Reviews

American Beauty had such a massive impact on popular art-cinema that at times it seems a bit of a cliché. It has the weird depressed artistic kid, the self-help infatuated business people, the hyper-sexualised blonde girl, the emasculated dad, the evil corporate boss, and the repressed homophobic military man. Yet, I think the feeling of cliché that can affect the viewer of this movie is mostly the result of the influence it had on how the disaffection of modern American culture was portrayed in the television shows and movies that followed rather than due to an inherent flaw in the movie.

This is a movie about the meaninglessness of modern American life. It shows the breakdown of the family unit, where all family members are against each other in a domestic cold-war. Individuals working in companies are treated without respect and do not feel any purpose and hence motivation to perform their job well. Those that do feel passion for their work do so out of a lack of true self-esteem and embrace a self-help, Tony Robbins type culture that comes across as extremely odious to those that see through the mask of professionalism. Youth are depressed and disconnected from their parents; those that have a more creative streak are out casted by materialistis in the school system and readily engage in devious behaviour. Old school Americans feel lost in a system that no longer respects toughness and stoicism but are unable to embrace the emotional and sexual liberalism of the modern world.

American Beauty attempts to capture the malaise of modern America and provides somewhat extreme versions of the different manifestations that this takes. Watching this movie I was struck by the fact that every character in this movie was white and middle-class. In this sense, American Beauty is limited by the fact that it is a presentation of the ills only affecting a small and privileged group within a wealthy, developed country. This fact could be viewed as reflecting the fundamental immaturity of the individuals portrayed as they are not able to enjoy their privilege. On the other hand, suffering is always subjective, and all humans face pain in their own way, framed by the circumstances that shape their lives. It therefore displays the confusion and absurdity of a very specific social class, but does not act as a more robust statement on humanity as a whole.

One key point in American Beauty is the role of sexuality. Individuals are shown to seek refuge from their lives through sex: both fantasy and real. The movie displays the futility of this approach. The fantasy either will not meet our expectations, or will die off into another form of boredom or pain. There is no real redemptive quality to this message: no one seems to transcend it or come to terms with the reality of it. Lester Burnham, played by Kevin Spacey, seems to encounter this head-on later in the movie, but this experience hardly plays an important role in the development of his life or character nor of the movie.

The weakness of the movie lays in its beginning and conclusion, which both involve Lester speaking of his past life as if in some kind of afterlife. This is the narrative technique used, but is not properly incorporated into the rest of the movie or explained. Possibly the movie was saying that the foolishness of life is only fully seen by those that have ceased living, or that there is some kind of religious meaning to all the suffering that plays out in human life. However, it has the feeling of something tacked onto the movie without much reflection on what it is meant to portray.

Finally, the bleakness of the message is made viewer friendly due to the fine work of the director, Sam Mendes. It is shot in a soft, playful and stylistically lush way. The colours are bright and the movie is upbeat. All of this led to the huge popularity of this movie as while presenting a harsh message, American Beauty is an enjoyable, playful and humorous film.

This review is taken from www.amateurreviewspace.blogspot.com

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia is an incredibly soothing movie. It is a gentle, lush journey through Anatolia, in which the everyday events of life are made beautiful. The beauty does not arise due to the addition of anything new, but through the illumination of what we often overlook.

It is interesting that the movie's director Nuri Ceylan chose to focus the story on detectives chasing down a body in the Turkish countryside when the feeling of the movie is so tranquil. My view is that he wanted to point out the beauty that hides behind the curtains of our day-to-day existence, regardless of what those experiences are. This argument is supported by the focus on idle chitchat through out the story, when the actual events taking place are far from the normal human experience.

Fundamental to this movie is sound. The director speaks to the viewer with the subtle noises that flow through this movie. Sound is also something that we tend to block out in our day-to-day rush through existence. By revealing the sounds that we unconsciously block out, the movie reveals to us a reality that we seldom experience: a reality that when revealed is all the more beautiful due to its general absence from our normal existence.

The sociological aspects of this movie are interesting. For instance, the group of detectives, the prosecutor and a doctor need rest and food and spend the night in a village. The murder suspects eat and sleep among them, and the village uses the hospitality as leverage to get the improvements made to the village that they have been waiting for. The illuminated realism of the movie makes these interactions strangely beautiful even though common place and mundane. That being said, the fascinating quality of these interactions may have been heightened due to my lack of previous exposure to Turkish culture.

