Reviews written by registered user
DrCoulardeau

Page 1 of 107:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
1070 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1993-1996 Seasons, 18 July 2017
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The interest in these rather old (more than twenty years old) seasons is in the obsolescence of so many things that do not exist anymore or the absence of what is common today. This is TV archaeology. Thus you have the big monstrous PCs, the old dial telephones, the old enormous cars, and no smart phones, no portable phones, no tablets, and even practically no bikes. The traffic is practically fluid and you can park your car anywhere easily. Security is light, the presence of cops and even thieves is light too. The police force is hardly racially integrated, definitely very little at investigating police level and same thing at justice, DA and court level. This vision of the world in New York in the early 1990s is amazing. Do you remember it? Or rather can you imagine it?

The second element is typical of US American-centered vision. Every episode starts with the sentence: "In a criminal justice system," wrongly quoted as "In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories," by http://lawandorder.wikia.com/wiki/Law_%26_Order, because it is not true of any criminal justice system in the world and the use of "A criminal justice system" implies the universality of the remark. I checked I do not know how many dozens of episodes and it was always the same, the use of the American-centered indefinite article. What is shown in this series is purely American. In many other systems in the world investigation means looking into what the prosecution can use and what the defense can use. The defense research or investigation is not paid by the accused and done by his lawyer but most of it is done by the investigating team under the responsibility of a judge.

It is this very justice system of the USA that leads to the worst possible jury decisions that are irreversible because no one can be tried twice for the same offense. . . In other words, they only look for a culprit and as soon as they find one – or they are convinced they have found one – they are satisfied and go to court.

The series is very clear about that and many episodes show how tricky it is if the defense does not investigate on their own side. They even actually show cases in which the investigation is wrong, the jury finds the defendant guilty and the judge sends him to prison to serve a 25 to life sentence and yet right away afterwards new elements come up showing that the culprit is another man who was exonerated. They cannot reverse the jury decision. The judge cannot change it at all. They have to find a way to beat about the bush, negotiate the obstacle and use a detour to prove the other suspect guilty without bringing the first convicted one into the picture. Then and only then the first trial can be voided. The least we can say is that it is slightly distorted. Some might say corrugated.

That's probably the best side of this series: it does not hide the fact that the American criminal justice system is deeply problematic. In spite of their Miranda warning that states what follows: "You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. etc.," in spite of that the prosecution will not target both guilt AND innocence but ONLY guilt. And over and over again the episodes show how bungled a case can get when the defense attorney is not diligent enough.

This series shows all judicial mistakes come from the basic police work at the root of everything else afterward. The police work is often based on a personal conviction or even belief more than facts. The advantage of the police shown here is that the lieutenant who follows the investigation performed by his or her (in this case her) detectives can challenge them and the facts they bring up and ask them to look in other directions, to check other sides of the situation. But even so, nothing is clear. The main issue – or one of the main issues – is the role of women and in this particularly series the lieutenant is a woman, what's more ethnic, and the assistant district attorney Jack McCoy's assistant, Claire Kincaid, is also a woman. They often bring in a new note, a softening note, at times an alternative approach. But that is not in any way based on truth and the search for truth but on the deep conviction the case of women, or relevant facts that only women can see have been ignored.

The next step in this series is the importance of deals reached by the public prosecutor with the defense before the court decision. Such deals are not dealing with justice nor even the truth but only with speeding up the procedure, save on court expenses and most of the time reduce the sentence by reducing the qualification of the crime. And when wrongly accused the duress is so hard in some situations that the innocent person accepts to plead guilty in exchange of a soft sentence, but yet it is fake justice. . .

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Exiled (1998) (TV)
More squalid than that you definitely die, 26 June 2017
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Welcome to New York, or in fact to Staten Island where Mike Logan has been reassigned, in fact exiled. A case comes to Staten Island by the accident of some current in the Hudson River, the dead girl who was a "dancer" in a club with a pimp in the wings, got pregnant from the son of a mob boss. She does not want to abort, meaning that in her job she forgot her normal and daily precaution and care in the crystal clear order to get pregnant with that particular young man probably in order to get a promotion from shady lady to wife of a shady young man, a distant heir of Al Capone. The son of the mob boss kills her and carves her into pieces. Obviously he disagreed.

