Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
(So far I have seen or can remember now)
(Not based on overall movie quality, rather on the quality of Revenge / Vindictive contents, from my point of view)
Person of Interest (2011)
Easy to Tie strong Knots, most Difficult to Untie (major Questions)
The Series was almost about to turn out to be too good, and even with the recent changes, it was getting even better and better.
However, I couldn't like the last couple of episodes at all of Season 3, with so many ridicules. It's very easy to tie many strong knots, but most difficult to untie them smoothly. They seem to be just stretching the series to make it very long; after making it way too complex and ridiculous, possibly at one point they simply will just end with a ridiculous Series-finale (e.g. purgatory-like!).
These are just some major Questions about Person of Interest S3: (That I can't convince myself) (There are several more lurking around for later )
1. With all the photos, fingerprints, descriptions of Reese, Finch, Nathan, Shaw and Root in the Library (also from elsewhere like the courtroom video), how Decima, NSA, Police will not be able to find each of them, even with the traditional non-cctv methods?
2. Root and Shaw went into a major Samaritan Server location, attacked several guards and staff members, to install 7 huge servers. If those Decima staffs were just injured by them, didn't Decima already learn the details about who, how, why attacked that location/servers, and altered what? (then re-alter accordingly soon enough).
3. Whereas if, Root and Shaw killed them all, didn't Decima i.e. Greer already notice their key personnel of key location are missing, and quickly learn about details of those stated above using their resources? How a super-intelligent person like Greer can completely miss something that is so simple but Key event? Within an hour or two, when Greer sees 0 result of those searches are coming out from Samaritan, he was supposed to add it all up. So then what was the point of that prolonged mission anyway?
4. Some might say, that 7-servers development and installation mission was just to buy some time to hide from Decima (before Decima fixes it); if buying some time was the mission all along, (with all the time root & band took for the mission start-to-end) couldn't they just blow up several server locations, which would've taken weeks or even months to rebuild, reinstalled & reprogrammed?
5. With all the constant communications with the Vigilance people (specially with all the hi-tech computer geniuses) all over the city/country/world, during the whole time, Collier or no one else of Vigilance ever found out that video feed aren't being broadcasted globally, How is that even possible? They all knew after Greer told them after hours near the end.
6. When all those smart patriotic people of NSA and other Government agencies find out that there were never any such video broadcasted globally (after their release), doesn't it raise any doubt/questions in their smart brains that they were being played by somebody? Or the whole abduction operation might well be a false-flag by someone with motive e.g. Decima/Greer? If so, why didn't they cut off Samaritan feed immediately, instead of going to crackdown missions on any person Decima/Greer tells them to?
7. In many intense gun-fighting instances (even with Finch around), we have seen highly fast and sharp shooters like Reese, Shaw and even Root, each shooting down 3-4 military-trained heavily armed enemies within 3-4 seconds with precision. But whenever, there were such gunfights occur (like in Season 3 finale) while Reese was shooting bullet-rains, we see Greer walking slow and steadily through the middle of the gunfight, many dozens of bullets passing around him hitting other people around (who are not even between Reese's gun and Greer's head), not one bullet ever touches Greer (or his head)!! How come !!!?!? Greer must be either one of the X-men, or Chuck Norris!! (Like Greer, we have seen similar things with Collier as well in several cases before finale)!
8. The series repeatedly showed Collier as a smart leader, who questions everything and every action of this world around him, and he is extremely against breaching people's privacy through surveillances. Many of his Vigilance members had the same trait as well. So, for so many years, Collier or any of his members never raised any single question about who is instructing them, what his or her real motive might be, and how and why Collier's hidden boss had been breaching their privacy all along through his/her surveillance (e.g on their phones, computers, etc), and never demand absolutely convincing answers? Or are we just supposed to assume that he was convinced with all questions & answers over text messages only?!?
In last few episodes, it became something like those "100 things we've learned about...." things...
The Newsroom (2012)
From being Awesome to Horses**t!
OK, i had to get it out. few days ago I casually started watching 'The Newsroom' Season 1. It was awesome from the beginning. from episode1 it was all about the tensed drama on how to bring back news journalism to its old glory, to make true ethical honest fact-based news, how determined they were to throw all the corporate & government fed lied as news to viewers. It seemed so much like the outstanding movies "Good Night, and Good Luck" (2005), "Network" (1976), and "State of Play" (Series & Movie).