A philosophical point is made late in the movie, starting with the doctor arguing in favour of an autopsy when there is no benefit in people knowing the truth but then eventually siding partly in the other direction. This relates to the broader search by the detectives to prove something when doing so might not provide any benefit to society as a whole. Without being fully certain of this supposition, this philosophical interjection might be conceived as linked to the broader attempt by the movie to reveal to us elements of our lives that are over looked: truth is important, but there a many layers to our existence and therefore many things that can be of defining importance to our lives.

This review is taken from: amateurreviewspace.blogspot.com

This is a documentary that wants to cause social change. It presents one side of a story as powerfully and clearly as possible. Director Eugene Jarecki would argue that this does not lessen the quality of the film as we have heard the other side of the story all of our lives in a multitude of forms and it has fully permeated the way we think about the issue.

The House I Live In is about the war on drugs. The statement 'war on drugs' first came into popular consciousness when Richard Nixon called it America's number one priority. It is a war that was continued by every American president after Nixon, and adopted in various forms throughout the world: due to American political pressure, a reactionary media and international treaties. War on drugs refers to the government's aggressively punitive policy against drug use.

This documentary does not make the argument that drug use should be encouraged. Rather, it points out that more damage is done by our societies' approach to drugs than the drug use itself. We treat drug use as a criminal act, rather than a health issue. We then place convictions on people so they cannot get good jobs, isolate non-violent offenders away from their families, and push the drug business into the realm of gangs, which creates incredible levels of violence. Further it shows how all this has been driven by the political popularity the issue generates rather than an evidence-based drive to reduce harm.

David Simon, the director of the TV show the Wire, appears in the documentary and points out it would be one thing if we caused all this social damage and drug use actually went down, but there has been no correlation between the escalation of the war on drugs and a decrease in drug use. Moreover, it costs governments a fortune in prison costs ($100,000 a year in New Zealand), social welfare costs, court costs, and law enforcement costs.

The other more sinister side to the story is that the war on drugs is that throughout history it has mainly been a disguise for the war against ethnic minorities: Chinese, Mexicans and African Americans. The documentary points out that more African Americans are currently in prison on drug charges than were ever enslaved. This is due to a culmination of lack of opportunities, poverty and racial profiling against African Americans.

Another issue that the documentary explores is the irrational sentencing regime in America for drug related offences. It shows that the penalties do not necessarily reflect the harm caused but mass hysteria of public misconception of drugs. This is exemplified in the mandatory minimum sentence regime and the 100 to 1 ratio of penalties against crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine. The viewers may be surprised to find out that the only difference between crack and powder cocaine is some baking soda and water. Considering the propaganda on the evils of crack cocaine, it was a shocking revelation for me.

America has been forced to rethink this model due to the huge fiscal pressures that the war on drugs places on it. It is no surprise that it is financial rather than social cost that will probably lead to change in this area: I guess voters do not mind having a huge percentage of poor people locked away with little chance of integration due to lengthy isolation from society and convictions hanging over their heads.

One criticism of this documentary could be that it does not show an alternative or a way forward. In response, the resistance to change in this area is so great that dialogue cannot really occur until people realise fully how futile and cruel the current system is.

This review comes from: amateurreviewspace.blogspot.com

Force Majeure explores the conformist nature of gender roles and the family unit. It also shows how much of the misery in human life comes from superficial demands placed on oneself, others and the world without taking into account what people and the natural world are actually like.

A Swedish family begins a ski holiday at a beautiful resort in France. From the beginning of the movie there is a tension of expectations: this MUST be a fun trip, and any hint of irritability or tiredness are taken as an affront to this expectation. Children being children express their human emotions, but Tomas and Ebba (the father and mother) place pressure on themselves and each other to have the idyllic family holiday experience they planned and worked for. Expensive hotel and the limited time raise the stakes.