Discovered by a cop in the process of that butcher's work, the cop helps him with the mattress and probably or simply maybe with the body. The cop cannot get his wife pregnant and to pay for the $12,000 in vitro fecundation he accepts some tips now and then from the mob boss and his son. In other words, he is a rotten cop that smells like some black cocaine produced by some animals generally called cows or bulls.

Mike Logan, following the body of the girl from Staten Island to Manhattan easily finds out there is a rotten cop somewhere and he has the great privilege of finding who, and that who is a colleague he worked with three years earlier when he was still working in Manhattan. Kind of sad and a little bit contrite, but justice is justice: give your weapon and your badge to the boss – is she a captain of some sort? – of the precinct. And how is he going to be able to pay for the in-vitro fecundation of his wife? No humane thinking in this police film. It is not so bad, in fact it is even decent, to help the son of a mob boss when he has entangled himself in a nasty crime, not help him commit the crime, but help him clean up the place, or is it the plate, though this sounds a little bit cannibalistic.

Apart from that, New York is a fascinating place. Either you are a mob boss, or the son or daughter or relative or employee of one, or you are a pimp, or a girl employed by such a shady character (Ice T actually), or a customer of one of these girls in the numerous bars and clubs in Manhattan, no matter where, provided the girls lap- dance rapidly and profitably. They can be displaced by a mayor, but they will go to a neighborhood where they can easily grow and multiply. On the police side there is always a dirty rotten one and then those – most of the others – who will willfully not see that rotten egg in the basket. And that will end up sad and tearful.

That sure does not show the slightest smallest and tiniest nice thing about New York City. But it is decent entertainment, and if you are nostalgic you'll be able to see the twin towers that have not been there since a certain 9/11, 2001.

Enjoy the New York of crime and squalor.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Routine, humdrum, monotonous, 26 June 2017
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This Californian version of this series did not last long. It is true Los Angeles is a lot less spectacular than New York, Miami or Las Vegas, or even Washington DC. I am told that Sacramento is also quite attractive.

The stories are interesting always a little bit easy. Simple very direct crime stories and concentration on the prosecution and attorney's vision of things. It will not surprise Americans, but it will surprise even flabbergast anyone from another judicial system. To avoid as many court cases as possible deals are encouraged. Plead guilty for leniency and be a witness against other culprits to get a deal and total or partial immunity. Where is justice?

That explains some cases of self-justice: take justice in your own hands and get your vengeance performed in the name of self-defense. At least that is sustainable: you get the fair result you expect and it encourages the process to go on forever. You add to that the fact that there are more crimes in Los Angeles than in New York and you have the key to the lackluster series. Exceptional people in Los Angeles are the innocent and law abiding people. All the others are all criminals, crooked individuals and many other things. Too much concentration on hookers and other characters of this night time orgasmic life tied up to drugs makes it slightly humdrum.

The cases are just interesting but never really fascinating and the procedure is always sketchy. Do they ever read the Miranda rights to the people they arrest? Not once. Slightly more interesting about court procedure, but still quite sketchy.

That's probably why it was not stillborn but it died of Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). There is a severe competition on this market of thrillers and detective or police cases. Even J.K. Rowling writes some, under a male name though: she must be ashamed of her stooping so low to conquer an audience, when she had one anyway with Harry Potter.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Creepshow 3 (2006) (V)
Sickeningly gross, 9 June 2017
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It took that third opus a long time to get out, twenty years mind you. It's nearly an afterthought: how can such two good successful films by Stephen King and George Romero be continued twenty years later? First because the period during which the title was controlled exclusively by the first author and director must have come to its end, liberating the title, otherwise it should have been attached to the original proprietors and paid for.

But it is hard to go back to the concept of these Creepshows and some changes have to be introduced. The very first change is that there is some continuity in the whole film because some actors and their roles go from one episode to the next or the one after the next. Some situations too are similar or even the same, not to speak of some objects like cars.