This went on till epi6; then in epi7 i saw one of the most mor*nic episodes seen in my whole life. from epi7, all their true honest journalism zeal just vanished; & all their portrayed honesty had been redefined being converted into bunch of horses**t lies. I was so pis*ed that i literally felt like to write down 'The Newsroom' on a toilet paper, may be i will, and....
Sorry guys, I know there is high probability for me being bashed/disliked after this post; but, man, I felt soooo outraged from that episode that I had to write this out. this kind of series start off portraying so much honesty, and then after gaining viewers' trust they silently shift to the same loads of crap propaganda lies... it's intolerable!!! sorry
The Truth (2012)
Why so many bad reviews for such compelling movie!?!
Before I watched this movie, came to IMDb to see what's it about, & found so many bad reviews. is it always only about the "Artistry"?! However, the story seemed interesting. then after watching the movie, i felt the issue addressed in it is admirably compelling. reminded me about the Bolivian water crisis conflicted with Bechtel.
Regardless of how some scenes or characters were unnecessary or awful, the situation that was portrayed in this movie was very real & unfortunate in many parts of the world.
Moreover, it doesn't only discuss about the natural resources struggles, or greedy corporate oppressions & cover-ups, but it also gives some insights about philosophy behind 'why we do what we do' within individual & social mindsets.
People need to know at first (this movie can be a first step), & then they actually can consider it as an important food for thought. i strongly recommend others to watch this movie first before even believing any of the reviews (bad or good) said.
I give it 9/10.
The Iron Lady (2011)
Advertising Regressive Capitalism!
The whole movie seemed like one big advertisement of capitalism, where fiscal policy was shown as quite regressive in nature, with the touch of sympathetic ageing crises. poor paying same tax amount as rich(i.e. @ higher tax% for poor), increasing privatisations of social welfare products, war mongering occupation of great distant invaded properties, spending cuts on necessities, small businesses to merging into large ones turning into oligopolies, and finally trying to show all those acts were of bold winning decisions, typical British conservative mechanisms. no wonder, Meryl won the Oscar for that, Oscars are made for such portrays. Neither of the systems, capitalism nor socialism, has any possibility to have any actual winning future for the general people.
It wasn't like the movie had nothing good to think about, but as a whole, it is not only the acting skills or feminism we should see in a movie, the message conveyed also should be of great concern, which has extensive subconscious influences on the viewers(knowingly or unknowingly).
Its a pity that how so great many people can be fooled so easily, yet the purpose being served ultimately.
One of the Most Unjust Movie Endings
It seemed one of the most unjust movie endings i've encountered. all of them there were cruel, but i guess the least evil is done mostly by jack, whilst the most evil was jennifer. undoubtedly jack was over-paranoid initially, but she brought all his initial paranoia into reality eventually with the persistent influence of manuel; Jennifer and manuel, they stole the boat jack found, brought up and fixed, and then left him to die saying 'i don't care'...whereas right after the boat sunk and she swam back ashore, the first thing she says,"son of a b****, you tried to kill us jack, how could you do that?!"; hahaa, really funny LoL! it seems, even after a year, jennifer is lying comfortable on the beach, while jack is struggling to hunt food for both of them, i.e. jack has been keeping her completely in convenience for a year or so, and she laughed at him on the rescued boat...hahaa; there were many more unfair perception alike. i myself imagined some bit more alternate fair endings, and i found all of those alternate endings funny, just, and deserving..... 3/10 for the unjust viewpoints and ending (and also adding that irrelevant voodoo crap).
Crime, Rape and interpretations getting confusing...
First of all, I hate the rapists as much as i hate murderers, sometimes even more. recently, some legal manipulation has come out for some decades, calling some criminals clinically insane; well, all criminals are clinically insane, otherwise none would commit crime; that must not be an excuse to evade a criminal from exemplary punishment; both prevention and punishment systems have to be simultaneously enforced.
