Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Important Message with subtle undertones
15 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Lots of good and eye opening messages in this documentary. The show explains how subtlety and "magic" is used by tech to get our attention and influence us, however at the same time there are subtle biases in play throughout the documentary. A few examples:
  • early in the documentary they explain how if you enter in "climate change is" in Google, depending on where you are the search results will be different, however later 2 of the people being interviewed express very urgent climate change messages, including one who said it was an existential threat.
  • They begin talking about government intervention to disrupt and overthrow democracies, using an example to Asia and slowing and subtlety use Russia as an example clearly implying while not explicitly stating the US was a victim of this same influence.
  • The overwhelming majority of the news clips sprinkled throughout the documentary were from CNN. Would have been nice to see clips from other sources.
  • There were lots of depictions of angry protests, specifically the anti-vaccine movement which I feel was an easy target. Also it depicts the 2 main dramatization actors accidentally walking into these protests and then wrongfully thrown on the ground by police, which I feel further feeds a "all protests are peaceful" and "anti-police" sentiment.
  • Finally there was a lot of undertone of demonizing capitalism and profits as the enemy. Most of the people interviewed were "former" executives of "take your pick" social media company who say the solution to the problems is more tech but "humane" tech.


My suggestion is to watch the show with a grain of salt, lots of positives and messages to take away, but the whatever change you feel is needed from those messages and takeaways should be actions you make from your own personal choice and not this "Animal Farm" istic notion that only the tech before us is bad, but not the tech and regulation this new round of tech suggests.
23 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Ho-Hum
9 August 2012
Been there and done that.

You basically have a buncha Pamela Landy types walking around a bunker somewhere talking spy, while you have another Bourne type character being chased around by yet another nemesis assassin? Seem a little familiar? This is the same soup, but with different mixins.

With that said though, the acting was good enough, and the fight scenes and chase scene at the end were good.

Come into this movie with a mindset that you are looking for a Bourne/Spy type movie that brings something new to the table, you will leave disappointed, but if you aren't picky and just need a weekend spy thriller, then this will do the trick.
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Wait for DVD release or be prepared for a 'blah' experience.
30 November 2007
Moved a little too quickly, characters were presented with little background, such as Sam Elliott's character, or the Ice Bear, and then the audience is immediately expected to care about them. I thought we could of been introduced to the characters a little better. Also seemed like the movie didn't flow well. I guess it's always a challenge when taking a large novel and trying to condense it into a 2 hour movie. LOTR accomplished this beautifully while this movie did not.

Along the same lines, people unfamiliar with the book may struggle trying to learn all the terms and concepts associated with the movie. Knowing the terminology of the movie is important in order to keep up with the plot, and those that miss something may be left behind.

Not all was negative however, the acting was actually quite good. Daniel Craig teamed up with his Bond girl again and they were both excellent in their respective roles. I though Ian McClellan (sp) as the voice of the ice bear was an interesting choice. The lead actress that played the girl did a nice job.

The movie also was quite nice visually, for example the ice bear fight was nicely done, and I liked the effect of when a daemon dies.

In summary, I found myself moving around in my chair often during the movie wondering when it would end. Some scenes grabbed my attention, and maybe I'll think about some of the characters again, but overall I kind of walked out with that 'blah' feeling.
18 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Narnia better story than LOTR, LOTR better movie
6 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
**A few spoilers but nothing new if you have read the book** I was disappointed with the CG in this movie, not nearly as good as Lord of the Rings. Almost looked like a made for TV movie in parts. Acting was just okay. The best performances were given by the white witch. She was my favorite character. For those of you who read the books, you may be a little disappointed. One of the most critical scenes in the movie is when Aslan heads up to the stone table to be sacrificed. There is supposed to be an emotion connection with the audience, but due to the fact that Aslan was only in the movie for a few scenes beforehand, you really don't' feel the impact. Then the children stay behind after Aslan's death and weep for a day or so. This again, after only meeting him a few minutes before in the film. Those were only some of the things that bothered my about the film.

Maybe Peter Jackson could have done better with the way the enviorments looked in the movie, they didn't seem to blend very well. The animals were actually done very well.

I give the movie a 7 in all, the book remains one of my favorites of all time. I liked it a lot more than LOTR although the LOTR movies are much better. I think maybe the lack of description compared to Tolkien in CS. Lewis's books came through on film. Who knows.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A movie to bring balance to the two Trilogies...
4 May 2005
I personally am more of a fan of the original trilogy than what I have been of the prequels. Although I did enjoy TPM, and AOTC, they definitely were not as well done as A New Hope or Empire. I think the general criticisms of the first two prequels was lack of good story, and poor acting. First I would like to say that the acting is much better in Revenge of the Sith than the first two prequels, but what truly stood out in this movie was the story. It was delivered perfectly, for the first time since Empire, Lucas connected emotionally with his audience. The last hour of the movie was especially powerful. Although probably not planned, I think this movie will be the bridge that brings the old star wars sheep back into the fold. Just as Anakin eventually brings balance to the force, Revenge of the Sith will bring balance back to the Star Wars Universe. And judging by the reaction of the test audience I was part of, everyone I was with feels the same way, no one left their seat for at least a couple minutes after the movie ended.
958 out of 1,445 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Finally a perfect ending to a masterpiece in film-making!
16 December 2003
First of all, let me say I have never read the books. (That is my next step) I can't say enough about ROTK. This movie will, without a doubt, go down as one of the greatest movies of all time, I certainly am not aware of any sequel that parallels this movie in any way. The acting was superb, the story was obviously amazing. Sean Astin as Sam should win an oscar for his picture. Dare I say best picure as well? And finally the ending was just perfect. As I was watching the last 20 minutes, I just nodded my head gently up and down, and thought "Yeah, this is the way this movie needs to end, this is perfect" For all those who have not seen the movie, you are in for such a special treat!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Elf (2003)
9/10
Funniest Movie since Meet the Parents
6 November 2003
Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. Funny.