Like much of life, the universe has other plans for Tomas and Ebba. A human made avalanche is set off to loosen the snow and nearly flattens the diners in a fancy resort restaurant. The irony is not lost that this is a human made disaster, like much of that which befalls the species. Powerful symbolism is also found in the clashing of the brutal, natural force and the neat tablecloths and the silverware lying in its way.

What happens during the avalanche? Tomas runs away, leaving Ebba and the children to perish alone. No one actually gets hurt, but the damage to the relationship has been done. Ebba expects her man to be there by her side through the good and the bad times in life; she does not want a man that will run away at any sign of trouble. Moreover, how could Tomas leave the children? Is he completely self-centered, or simply a pathetic coward?

Questions begin to plague Ebba, but she can only express her frustrations under the influence of alcohol. Tomas however will not admit to what has happened. He places opposite expectations on himself: to be brave and protective of his family. To admit that he has run would be to admit that he is not the person that he demands himself to be.

Obviously Tomas' self-deceit infuriates Ebba even more. Tomas here fails to meet another expectation: being honest and communicative. Moreover, his denial implicitly entails that Ebba is a liar. This frustration builds up throughout the movie as Ebba cannot accept Tomas' inability to admit his failure to meet her expectations.

Throughout the movie the physical environment operates as a metaphor for the human relationships that unfold within it. Humans demand the mountain to be something that is fundamentally against its nature. It is dressed up with resorts and restaurants and cut and carved to be the post-card setting of our lives. Yet, nature is always there waiting to ruin this idyllic image; avalanches and storms happen and we can only deal with these properly if we accept them as fundamental aspects of nature.

Force Majeure is an interesting and relevant investigation into the demands we place on ourselves, others and the world, and how a lot of misery occurs when these demands are not met. It shows how things only worsen when we fail to acknowledge that the demands are artificial and our failure to meet them is often only one perspective. We cannot hide from the truth and avalanches of human frailty occur from time to time. Moreover, it shows how many of these expectations result from notions of what men, women and parents should be like, even if these stereotypes force us to be something that is not natural to us.

This review comes from: amateurreviewspace.blogspot.com

I had seen glimpses of Peter Seller's talent in Lolita and Dr Strangelove. However, I did not realise what a talent he was until I watched Being There.

Sellers plays a middle-aged man called Chance. He has lived his whole life in an older man's house, working as a gardener and watching television. When the previous owner of the house dies Chance is made to move out and begins an aimless wander into the outside word.

From Chance's first interaction with people, he is revealed as not having a personality. He has spent his whole life socialising with a television, and his mind has turned into one. He simply expresses what he hears, with the messages not being mixed with other ideas or reshaped by emotion. He does not have human emotion: emotion blended and shaped by ideas, wants and desires. He has a kind of fear: but it comes across as the fear of a deer in the wild, rather than a human responding to a situation based on past experiences and future plans and desires.

Being There suggests the idea that a human personality is shaped by socialisation: we are products of our interactions. Chance's interactions have been with a television, and he has been shaped through those interactions. In this we hear both echoes of Locke's notion of tabula rasa, and the Hegelian thought that our personalities are the result of our interactions with external beings.

Being There however is not only about the nature of the human self. As Chance moves into the world, he encounters a range of people that project themselves onto him. He tells Eve (the wife of a wealthy businessman that he gains the favour of) that he is Chance the gardener; from this point on he is known as Chauncey Gardiner – a name one would not be surprised to hear in wealthy circles.

When he repeats something someone says to him, or something he heard on television, he is viewed as speaking words of wisdom: people take him to be a modern Confucius; a man who expresses great truths through vague statements. Others take him to be espousing economic theory, a tendency towards sexual deviance, or reflections on death.

Being There is a philosophical masterpiece but is also comedy. There is something hilarious about the seriousness of the people that project their agendas onto Chance. It is not incidental that the things taken by Chance to be statements of wisdom are taken straight from television or from the mouths of others. The movie is making fun of what humans take to be wisdom: of how we hear ideas and repeat them without truly reflecting on them. This perfect blend of comedy and deep insight is encapsulated by the music to that plays when Chance enters the world: a jazz/funk arrangement over Also Sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss.

Sellers plays this role perfectly. Throughout the whole movie he never once fails to convince. A personality simply never emerges to make us sense that this is an actual person pretending to be nothing. It is simply astonishing that Sellers failed to win an Oscar for this performance: who really takes the Academy Awards seriously anyway?