(Spoilers!) Now, I thought it would be a great movie, but it wasn't that. the concept was contemporary, but the message was confusing and emotionally manipulative. this movie repeatedly tried to convince viewers that this was Rape; no doubt that Charlie here is morally and ethically evil and perverted; he deserve some heavy punishment undoubtedly, but can it be called rape or even assault?!?! some definitions, Google: "The crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him, esp. by the threat or use of violence." Wikipedia: "Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. dictionaryDotreference.com: "The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." Legal Definition(as vague as it gets, as usual): "Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States and other countries have been revised over the years, and they vary from state/country to state/country."
now, that twisted pervert Charlie clearly lied to 14 yrs old Annie, convinced her psychologically with words of flattery, and they had sex, both consensually. for a long time she called it sex, because she was lied to be loved by Charlie; and then when she found out that lie, she started calling it Rape. so for instance, if in FRIENDS TV Series, ROSS (David) had sex and marriage with Emily, while he was still totally in love with Rachel, did Ross actually repeatedly raped and assaulted Emily...!?! because later Emily found out Ross was lying about truly loving her instead loving Rachel.
To me, the central problem is paradoxical social understanding of certain generation and society. on one side, humans under 18 years want/have all the decision freedom and privacy without any parental intrusion/control, and on the other hand, they feel and argue being abused anytime a pre-intended conduct goes beyond their maturity/understanding level; this is contradictory. this is a grave problem that has to be noticed by the parents, law-making authorities, society and kids as well; and there should be a variety of solutions for it.
I have brothers & sister, me being youngest; even till our age of over 18, whenever any of us got close to get derailed, our mother used to counsel or scold us, or sometimes if required beat us, hahaa; and God knows, I'm really thankful for that; and as always we all love our mother more than any human on earth for sure. may be that's one of the major factors, none of us ever got harmed, or none of us harmed anyone else, still we all had pretty fun life always without hurting anyone. that is one necessary part of the solutions, and sure is not only.
the message of the movie was confusing, but the unfortunate events/misconducts that are increasingly occurring everyday, must have some other better solutions, coz the existing solutions alone are not seeming to work well enough.
50 First Dates (2004)
It's like 50 First Views... and Still Doesn't Seem Old....
This movie is way under-rated; i guess it should easily be much beyond an 8 on average.
I personally never liked romantic genre almost all my life; but i cant remember how many times i have seen this movie, and even though i became too familiar with all scenes and twists, every time it feels as if it's the first time i'm watching. it has balanced combination of innovation, compassion, resilience, tolerance, and mostly simple humor embedded in it, unlike most other romantic movies. may be it's become most humans' nature to like violent, erotic, stereotyped racial, obtuse or artificial comedy/romance genres nowadays. well, this movie doesn't comprise any cheap statements like 'i'll die without you', or presentations like scripted engagement proposals, articulated yet cheap wedding ceremony, it mostly gave the idea how simple yet wonderful and funny our lives can be, reality or not. and i give full credit to such movie.
The Merchant of Venice (2004)
Shylock, An Oppressed Hero...
I read the book long ago, and had so much confusions. this is not a criticism about the movie, rather the perspective of the story itself.
In the story, I think the so called villain here, Shylock, was actually not the actual villain, rather an oppressed Hero. He was the one who was seeing his fellow religious believers being oppressed, prisoned, and being thrown into the rivers, wearing always a mandatory red hat of racism; he was just following his own religion peacefully and minding his own business. he was regularly being spitted on by the dominating part of the society for being a minority member, and being called many mean names in occasions.
He was the one who lent huge amount of money, not for earning interest, rather in good faith to his 'hating spitter', to meet a man's non- surviving wants (wants of alluring a wealthy woman into marriage), and then faced complete default and forfeiture at the time of repayment; and moreover he was robbed of his precious wealth by the same borrowing group; the daughter he had and raised was taken away by them (during 1596 conservative traditions, whilst lady Portia was obligated to follow her family's 'husband finding tradition' and yet she did follow).
And after all the unjust and undepicted pains and sufferings he had gone through for so long, then he was asking for justice in a court full of that same dominating society members shouting at him with anger and despise; faced the so called legal trial by the judgement of a bias imposter in disguise of a civil doctor. After that he was forced with trickery to give up all his remaining wealth, esteem, daughter, home, and most of all his lifelong religious belief, left all alone in the street to rot in older age with humiliation and disgrace. And the dominating unjust party carried on living wealthy and happily ever after. And all along I felt a deep sigh about this entire concluding injustice.