The next change is the style. This film really targets the grossest effects we can imagine. Gross is not necessarily bad but in this case it is done without much finesse and from gross we move to sickening and that is the lowest level in horror stories or movies according to Stephen King himself. And along that line the director does not hesitate to introduce human beings who suddenly turn into very monstrous beings that can resuscitate after having been killed, resuscitate to haunt a living drug-addicted doctor for example, etc.

And of course the concept of a mad scientist or technician is introduced with no real delicacy. The story of his wife – real or not real – Frankenstein or simple aging lustful old man – and how she ends up in a microwave oven is just plain funny. It was supposed to be a prank at first and it ran out to be a slaughterhouse scene with so much blood we just wonder if it is not half a dozen wives and not only one. And at the end the mad scientist marries her finally but this time it is so openly a recomposed body that there is no doubt at all any more. We are dealing with Doctor Frankenstein, middle name Lego, playing with body parts as if they were some press-in parts, pieces and pawns.

We definitely are not in a comic strip adventure for a young teenager, male preferably, but for some older teenagers, male as well as female, or whatever gender they may decide to have, trying to experience some disquieting experience that is supposed to make their stomach growl and their intestine dance some frantic tarantella from their waist to their groin, though it remains rather soft and bashful at this lower level.

Enjoy the film, but after a light dinner if you do not want to have some accident generally attributed to airsickness in a plane or road-sickness in a bus or a car. And be sure you take a sleeping pill afterwards to avoid all kinds of nightmares.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Appetizing monsters and voracious humans, 9 June 2017
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

STEPHEN KING – GEORGE ROMERO – CREEPSHOW 2 – 1987

The film was even funnier because they had mixed up the audios ON THE DVD and they have Castilian twice and French once but no English. At least I could not find it. So I watched it in Castilian with English subtitles. I must say the language then gives a density to the Monstrous Creep that is really striking in all meanings of the word.

There is nothing new of course in these stories that we have read, probably several times. The three stories are definitely amazing. The first one, "Old Chief Wood'nhead" seems to imply there is among the older Indian generation some decency that the younger generation cannot understand, nor respect, but the ghosts of the dead can come back to bring justice, though a death for a death is not giving life back to the victims of the greed of the younger generation that is going to Hollywood as is well known. They have always dreamed of meeting John Wayne on one of his Indian killing spree. At least they had the intention to go.

The second story, "the Raft," is once again about young people, two couples who decide to go wild on marijuana and on some forlorn and forgotten paths where signs are overgrown with shrubs and trees and are no longer visible. Vain they are and uninformed they remain and they dare do what is advised not to do on the sign they haven't seen. They end up eaten up by some aquatic monster. Yam! Yam! Says the monster. It only takes one overexcited young man to lead the four of them into the water and to their death. Young people have always been what they used to be and what they will be. Boys will be boys and girls the same.

The third story, "The Hitchhiker," is a phenomenally funny story, more than frightening. A white rich lady on her way back from an afternoon with a gigolo (by the way rather cheap) gets berserk at the idea that she will be discovered by her husband because he said he was going to arrive home at 11.30 and she can't make it by that time. Find an explanation if you can. She thus has a problem with a black hitchhiker she turned into a ghost and the ghost haunts her all the way and at the end finally gets even with her. The details are absolutely appetizing. You will be ready for a second helping after licking your fingers clean of the blood of the dead man. Don't forget crime and horror are like pizza, the second slice is always better than the first.

Enjoy your petits fours and canapés, and wash them down with some Bloody Mary.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Too short on the causes, 28 May 2017
8/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This documentary is based and constructed around one quote by John Fitzgerald Kennedy in his address before the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 25, 1961:

"Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us."

The logic of the film is simple. We have' more than twenty thousand nuclear devices in the world in the hands of a very small number of countries and thus in the hands of machines that control them, military personnel that manages the machine and political personnel that controls the military personnel that controls the machines that control the nuclear devices. All along that command line individuals can make the wrong evaluation of a situation, take the wrong decision on the basis of that wrong evaluation and within 20 to 30 minutes it will have happened: one city or more will have been destroyed, and within a few more minutes, retaliation will come. And once it is started it cannot be stopped. There is no comeback, no turn-back, nor step-back.

In that command line we just need an accident caused by some mechanical failure, or some miscalculation brought up by the misinterpretation of some data provided by the machines, or some madness, or let's say some mental derangement of one actor in that chain of command. The film provides several instances of close to the brink situations that occurred over the years. Evaluation of the damage in the case of one nuclear weapon on one big city in the world is just over-dramatic and seems to only play on fear in the audience. If the public is only motivated by fear, then there is no hope.

Hope can only come if the public, the vast wide general public is convinced we have to get rid of nuclear weapons not because they are afraid but because of positive reasons like the fact humanity means life, means creative development, means continued progress, and nuclear weapons, both possession and use, are none of these, not life, not creative development, not continued progress. We could also develop some positive ethical arguments going the same way, provided we clearly see the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Just like nuclear power can be used in nuclear submarines or in nuclear ships it may have one day to be used in space travel, and not fission but fusion. Not using nuclear energy for weapons is definitely nothing but an ethical decision and the mark of ethical human control of humanity. It is not because the internal combustion engine was used in tanks that we are supposed to ban the internal combustion engine, all cars and many other applications. It is not because some planes are military bombers that we are supposed to ban air travel.

That's the first shortcoming of this film: nuclear energy is not clearly differentiated from nuclear weapons and yet only the French images project the confusion by stating "NON AU NUCLÉAIRE" (No Nuclear) meaning the rejection of both nuclear energy and weapons, though in fact in the mind of the French people who put forward this motto (the Greens), it is nuclear energy they have in mind. The images from all other countries and the interviews always target nuclear weapons. But it would be clear to say that nuclear energy is another can of worms and these worms might be earth worms, very useful worms for agriculture, gardening and hence surviving hunger.

The second shortcoming is the very ambiguous message about terrorism and about proliferation. The film insists with images and long sequences on the Islamic danger of Pakistan who has nuclear weapons – supposedly thanks to the Chinese, though we do not know where the Chinese got the technology, from the Soviets maybe? – and who sells the blue print as much as the technology to anyone who wants to pay. The Pakistani bomb is called the Islamic Nuclear Bomb and it is at once connected to Al Qaeda and Iran, and allusions to more Muslim countries in the Middle East or the Arab world are added. Nothing is said about the proliferation of nuclear weapons to India, the Hindu Bomb, etc., and where it could have come from – the Soviets I guess? And still along that line there are a few elements about North Korea, still under the rule of Kim the Second, not yet Kim the Third. This presentation is absolutely biased and debatable. And what about France, Great Britain and Israel?

Terrorism is a problem but we have other forms of terrorism than Islamic terrorism, even today. Terrorism has causes and to only speak of containing and controlling it is a waste of time since it will bring no solution to the real causes. And by the way how did the apartheid South Africa manage to get nuclear fuel to be able to build nuclear weapons at a time when a total embargo was imposed onto this country for anything military? And the film is a little bit short on the fact that there are an unevaluated and definitely uncontrolled amount of Highly Enriched Uranium and Plutonium running loose on the planet's black market, enough to produce thousands of nuclear weapons of various categories from a dirty bomb to a real nuclear weapon. And this black market can only exist because of the diamond and other gems black market, because of the uncontrolled speculative financial market and the vast international financial laundering machine through and via the various fiscal paradises and tax havens.

To be seen, widened and discussed as much as possible.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Creepshow (1982)
Monsters the allies of justice, 27 May 2017
10/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The film hasn't changed one iota since 1982 and what's more it does not seem to have aged too much. Special effects maybe, but that's about all. The stories are absolutely funny more than frightening. They might have been gross and frightening in 1982 but today we are used to that kind of make-believe cinema.

Every single story or moment is pleasure and nothing but pleasure.

The Prologue and epilogue are so nice about the abusive father and the voodoo son, Stephen King's own son by the way. Let's think his father wasn't that kind of a father. But you may be surprised if you really analyzed the "rapport" between a father and a son. Abusiveness is at times in excess gentleness.

"Father's Day" is the hilarious vengeance of an old and decrepit father killed by his own daughter: the vengeance comes from the grave, from beyond the grave. Never ever neglect celebrating father's day even for a father who does not deserve it.