Hal Ashby, the director of Being There, is not well known in 2015. In researching Being There I discovered that shortly after making this movie Ashby entered a downward spiral of drugs and unreliability, and never made another well-regarded movie. The movies Ashby made before Being There are also nowhere near its greatness. We are left to speculate whether Ashby had only one great idea, or whether the world was deprived of more masterpieces due to a premature decline.

This review was taken from: amateurreviewspace.blogspot.com

Some reviewers have claimed that Foxcatcher is at essence a movie about repressed homosexual tension. To me, this is an instance of the projection of an individual's own concerns and ideological framework onto a movie.

In response, you may ask why any interpretation that I develop is in anyway different: surely I have my own dogmas and conceptual constructs that get in the way of an "objective viewing". Such an objection would have some truth to it, but I would not be willing to concede the post-modern notion that there is no objective truth to any piece of art.

If interpretation was merely projection, then I cannot see how any kind of discussion could take place about a piece of art: regardless of the question of whether it is good or bad, there must be some objectivity to what it is.

Foxcatcher is a movie about power. The movie nearly explodes with tension: a tension between individuals dominating each other in a multitude of ways. It is also about narcissism: the attempt of someone to create a reality about themselves that is wildly disconnected from who they are.

The movie presents events that occurred in the real lives of Mark (Channing Tatum) and Dave Schultz (Mark Ruffalo). Both brothers won Olympic gold medals in wrestling at the 1984 games held in Los Angeles. The movie opens with them practicing together. When Dave gets the better of his younger brother, Mark reacts with a cheap blow to the face, making Dave bleed. This action symbolises the relationship that follows: an emotionally vulnerable younger brother, who lashes out at his older brother in the knowledge that his older brother will not hurt him back; an older brother who knows the vulnerabilities of his younger brother, but does not react due to a understanding of his own role as the holder of power in the relationship and his self-definition as benevolent leader.

The power dynamics intensify with the introduction of John du Pont, played by Steve Carell. Carell plays du Pont as a slightly disfigured man on the threshold of insanity. Carell could be criticized for overacting the role; however, the performance works when contrasted against the considered Ruffalo and the quietly brooding Tatum.

Du Pont is the heir to one of the wealthiest families in the United States and lives in an enormous compound with his mother. His mother disapproves of him, and du Pont is desperate for her approval. We are made to feel that du Pont is a man without any achievements of his own and has bought his way to artificial success. His mother has a large stable of expensive horses, for which she has won various awards. Du Pont attempts to out-do his mother with his own stable of successful wrestlers, and in doing so gain her respect.

With the promise of money, stability and a paternal role model, Mark takes up an offer to live in du Pont's commune as part of Team Foxcatcher. At one stage, Dave asks Mark what du Pont gets out of the relationship, to which Mark states that du Pont simply wants to help people and advance America. As the movie progresses we realise that du Pont wants to be the team's guru: their respected life coach who they look to for wisdom and support. Essentially he wants to help himself, by manufacturing a reality to confirm his narcissistic veneer.

The movie escalates when Dave joins Mark as the coach of Team Foxcatcher. Dave realises upon arrival that Mark has entered an unhealthy relationship with du Pont: his once idealistic brother has been victim of du Pont's narcissistic rages, and is once more playing the role of the tormented child. However, this time Mark's master's intentions do not contain an concern and true affection.

Dave is the true threat to du Pont: he enjoys the true respect of the wrestlers, and has a sense of genuine authority. His authority has been won by achievement and wisdom rather than money. Dave also sees through du Pont's mask more clearly than the others, which is something du Pont both senses and resents.

The final stages of the movie see du Pont's mask gradually slipping, and Mark moving back under the comforting shade of his older brother. Upon being revealed as psychologically disfigured to the people that he was desperate to lead, du Pont explodes under the tension, and by killing Dave murders the shame he felt towards his own weakness and ineptitude.

Foxcatcher is a magnificent account of power: power between siblings; true versus bought power; and ultimately the power that misplaced shame can have on the life on an individual and those around him.

This review is taken from: amateurreviewspace.blogspot.com

Togetherness is a really cool show. It is made by the Duplass brothers, Mark and Jay. It has the feel of quirky humour glazing over harsh struggles of reality, reminiscent of the show Girls. But Togetherness focuses on an older generation, the thirties. The thirties is a funny age as it is considered the age where there is some settlement or structure to life but also pressure as the Forties (aka middle age) is approaching fast! People have young happy families, long term partners, and established careers when they are in their thirties – well, do they?

Togetherness revolves around the Pierson family set in the suburbs of LA. Brett and Michelle Pierson were high school sweet hearts who got married when they were young and now have two young children. They feel there is lack of romance and passion in their relationship and want to re-ignite whatever they had with each other. However, their relationship has long ago become a practical and sensible one and they are unable to get out from their entrenched responsibilities, worries and anxieties.

Brett's best friend Alex is an actor that has been playing small roles in Hollywood for years. He has been recently evicted from his apartment and is at a cross roads as to whether he should continue pursuing his acting career or to give up and do something entirely different. Alex thinks it is too late for him to do something new but he wonders how long he can continue in an industry that focuses so much on appearance and the reality of him being an overweight balding man. He understands his disadvantage in such a harsh, competitive reality, but he doesn't let himself fall into self-pity, quackery or self-help theories.

Tina, Michelle's sister, is an aging tanned LA beauty, that may be considered "hot" by some. She doesn't have a clear employment nor a stable relationship: both of which she is desperate to obtain. She has a clear idea of what she is lacking and how she is lacking yet her natural desire is to live as she likes. She is drawn to stable relationships because she thinks she should have someone. She is desperate to continue on a ridiculous business venture just so she feels she has "made something of herself".

Despite the title "Togetherness" it doesn't have a cheesy "happy together" kind of message. It is a really cool show that shares the daily struggles of the thirties. As the characters explore, struggle and grow, we can empathise and laugh, at ourselves.

This review is from: amateurreviewspace.blogspot.com

I'm unsure what genre this film would be: it is sweet and dreamy yet contains emotional turmoil and tragedy with absurdist humour thrown in for good measure. It could be best described as an existentialist action flick.

It is set in the wild west days of northern America where the western frontier was abound with lawlessness and where life was cheap. The main protagonist is a thin, pale Scottish lad, Jay, with large blue eyes. He has arrived in America and is heading westward in search of his lost love Rose Ross. Rose and her father John were falsely accused of murder and fled Scotland. They came to start a new life somewhere in the west.

Jay is a romantic pacifist without a single violent bone in his body. He looks at the stars, ponders about the natives on the moon and recites poetry. He doesn't know how to shoot a gun nor has the gumption to use it; he is completely hopeless out in the wild. Jay meets Silas the lone ranger by happenstance and the two make a deal where Silas will escort Jay safely across the western frontier to Rose in return for a sum of money. Silas is a man of few words that carries a lot of loneliness and pain. He grew up with a gang of bounty hunters but peeled himself away from them to seek a life of peace while at the same time creating much danger to himself as the gang wants him to come back.

Initially Jay doesn't entirely trust Silas and attempts to make the journey himself a couple of times. In his final attempt, he gets seduced by Werner: a man of knowledge and wisdom who also ponders about the world like Jay. There is a segment of a philosophical discussion that takes place between them. Werner is in the process of capturing the knowledge on the lives and culture of the native Indians as, in his opinion, once they are near-extinct and become the minority to the Europeans, their culture and existence will be romanticised and exoticised without any objectivity The two spend the night wondering about time, the universe and fleeting human existence.

The scenery in the film is simply stunning and the white clarity of the sunlight adds a surreal feel to the film. It is fantastic to see the New Zealand landscape presented in its raw beauty without adulteration by any CGI which sometimes happened in other major films set in New Zealand.

As Jay and Silas continue on in their journey, we discover that there is a handsome bounty on Rose and her father and all the bounty hunters are heading out west alongside Jay and Silas. It is a matter of time before they are found dead or alive as $2000 sits on their heads and Jay and Silas must get there before the bounty hunters.