Though for an instance Shylock acted as a merciless villain for insisting on cutting that pound of flesh; but we must not forget or disrespect all his suffered misery in the context for being raging such insanity. I also perceive Antonio to be of a moderately good manner in the court.
Finally,to derive and infer from the story, with due respect, I believe most readers and viewers need to reconsider their perceptions, and give it a good thought about what was right and what was wrong. This same story still lives in reality in our modern society in evolving fashion, thus perceptions should be at least close to just.
A Time to Kill (1996)
To those who are confused about the deservedness...
I guess if you/someone truly and honestly can close your eyes and visualize this story.... you can answer yourself whether the child- rapists deserved to die or not..... regardless of skin-color......
This is a story about a little girl walking home from the grocery store one sunny afternoon. I want you to picture this little girl......................... Now they climb on, first one then the other, raping her, shattering everything innocent and pure -- vicious thrusts -- in a fog of drunken breath and sweat.
And when they're done, after they killed her tiny womb, murdered any chance for her to bear children, to have life beyond her own, they decide to use her for target practice. So they start throwing full beer cans at her............................................................... they pick her up, throw her in the back of the truck, and drive out to Foggy Creek Bridge and pitch her over the edge. And she drops some 30 feet down to the creek bottom below.
Can you see her? Her raped, beaten, broken body, soaked in their urine, soaked in their semen, soaked in her blood -- left to die.
Can you see her? I want you to picture that little girl.
NOW IMAGINE SHE IS YOUR LITTLE DAUGHTER..........
(if someone is still confused about the baby girl's father's action or the child-rapists deservedness.....then i've nothing more to say to them....they'll find out eventually.)
Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (2011)
the saying, "hope for the best, but plan for the worst."
Watched it few hours ago. followed all three parts of it. had a good bunch of great thought provoking stuffs, blended along with some severely argumentative illusions that i might not adopt. a ton of questions floating in my mind trying to reveal feasible answers coping with their arguments, remained inconclusive still. i remember i emailed a bunch of relevant and serious questions regarding earlier parts long time ago, still impounded with no logical answers till date. i hate current imperialistic monetary-market system as they do; still some part of me telling me to like the zeitgeist ideas and the other logically arguing not to. just few of my large chunk of new questions might be(some might say i am tripping...lol!): 1. the current imperialistic monetary-market system owners have history of demolishing every entity that might stand in their way. if some of you are threat enough to them, why they have not taken any strong action on or eliminated zeitgeist (or julian assange, or alex jones or few such more) yet?!?? with due respect, sorry to say that you guys haven't showed much about that the world doesn't already know. are you just alternative strategic deployed players of their potential single New World Order system?!? are they strategically implanting relevant key players in both sides of the game to ensure a win?! 2. how different are, 'a world with many countries' and 'a world with many cities'?! mirror reflection as it seems. 3. 'global resource management system'...who would be in control of that management system and what would be the management hierarchy?! we all know, all decisional opinions can not be singular, so someone has to decide; who would that be?! we also know, money has no intrinsic value of itself; don't you think the singular power and control on 'global resource management system' would have some significant intrinsic value?! how to decide who to lead when?! the 'democracy' again...:)?! wouldn't that be another scam of politics?! 4. who gets to eat caviar or only potatoes...hang luxury art piece or mere calendar on wall...watch entertaining movies on 100inch plasma TV or just able to watch boring news on 20inch crt TV...sail to world tour or only can view sunset from rooftop...who decides about the quality and quantity of final products each can consume?! inequality doesn't depend on only as monetary disparity, but also on consumption opportunities. 5. what if there is large permanent migrations between these modern so called 'cities' resulting in overcrowding and underpopulation among different cities!? how to decide who lives where!? 6. i could not find or rely on a number of statistical facts it's given. moreover, it talked about if a hypothetical similar new earth found...which is not available realistically; rather in this current world, enough damage is already done to create a significant natural imbalance among various regions. how to regain dynamic equilibrium in this already unbalanced natural world as 'Nature is a dictatorship' itself!?
there could be many more to clarify...but no offence...i have been a major encouraging initiator for any positive change as always among my peers and students. however, i believe in the saying, "hope for the best, but plan for the worst." :) :)