"The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" with Stephen King in the main and only human role is even more than funny with his meteor that brings some kind of invasive green algae, fungus or whatever from outer space. Nothing to do with Superman, nor Aliens actually. The only solution is to evade the invasion by committing suicide I guess, slightly like a terrorist blows himself up in order to kill as many miscreants as possible to clean up the world of its perversion. The world is clean for the terrorist for sure after his own sacrifice.

"Something to Tide You Over" is even more than hilarious because of another case of vengeance from beyond the grave and in this case the grave is the sea itself. I am not sure Stephen King intended this story to be hilarious but it is true that since Michael Jackson living dead creeping out of their graves and chasing you have become very entertaining.

"The Crate" is nothing but justice or some just vengeance or some just balancing of grievances in a married couple. Don't let children watch that one: they could get some good idea of how to take care of an invasive mother who does not know what a bathroom or toilet door is when her son is using these facilities, or who does not know why she is not supposed to look under her son's bed. That's when the monster in the closet is really useful, and should be cultivated, for such sons: let it come out and take care of the mother. It is all the same when the son has become a husband and the mother has become a wife since all husbands choose their wives to correspond to what their mothers were. How can you be so pessimistic? But that is no pessimism: it is pure truth and reality.

"They're Creeping Up on You" is the final touch about some rich man who is obnoxious with everyone and at the same time is obsessed with cleanliness and his germless and bugless environment. That is a killing obsession and the bugs will always have the last word and bring justice to the poor. You can imagine what I may dream about the fate of Trump who should be trumped by bugs and mulched by germs.

And the epilogue gives us hope: all nasty people will sooner or later be trumped and mulched into oblivion and inexistence 1- beyond making friends with nasty Sunni dictators or autocrats; 2- beyond making fun of the Pope by being a grinning giant puppet next to the serious look of this grave charismatic religious leader; 3- beyond pushing some Prime Minister out of his right way to be in the front of the family picture; 4- beyond chastising 23 out of 28 of his allies and trying to bully them into paying for his own bills to make America great again; 5- beyond his gripping handshake that a French President turned into a gripping-back handshake that he could not escape anymore; 6- beyond his leaking confidential details of a criminal investigation in a terrorist attack in Manchester; 7- beyond his attempt to sink any climate agreement, including the one in Paris, for his egotistic promises to completely failed professions overdue in their coming to their own end; 8- beyond his sending 23 million people out of insurance coverage; 9- beyond his cutting federal funds for Medicaid by 50% and food stamps by 25% just to be able to cut the taxes of the wealthiest in proportion.

And NINE is of course the apocalypse, the dragon, the beast and we are all the pregnant woman escaping this Babylon RED(RUM) Witch Doctor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYgOlqinH7A or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ttGgIQpAUc) of a President.

Yes There is hope beyond the worst possible horror story in real life and that's what makes Romero's film and Stephen King's stories so beautifully good, funny and true to life down to our deepest guts.

When These masters of literature and the cinema die we will have to reinvent them under a new skin. It is true Stephen King leaves two sons beyond himself, though they do not have the same level of creativity as the father. But Romero is more complicated as for descent.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Graphic visual horrendous elements, 21 May 2017
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

THOMAS JOHNSON – THE BATTLE OF CHERNOBYL – 2006

This film or documentary is interesting because it shows what happened in Chernobyl and the result of it. But the visual effects have often been used in other films, including fictional ones.

The cause of the catastrophe is only alluded to at the beginning as the result of the decision to experiment some kind of energy saving or productivity enhancing procedure and that is the human mistake at the origin of the disaster, unluckily with no further specification. The result shows clearly that the experiment had not been studied seriously and particularly modelled or virtualized enough before being performed in real conditions. Then is the mistake the result of a bad decision by some engineer or engineers or is it the result of some bad act or initiative of some operator in the machine this plant was, it is probably impossible to decide. In industrial conditions all new procedure has to be tested over and over again and if it turns sour or dramatic it is the proof it had not been. Look at the result.