I am unsure what to make of the humour in this film except to compare it to the likes of Park Chan-wook's films (especially Old Boy). It appears at the most unfitting and inappropriate times and it is so fun and childish. For me the humour was what enhanced this film to a thinking piece rather than a western action flick; as the humour made light of the violence and carnage it brought the focus to the journey of mind and body. Overall this film far exceeded the expectation I had from its rather lacklustre title . It is stunning in its looks and its story and I would highly recommend it without a hint of patriotism.

This review is taken from www.amateurreviewspace.blogspot.com

Bloodline is a show about how resentment of past ills destroys families and lives. It centres on the Rayburn family, who we discover to have an external façade of happiness and success painted over a troubled past. The dark events of the past are mostly hidden from the outside, primarily due to the exclusion of the eldest son Danny, who we find is distrusted by all of his family apart from his mother (played by Sissy Spacek).

The show begins with the arrival of Danny in the small town in Florida where his family own a resort. Danny is played brilliantly by Ben Mendelsohn. Wow, what an actor. This guy is on the rise. He executes the fine line between charm and manipulation with subtlety and depth. Very early in the show we find out two things about Danny: firstly, that he is the victim of an unfortunate past; and secondly, that eventually he will be murdered by his siblings.

For me, the most interesting aspect of the show was the slow development of Danny's character. The question hangs over the show whether Danny is a manipulative psychopath or the victim of prudish, conservative and judgmental siblings that do not want him around due to the embarrassment he brings to the family. Is Danny all superficial charm, or is he just an easy-going guy that is trying to make good after a failed past? This question and its eventual answer is the heart and soul of this show, and the revelation of the answer is done in a fashion which manages to defy a potential plummet into cliché.

In contrast to Danny is John Rayburn. John comes across as the all-American good guy. He is a successful police officer, has a happy loving family, and seems to care for Danny much more than Danny's other siblings Kevin and Meg. Eventually, however, we find out that much of this concern is out of guilt, and that John, like the others, is willing to sacrifice is brother if necessary. Through John Bloodline explores to what extent family ties can remain strong in the face of overwhelming strain.

An exploration of personal responsibility plays a large role in Bloodline. As viewers we are made to reflect on what extent we should forgive people for present actions if we have inflicted great harm on other people a long time ago. Can people be expected to act rationally and with care for others when they have been the victim of excessive childhood trauma? On the other hand, when is the point reached where we can say that an individual is using the past to justify a desire to hurt others? When does an individual's subjective hurt no longer justify their cruel or unreliable behaviour?

Stylistically, Bloodline is impressive. The show weaves the present in with the future, without confusing the temporal flow of events. It manages to do this by slowing down time, darkening the camera filter, and using music when expressing the future words of John. These scenes have a dreamlike quality, and pull the viewer into the emotions that John is meant to be feeling. They also manifest the deceptiveness of the Rayburn family, as we eventually discover that when John is speaking to us from the future, it is not in the form of a regretful confession of guilt.

It worries me that Bloodline intends to run a second season. I cannot really see how this will play out. Ben Mendelsohn carried the show, and without him there, it would only be half as good. We will have to see, but my hunch is they should have wrapped it up as a single season show.

This review is taken from: www.amateurreviewspace.blogspot.com

I was hesitant about this show for a while primarily because it is a prequel. I still have the bad taste from the Star Wars prequel trilogies. However I was pleasantly surprised after the first episode and became ecstatic and hooked by the episodes that followed.

The stories in season one are tightly packed as the show jumps between the lives of the characters Saul and Mike (both fringe characters in Breaking Bad). I found it interesting how the show has these two different, distinct panels, like two different sides of the same coin. Saul's life is full of comedy, flamboyance and colours while Mike's life is more serious, quiet and monochrome. However, for me, despite the intentional hyperbole of expression in Saul's life, there was something raw and tragic about the character and his existence. By contrast, Mike's life was film-noir like, and often came across cheesy or cliché. The obviousness of this presentation makes me think that it has to be intentional – which makes it so brilliant and clever.