Just looking at Will Ferrell is funny. Even James Caan was funny. I saw this during a screening and the entire theatre was busting up. This will be a great holiday movie for years to come. The ending was a little cheesy, but you won't remember it that. More Will Ferrill please!!!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mystic River (2003)
Good Idea, but something missing
16 October 2003
Mystic River: This was an okay film, the biggest plus I can give it is the acting. Tim Robbins and Sean Penn gave outstanding performances. Laura Linney, Kevin Bacon, and Lawerence Fishburn also gave very good performances.

I think the downside to the movie is that is was about a half hour too long. A lot of stuff could have been left out of the movie and saved for the DVD, especially at the end. The plot was over, the conflict resolved, and the movie just kept going, and going, and going. There wasn't really anything new to this movie as far as murder dramas go that was very impressing either. The idea was good, but somehow did not come together.

Overall I give the movie a 6 out of 10. Acting alone keeps the movie afloat and interesting. Points were deducted for poor editing.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't compare Movies to Books.
9 June 2003
Movie to Book comparisons will always be the same. The Book will always be much better. Books allow you to paint your own landscapes and visualize you own characters. To put it simply reading a book is different form of entertainment than watching a movie. In the days that you read a really good book, you carry the book with you even when you are not reading, you dream about the book, and its effect stay with you. Most movies, you just watch the movie, and don't give it much thought afterwards. Only the really good movies stay with you. Count of Monte Cristo is one of those movies, I caught myself thinking about this movie for days. It is honestly a great all around feel good movie. Another movie that stayed with me for a long time is "The Pianist". Aside from those two movies, there have been some other occaisonal good movies such as "Chicago" or "The Ring" that were good and I would see again, but most are just movies you go to watch and are done with. I work in a theatre so I have seen many of them. I am not ashamed to say that Counte of Monte Cristo is one of my all time favorite movies
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daredevil (2003)
2/10
One of the worst films I have ever seen.
12 February 2003
This film was made as a direct result of the huge success the 2002's Spiderman enjoyed. Its understandable to me why Marvel wanted to capitalize on Spiderman's success and continue bringing comic book characters to the big screen. I hope that X-men2 and Incredible Hulk turn out alot better than this movie. Daredevil can be described as a bunch of jig-saw puzzle pieces thrown in a box and tossed around. Let me give you a overview of what was going on inside my head at different points of this movie: After 10 Minutes: "This kind of looks interesting" After 30 Minutes: After re-adjusting myself in my seat a couple times, "Maybe it is just starting slow, I really hope this gets better!" After 1 Hour: "I can't believe I am still sitting here!" After 90 Minutes: "I would walk out now, but just for kicks and giggles I'll stick around." After Movie mercifully ends: "I just lost a considerable degree of intelligence for having to sit through that movie"

In fact folks, the only fun part about this movie was making fun of how horrible bad it was. Seriously, I am not at all a tough movie critic. But I think I have to go back now to all the stupid movies I have seen before and give them one or more points onto their score, just to move them above this movie in rating. Thats how bad it was. Poor acting, poor screenwriting, poor directing; this movie did not flow at all. I saw this movie for free because I work for a theatre, but please folks, do not waste your money on this film.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Forget the negative comments! Go see this film!
12 February 2003
This movie is very very funny. Period. I think that when you walk into a movie you have to walk-in with the correct expectations. If you want a scary movie, you should expect to be scared. If you want a drama, you should expect to be touched. If you want a comedy, you should expect to laugh. Whenever you read a comment on the movie from a critic that is negative, the reason is they are crtiqueing it for something it is not. Just go to this movie and you will laugh, I did for almost an hour straight. It is a good time, relax. If you are a guy, even though it is a chick flick, you will enjoy this. The movie is a parody of sorts because it portrays the way that girls treat guys sometimes. If you are a girl, well, you will like it too, because it is a chick flick. I saw Kate Hudson in Four Feathers and was not at all impressed with her, or the movie, so when I came to see this my expectations were not that high. Folks, both she and Mathew McConaghey were great. M. McConaghey has really mastered that masculine and funny dialogue much like Luke Wilson or Ben Stiller. Sure the movie is predictable in parts, and it does follow the typical romantic film recipe towards the end, but who cares. We don't go to movies to pick them apart. A movie theatre is not a classroom. Go. Relax. Enjoy. You will enjoy yourself.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed