong on this point is some tribe, be it one with truly no contact with modernity, or, say the Somalis, to make Tron: Ares. Or even the first Tron. Hell, I would happily recant if they used an ink pen of their own creation to write a story, or a Somali assault rifle to board a ship, or even musket in the case of piracy. But they don’t, won’t, and haven’t. This lack of good story is not the result of some external circumstances, it is the reason for external circumstances.
In using Somalis, I am not bashing some “race” here. I am merely making the point that even the film and story Beasts, for all its Beast-y-ness is not being told by its own protagonists, unless we alter it to the most metaphorical sense, more like “beast mode.” Instead, it is being told by Western Civilization. The strength of the story is contained in its unflinching depiction of truth, which includes some welcome criticism of WC.
If there is one feature that primitive peoples and the communists behind Disney movies share, it is that in storytelling, success aligns perfectly with honesty.
Nearly Unremarkable, My Review of “One Battle After Another”, By PTA
Solon’s sentiment (provided by Plutarch, circa 100 AD) is my entire review.
But to add one additional measure to Solon’s opinion, I would say, “The opening scene made me think, ‘I don’t want my kids to know I watched this garbage.’”
I share that not because I am going to fulfill my feeling, but because the only other movie that provokes me so was Babylon and its elephant opening.
PTA has obviously earned a hearing, but, unlike his others, this movie has too many flaws to be anything more than a “sign of the times”.
I’m Terrified of Top Gun 3 and Heat 2
For the record, while my feeds are abuzz with Heat 2 casting news and resultant excitement, I am terrified. The reason I am terrified is that nothing in Heat says “sequel”. And the entire point of Heat is to capture at the premier level the modern “Cops and Robbers” game.
The world has changed and while a new “cops and robbers” game is surely possible, it cannot have any ties to a previous game. Like, “Nerd alert! Johnny Law here wants to use the rules from last game!” Also, Mann used the whole “bank’s money” line from Heat in Public Enemies already. A third delivery will make him truly a contender for “one trick pony”. Add to this that Blackhat and Ferrari, while adored by yours truly—especially Blackhat—were panned or ignored by general audiences. This means the train has left the station. Michael Mann’s star (he is my favorite direct and it does not pain me to say this) has fallen.
The path Mann should now follow is to become a film critic who harshly condemns every attempt at film (most are terrible these days) until he irritates the right director into producing something great and classic.
Re: TG3, I cannot say I have ever finished a movie thinking “I cannot wait for the sequel” more than Top Gun. Similarly, I cannot say that anyone I ever heard talk about TG:Maverick after the credits rolled said, “I cannot wait for the sequel.” The entire success of Maverick was “satisfaction of audience’s hyper-specific needs.” There is no chance of accomplishing the same feat again as our needs are met. We are fat and happy. As Papa once told me, the Ghanans, upon completion of a feast, lovingly rub their bellies and ponder, “Why did I get married?”
To both movies, I say, “No, no, no. Thank you but no thank you. Please take it away. I am full.”
The Final Paragraph of 11th Edition Encyclopedia Britannica’s Entry “Gunpowder Plot”
(For purists, this is also the infamous 10th Edition’s entry; the 11th is the 10th with three extra volumes.)
Just now I was catching up on my CBS Psalms study from last week, where I date the Psalms as I read them—a new habit to illustrate to myself and others how much of the Bible is actually ever read—when I saw the date and mechanically uttered V for Vendetta’s, “Remember, remember the fifth of November.”
I then moved to teach my 3 yr old, J-, the poem. During this, my conscience showed its face and I thought, “What even was the big deal? And was it successful or not? And did V really like the plot?” Etc.
Here’s the aforementioned conclusion (keep in mind the “Brit” of “Britannica” were the victims of the plot).
So ended the strange and famous capital Gunpowder Plot. However, atrocious its conception and its aims, it is impossible not to feel, together with horror for the deed, some pity and admiration for the guilty persons who took part in it. “Theirs was a crime which it would never have entered into the heart of any man to commit who was not raised above the lowness of the ordinary criminal.” They sinned not against the light but in the dark. They erred from ignorance, from a perverted moral sense rather than from any mean or selfish motive, and exhibited extraordinary courage and self-sacrifice in the pursuit of what seemed to them the cause of God and of their country. Their punishment was terrible. Not only had they risked and lost all in the attempt and drawn upon themselves the frightful vengeance of the state, but they saw themselves the means of injuring irretrievably the cause for which they felt such devotion. Nothing could have been more disastrous to the cause of the Roman Catholics than their crime. The laws against them were immediately increased in severity, and the gradual advance towards religious toleration was put back for centuries. In addition a new, increased and long-enduring hostility was aroused in the country against the adherents of the old faith, not unnatural in the circumstances, but unjust and undiscriminating, because while some of the Jesuits were no doubt implicated, the secular priests and Roman Catholic laity as a whole had taken no part in the conspiracy. (Philip Chesney York, an Oxford man.)
****
A post-script for my dad who says he struggles to connect what I see as the “obvious” connection within my posts.
Beyond the bald facts (as presented here), the following questions remains, “What particular training did the Britannica author have which allowed him to make his claim? Was it secular? Or support of some branch of Christianity? And how does the Bible study I am engaged in influence me? Towards sinning ‘against the light” or “in the dark’? By what measure can that be answered?”
For me, the true “Christianity” prevails. “Nothing could have been more disastrous to the cause of the Roman Catholics than their crime,” being the key notion. Fighting may be part of the road to prevailing. But if the fighting causes Christianity to lose, the sin was designed in the dark.