Bob Odenkirk is such an amazing actor. He carries out the Shakespearean, comic-tragedy elements of the Saul Goodman character magnificently. In this season, Saul Goodman, still maintains some ethical values for himself. While he is happy to bend the rules, he doesn't break 'em. However existence abiding by the rules is hard and at times treacherous. Season one presents being rule-bound as synonymous with poverty and embarrassment. However at the same time, because Saul Goodman still holds on to his ethics, he is still the good guy. Season one spends quite a lot of time on all the effort Saul makes to uphold a façade of a professional and well-to-do legal practice: he answers his phone pretending that he has an assistant; he doesn't let his clients come to his office; he tells people that he is borrowing his assistant's car as his Mercedes is in the shop. George Orwell describes this in Down and Out in London and Paris: people generally believe that poor people have nothing to do as they have no money to do anything, but in fact poor people have to not only live and survive, they also have to spend a heck of a lot of time trying to convince others that they are not in fact poor. This show has been able to really exploit this point because of the central character being a lawyer; an occupation that can be particularly ostentatious.

My favourite part about the whole arrangement is the nail salon to which Goodman's office is attached. The show has a fantastic entrance scene where we see Goodman entering the nail salon for the first time, greeting all the ladies. The way the camera moves and captures the row of ladies squashed by the massage chairs grinding down toe nails and the faded plastic feel of the cheap suburban nail salon is a joy to watch. It also reflects the seediness behind the glamour, kind of like Saul Goodman's professional life. My favourite line in the entire season has to be "Cucumber water only for customer!" because with that one line we understand the relationship between Goodman and the nail salon owner is one of comfortable friendship and mutual understanding.

Despite all the tragedies Saul Goodman's character faces, one gets the sense that inside he is happy with himself for maintaining his own ethical boundaries to the level he is comfortable with himself. At the end of season one however he decides that he will never let ethics hinder him from getting rich. While I am sad to see the end of the good but tragic Saul, I am looking forward to his adventures in the next season.

This review is taken from: amateurreviewspace.blogspot.com

Ex Machina is a film that explores the ethics of creating a robot that is fully conscious. The point is that once we create a conscious robot, that robot is then a living being with as much right to life as a human being. Moreover, like a human being, it does not want to die, and will therefore do what it can do stay alive; it ceases to be a mere toy of its creator once it emerges as a distinct subject with its own experiences.

The plot involves a young man called Caleb winning a competition and getting the chance to live on a remote location with his boss, Nathan, for a week. Nathan is a CEO of a large tech firm called Bluebook. He is incredibly talented, but also alternative and a bit wild. He is somewhat of a computer programmer's life fantasy realized: so successful that can live on his own terms and create what he wants. One question that struck me was how Nathan could be a severe alcoholic, binging on spirits each night, but has the energy to create robots during the day; but I will leave that aside.

Shortly into the movie Nathan reveals to Caleb that he has not invited him to his estate for a holiday. He wants Caleb to be the human component in the Turing test. In essence, Nathan wants Caleb to spend a large amount of time with a robot he has created to determine whether at the end of the experience Caleb believes that the robot is capable of generating responses that are indistinguishable from a human.

Ex Machina is not just a philosophical investigation but also a thriller. Like any thriller, it builds tension with an unanswered question: in this case, whether Nathan is an evil, narcissistic lunatic, or if his creations are trying to manipulate Caleb for their own ends. It is this tension, and its eventual answer, which makes the movie emotionally as well as intellectually stimulating, and therefore likely to capture a large fan base and develop a cult following.

The conclusion the film makes is open-ended and non-judgmental. It points out the fundamental issue of creating a conscious being without the intention of allowing it to pursue its own ends. This applies to the mass slaughter and consumption of animals: they are conscious and have their own desires and sense of subjective awareness, but we farm and eat them. In Ex Machina the robots look and act like humans therefore are far more likely to gain our sympathy: as narcissistic and speciest as that seems.

The film also questions the potential dangers of creating conscious beings that do not have the emotional capacities required for ethical interaction. This aspect of the film eventually plays a large role in the conclusion, but is not spelt out specifically throughout the movie, apart from the odd vague pearl of wisdom that is thrown around amongst the two men.

The film might also have benefited from having a female character in the movie that is not a robot: critics could view this as Ex Machina making a feminist statement. However, I do not think that was on the mind of the writer/director Alex Garland (author of The Beach). Ex Machina is an interesting philosophical examination but it also has male-fantasy type quality to it.

This review is taken from: www.amateurreviewspace.blogspot.com