The film is then very graphic about the dangers the men that are brought up into the disaster area to solve the problem before it becomes even worse and about the heroism of these tens of thousands of men who put their lives at risk to wage a battle against an invisible enemy that strike at once but whose negative effects can only be seen a long time later. We are talking there of hundreds of thousands of men, military personnel, reservists, medical personnel, miners, workers from many needed professions to solve the problem who volunteered or were drafted and who died rapidly or are still dying slowly and who all anyway had and have shortened lives that could no longer be what they should have been.

It also shows some consequences on the irradiated population and the frightening deformations the children born from the irradiated parents can show and that cannot be in anyway repaired. The cleaning teams that canvassed the zone and killed all cats, dogs and animals that had been irradiated and were still alive could of course not do the same things with human survivors. The consequences are to be accepted as long lasting and probably irreversible ever or maybe not before fifty or a hundred generations and that would only maybe weaken the effects, not erase them totally because they are genetic.

The last point of interest is how the international conference that took place right after the catastrophe, after the completion of the first sarcophagus refused to follow the report presented by the Soviet scientists sent by Gorbachev and decided to minimize the foreseeable consequences, particularly the dangerous effects on the life and health of people. The film insists on how it triggered a real dynamic towards some disarmament, but that is not enough to guarantee the non-use of nuclear weapons one day. Note on the side that France is said to have been the only country that declared its territory was entirely free of fallouts. It takes some foolishness at times to be French.

The film of course becomes ideological when some call for the dropping of nuclear power as a source of energy. That was maybe romantic enough in 2006, but in 2016 when fossil polluting fuel and sources of energy are supposed to be reduced in use, if not abandoned, when carbon polluting wood is still used as a source of energy and vastly burnt, it is difficult to reject nuclear energy because it is dangerous if it is used unwisely and recklessly. Cars should have been banned a long time ago for the very same reasons, and these cars and their pollution and accidents kill millions of people every year in the world and their pollution is making urban areas stagnating graveyards for surviving human zombies.

We have to really work at another level and have a real world conference on the energetic future of the human species and our planet: climate change is by far too limited. And that human work without pollution in a way or another on the regular daily basis of its regular daily functioning should be solely authorized once and for all, banning all other forms starting with diesel and coal, and then oil and eventually wood. That would seriously improve the situation. Nuclear energy is not really at stake here because its regular functioning that sure has to be improved in security- managing and waste-treatment is not a daily polluter in anyway and can be kept under control if basic security regulations are respected, which was not the case in Fukushima.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Just visually impressive, 21 May 2017
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

INSIDE CHERNOBYL – 2012

A short documentary that does not explain anything about the catastrophe and its causes. It first of all tries to give you a vision of what this area has become, essentially Chernobyl and Pripyat, the two cities that have been evacuated and are still abandoned. At the same time, we are taken into the buildings and in various sites of these two cities and we are shown the level of radiations. If normal is between 0.10 and 0.12 we are shown many places that are a lot higher and contaminated objects that can be even more, like the old clothing of the first team of firefighters who all died of exposure within two weeks. Their clothing is between 400 and 600 mSv, some thirty or twenty-five years later.

The chart showing the levels you can encounter and stand without various severe consequences is the following (https://static.guim.co.uk/sys- images/Guardian/Pix/photobylines/2011/3/15/1300200013379/Radiation- exposure-levels-001.jpg):

We are dealing in Pripyat with levels that are six thousand times more important than acceptable. What's more when they say atmospheric radiations are 0.10 mSv we have to understand it is maybe the same as a chest x-ray but it is permanent and the consequences on one's health are not measured by this level but by the accumulated radioactivity this level may produce in our bodies over long periods of exposure. That explains why this Chernobyl zone is an exclusion zone because permanent residing there would be highly dangerous in the middle and long ranges.

This documentary is thus clear about that. What it shows though when we are told that in Chernobyl everyone was evacuated without taking anything and in Pripyat with only papers and light valuables, closing their doors and windows, turning off electricity, and so on before leaving, and yet we see two whole cities that have been looted. This reveals an unluckily very human dimension: no matter the danger if there is a profit to make out of some expedition, some human beings will negate all morals, ethics and safety to make that profit and loot what is supposed to remain untouched.

