Movie: The GiverDystopia in the flavor of modern SJW shut-down of independent thought, behavior, speech and interaction, all monitored extensively, and with consequences.
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Friday, June 9, 2017
Recommended
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Avatar: Were You Expecting A Plot?
The blockbuster, third of a billion dollar production, AVATAR, is being taken to task for its blatantly Left-wing, anti-white, anti-human, anti-just-about-everything except for its blatant Rousseauean pantheist stance. It was, in fact, shallow to the point of regressing plots to the cowboys-and-Indians genre of the 1930’s, except with the Indians/earth spirit as the holy and sacred and the cowboys as thoroughly, irredeemably evil.
Defenders say, well, the public loved it. And it actually is the only movie that we have paid a theater to view in over a year (or more). The reason of course was not for the plot which was never the selling point, it was for the massively spectacular graphics, all done in 3D. In spite of the silly, empty plot, I will probably watch the movie again when it gets to the dollar rental stage (assuming that the 3D will work via TV). I will be happy to view it by skipping to the scenes of waterfalls, phosphorescent nights, floating mountains, and so on – with the sound off.
But as far as the plot line, pfaagh. Still, I recommend seeing it in a theater, sit as close as you are comfortable, dead center. Just remain scrupulously clear about the narrative being sold.
Defenders say, well, the public loved it. And it actually is the only movie that we have paid a theater to view in over a year (or more). The reason of course was not for the plot which was never the selling point, it was for the massively spectacular graphics, all done in 3D. In spite of the silly, empty plot, I will probably watch the movie again when it gets to the dollar rental stage (assuming that the 3D will work via TV). I will be happy to view it by skipping to the scenes of waterfalls, phosphorescent nights, floating mountains, and so on – with the sound off.
But as far as the plot line, pfaagh. Still, I recommend seeing it in a theater, sit as close as you are comfortable, dead center. Just remain scrupulously clear about the narrative being sold.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Dark Knight: the movie review
If you haven't yet seen the new Batman movie, "Dark Knight", then stop reading right here and move along to something else. I don't do many new movies, and this is the first review of one. It will be short and to the point.
In the tradition of "Death Wish", the Batman series has now descended into a moral morass in the pursuit of "right". But the pursuit of right in these cases is defined by the individual, not the absolute previously known as Right.
In this amorality play the final descent occurs when Batman and the new Police Commissioner decide between them that the 30 million residents of Gotham cannot survive without an unblemished hero, and that hero had just been dragged down into the abyss by murdering several of the bad guys. So Batman takes the blame for the murders and becomes an outcast vigilante, sought by the law. Thus the populace can be kept innocent of the truth about the hero they so desperately require.
What are we asked to believe here? First that real evil is so powerful that it cannot be fought by good - that it requires an equal measure of evil to conquer it. Then that the populace is so weak that it cannot but collapse under the weight of that knowledge, and must be protected from that reality. Third, that the ultimate necessary good is to use evil in secret, disguised as good, to fight evil. Last, that the ultimate altruism is to sacrifice yourself to protect the lie... the lie that "the people" require.
What is tarnished here is the idea that all humans are fallible; that truth is the most powerful weapon against evil; that morality is not relative. Perhaps it is the fallibility of the human underneath the rubber bat-suit that is being spotlighted here. If so, that is not obvious from this movie, which leaves the viewer marvelling at the altruism of Batman who is sacrificing his own reputation in order to hide the truth from the population of Gotham.
The residents of Gotham must be very weak to be dependent upon a perfect hero. That's where the movie confuses us the most: the citizens who are placed in the position of needing to destroy each other in order to survive themselves, choose the high road. They are fearful yet morally strong in a desperate pinch.
The movie thus convolutes the message, which leaves us in a paradox: are the people morally weak or are they morally strong? The decision at the end by the two real "heroes" leaves us concluding - against the evidence - that the people of Gotham are weak. And that Batman is morally corrupt himself, with a low opinion of Gothamites, and a lower opinion of the truth.
The next Batman movie should be called "Living the Lie". And Batman should be living with the consequences of his erroneous decision. Otherwise this cinematic ethical collapse will not be redeemed.
In the tradition of "Death Wish", the Batman series has now descended into a moral morass in the pursuit of "right". But the pursuit of right in these cases is defined by the individual, not the absolute previously known as Right.
In this amorality play the final descent occurs when Batman and the new Police Commissioner decide between them that the 30 million residents of Gotham cannot survive without an unblemished hero, and that hero had just been dragged down into the abyss by murdering several of the bad guys. So Batman takes the blame for the murders and becomes an outcast vigilante, sought by the law. Thus the populace can be kept innocent of the truth about the hero they so desperately require.
What are we asked to believe here? First that real evil is so powerful that it cannot be fought by good - that it requires an equal measure of evil to conquer it. Then that the populace is so weak that it cannot but collapse under the weight of that knowledge, and must be protected from that reality. Third, that the ultimate necessary good is to use evil in secret, disguised as good, to fight evil. Last, that the ultimate altruism is to sacrifice yourself to protect the lie... the lie that "the people" require.
What is tarnished here is the idea that all humans are fallible; that truth is the most powerful weapon against evil; that morality is not relative. Perhaps it is the fallibility of the human underneath the rubber bat-suit that is being spotlighted here. If so, that is not obvious from this movie, which leaves the viewer marvelling at the altruism of Batman who is sacrificing his own reputation in order to hide the truth from the population of Gotham.
The residents of Gotham must be very weak to be dependent upon a perfect hero. That's where the movie confuses us the most: the citizens who are placed in the position of needing to destroy each other in order to survive themselves, choose the high road. They are fearful yet morally strong in a desperate pinch.
The movie thus convolutes the message, which leaves us in a paradox: are the people morally weak or are they morally strong? The decision at the end by the two real "heroes" leaves us concluding - against the evidence - that the people of Gotham are weak. And that Batman is morally corrupt himself, with a low opinion of Gothamites, and a lower opinion of the truth.
The next Batman movie should be called "Living the Lie". And Batman should be living with the consequences of his erroneous decision. Otherwise this cinematic ethical collapse will not be redeemed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)