“Low IQ”, Review of “House of Dynamite, by ZDT Chick
Who can forget Hurt Locker? And I have commented elsewhere that Zero Dark Thirty is genuinely remarkable. It’s not a secret that I generally despise movies made by streamers, but for these two portfolio-ck reasons, I held out hope that House of Dynamite would be excellent.
To be sure, it passes the time. That’s the main requirement I have for movies these days. And it succeeds in passing the time divertingly. I’m actually surprised how late it got without me noticing.
But in the time that passed between when the project started to the time it was released, we have seen a tremendous shift in the decisiveness of American leadership at the top. So the whole movie feels less than excellent.
There is a fairly viral video of candidate Trump, and his team at the time, watching the DNC Harris speech together, wherein we got to see an intimate portrait of these people at work. If you haven’t watched it, here’s a link to one dude’s clip of it.
The overall point is, politics aside, the man running the show is decisive. Sure, TACO is a real criticism on some level, but it’s difficult to measure because it is reasonable that many TACO events are only TACO-narrative-feeders if the timeline is the incorrect length. Not to mention, TACO is more about matching talk to walk, not walk as opposed to stay still. Or “paralysis by analysis” as some pilots would say.
For this movie review’s point, which is inescapably a review of the concept of reacting to a nuclear attack on America, President Trump and his team—again, regardless of the politics—will be decisive and with a speed that impresses even “high functioning” people. This belief was actually comforting during the film.
In short, while Bigelow’s movie intends on illustrating that Earth truly is a house of dynamite—the description is not merely a metaphor—it fails. This is because the leaders—metaphorical fathers?—in the film are portrayed as “indecisive and low IQ”. (Except the interrogator guy from ZDT. He gets my vote for who should be in charge.)
Put another way, could someone please make a movie based on the exact same scenario, but show how it would play out when decisive leaders are in charge? That version would be far more interesting to see. And it would naturally offer an actual answer to the still-compelling question, “Do we live in a house of dynamite?”
“I Can Fly. I’m a Pilot” Movie Review of F1, Starring Not Tom Cruise
So Brad Pitt really wishes he was Tom Cruise? Is that what we’re to understand?
He explains that there are exceptional moments during a race, which in fact drive him to race beyond all barriers, when he “feels like he is flying”.
And apparently this is supposed to be confusing to everyone else in the racing business, who is only motivated by money.
Ridiculous.
And what’s more, I can happily report that flying feels nothing like what he describes—something he has no reason to not know, given he flies on planes all the time and has surely asked his pilots.
As I pilot, I can tell you the main two reasons “feels like flying” does not in fact feel like flying, are, “human vision isn’t bird-like,” and “there are others flying through the air too”.
Please indulge me as I re-write the script.
****
“Then why do you do it?” she asks.
“My dad was a mechanic. He gambled. He got me into racing. When I’m out there,” Pitt pauses, eyes impossibly seeing triply turn 4, the entire track, and the Redeemer God, Jesus, at once, “when I’m out there, on the track- it’s a controlled environment. There is no oncoming traffic, no intersections, no work, no family, no teachers, no law, no disease, no death, no surprises. Or at least that’s how it feels ehhhhhhvery once in a while. And ehhhhhvery once in a while, I am in complete control of this shitbox we call ‘life’. Those moments of life?” here, another perfect Pitt pause, his eyes being led by his soul over to her eyes where they stop, as it were, in victory lane before continuing, “They’re my favorite.”
How To Do The Inconceivable.
(If you’re short on time, skip to the bottom for numbered instructions.)
Because it is time, that’s why. Someone needs to grab the bull by the horns and reveal the secret to accomplishing anything. The following few paragraphs are going to give you the tips you need to do anything you can conceive.
In the recent Tom Cruise movie Oblivion, T.C. and his female counterpart are two-weeks away from completing their mission on the ‘remote site’ that is Planet Earth. After the two weeks, they will return to the new human settlement with those who survived the war. Granted, the work they were doing was not in itself particularly difficult or boring. Loneliness seemed to be the biggest negative. And the dream of how life would be like in two weeks’ time kept them going.
How many of us ever thought we’d spend as much time and energy as we have to accomplish so little? How did we do it? Where did we get the strength from? Were we born with it? Even if we were born with it, we must fight the desire to victimize ourselves. Instead, as a group we need to accept total responsibility for our lives.
Where did the strength to put up with a life we never conceived come from? The strength came from believing a lie. The lie that there will be more time in the future. Break down the concept of the future a little and you’ll see why this is a lie. The future has not happened. The present is happening. The future “is not”. The present “is”. What do you gain if when you trade what “is” for what “is not”?
The future will never be. Can you understand this? The future will never “exist.” It will never “be.” That’s it’s definition. If you believe that the future is something that “will be”, then you’re no longer describing the same abstract idea that’s being discussed here, and is commonly labeled “the future.” There is no catching-up. There is no getting ahead. These are impossibilities.
I have been nearly exclusively reading the classics for almost a decade now, and a common theme is best summed up by Jon J. Muth in his children’s book, “The Three Questions”, based on Leo Tolstoy’s ideas. “Remember then that there is only one important time, and that time is now. The most important one is always the one you are with. And the most important thing is to do good for the one who is standing at your side. For these, my dear boy, are the answers to what is most important in this world.”
The choice is always yours. If you want to do the inconceivable follow the instructions below. If you want to exist in reality, stick with living in the present.
Instructions for How to Do The Inconceivable:
Step 1 – Believe that after you’ve accomplished it, you’ll have time to do what you really want.
Step 2 – Understand that there is only one step.
Captain’s Log 