The last thing shown here is a certain number of memorials in Chernobyl, to the first team of firemen and to the victims in general.

Without any explanation about the causes of the catastrophe, we are disarmed and helpless, the audience being reduced to some sadness and fear. This catastrophe could have been avoided if some human agents had done what they were supposed to do. This is a case of human negligence and error, which exonerates the responsibility of the technology, at least in parts. A balanced discussion is necessary.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Look how low Trump has fallen since then, 19 May 2017
7/10

That is a typical film of 1997, the last couple of years of Yeltsin in Post-Soviet Russia. The war is raging in ex-Yugoslavia with two dimensions: the religious fight of the Muslims not to be eliminated physically and politically on one hand, and on the other the desire of each little section of this unified federation to become independent and to join the European Union as fast as possible. The only objective of the USA in this field, or in the whole world, is to get as much out of Russia as possible: for them this period is nothing but looting. And eventually to prevent a nuclear catastrophe, provided they can loot again as much nuclear weaponry from Russia as possible.

Yeltsin was dismantling the military apparatus and arsenal to please the Americans and to enable some hijackers, black-marketers, and disgruntled Soviet communists to get their vengeance as well as some profiteers to make some million dollars in a way or another. Simple isn't it, Dr. Watson?

Yes, indeed. You will get slightly lost in the intricate meanders of the plot, if it is a plot. First some Russian general organizes the hijacking of some nuclear wars during their transfer from where they were to where they are supposed to be kept or destroyed. It has to look like an accident but it does not work like that to satellites who can see this was a plain criminal stealing action.

The nuclear heads are supposed to be transported to Iran, but one Serbian has infiltrated the whole gang to carry out his own objective: to steal the heart of one and bring it to Bosnia for it to go in the diplomatic bag, pouch or "suitcase" of a peacemaker, i.e. a negotiator of peace for Bosnia, to New York, to the United Nations and blow himself up with the nuclear bomb.

The Americans are of course supposed to prevent the nuclear heads from going to Iran, and then when they discover one has disappeared they manage to trace it and then run after it in New York. A very hectic chase. Luckily it does not last what it was supposed to last so that we can have a nice hectic chase that is after all the best part of this entertaining political fiction.

The film concerns very important questions like the lack of security in the world concerning nuclear weapons; the hectic crazy situation in Russia and the world after the fall of the Berlin Wall and then the dismantling of the USSR; the ambition of the USA to be the only super power in the world; the immunity with which the USA wants to be able to intervene anywhere without any authorization from anyone except themselves. The only ones who resist that ambition are the Russians who down one US Air Force helicopter who was illegally intervening in the Russian military zone. The very bad Russians, indeed. I guess if a Russian helicopter had gotten lost in Alaska it would have been received by the Governor of Alaskan and the State Secretary of the USA with a full red carpet rolled out, flowers and a band. And then of course for the USA all other discontented people are terrorists, even if they are tied up so tightly that they only have that terroristic path to let the world know they are subjugated, enslaved and menaced with pure and simple destruction.

You can now read this film twenty years later exactly when the USA have gotten so involved in terrorist or anti-terrorist wars that they are in fact helpless; when the USA are no longer the only super power because China has completely changed the game and within just a few years the USA will be the second economic power in real terms (and it is already second in PPP terms); when the USA will not impress anyone anymore with their bullying and imperialistic show of power; when the main power in this world will be a commercial alliance of about 80 countries centered around Asia and particularly China and soon India, an alliance out of which the USA excluded themselves and out of which the participants are very reluctant, for some of them at least, to let the USA come in: on a flap seat maybe but not on the stage.

In other words, this film was pure propaganda for the USA as opposed to Russia, but it was nothing but the brilliant bragging of Bill Clinton who was trying to tie up the world under his own rule with the Internet managed by the Secretary of Commerce of the USA. Things have changed in twenty years and that bragging is no longer possible, even for Trump who can only moan and complain that he is the victim of a witch- hunt. The poor darling, my heart is really bleeding for him.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU


Page 1 of 107:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]