36 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Signs (2002)
Signs of disappointment
26 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This movie focuses on the story on a family of four which consists of a former priest, his brother who was once a minor league baseball star, his daughter, and his asthmatic son. Together they receive a variety of signs such as crop circles, lights in the sky, and so on that point to some mysterious force at work.

These signs lead to disappointment. It turns out that the mysterious force at work is an invading alien race. But it gets worse. These aliens are launching an invasion of Earth despite the fact that they cannot stand water. This is absolutely ridiculous as water as one of the most common substances on Earth. This story represents everything I dislike about alien invasion films.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A major disappointment
26 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This movie started out so promising. Captain Kirk makes the mistake of risking his first officers life to stop an erupting volcano. In order to save his first officers life he then sends his ship near the volcano to beam Spock aboard his ship, violating the prime directive in the process. Expecting a promotion for his actions, Kirk then goes to meet admiral Pike at Starfleet headquarters. Rather then receiving praise, Kirk receives criticism for his actions. Pike rightfully points out that Kirk thinks the rules do not apply to him and they he should not have risked his first officers life in the first place. He then goes on to point out that he will be demoted from captain to first officer under him until he is ready to be a captain again. This scene was perfect.

But this scene ultimately does not matter at all. We then hear that Kirk is going to lose his command and then a minute later we hear that he is going to get his command back. Quite frankly this is an insulting sequence of events. Its like the creators of this movie do not want their viewers to be thinking well watching this. They just want their viewers to eat their popcorn and marvel at the special effects without actually thinking about anything that is being shown to them. By the ending of this movie admiral Pike dies leaving us with characters like Kirk that do not receive any consequences for their actions. As a result, unlike with the previous movie, I am no longer looking forward to seeing what happens in the next movie in this series.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Elysium (I) (2013)
This movie is lacking
10 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is lacking an explanation as to why the privileged want to live full time in a space station considering the enormous risks of living in outer space like radiation exposure, loss of eyesight, loss of muscle mass, and space motion sickness.

The sheer cost of maintaining a space habitat with artificial gravity, a breathable atmosphere, radiation protection, etc would be immense. Earth has all these nice things built in to it and it is also much larger then a space station.

As such, in order for it to be reasonable to maintain a habitat in outer space rather then one on Earth it must be the case that the Earth is really messed up such as with the sky scorched like in the Matrix or something equally terrible.

In this movie people are going about their daily lives on Earth and they have food, water, sunlight, air and all the other necessities provided for. Therefore, the premise of this movie that the privileged would live on a space habitat makes no sense. This movie is lacking an explanation in why things are this way so nothing really makes sense.

One of the fundamental points in this movie is that in the space station they have futuristic medical technology that can cure any sickness essentially instantly. This movie is also lacking any explanation as to how the people on the space station can maintain a monopoly on such advanced technology or why they would even want to so that whole element of the plot doesn't make much sense either.

Besides these major elements that this story is lacking I feel this story is also lacking some explanation as to what happened to Max between when he was a child and when he was an adult. They just show Max as a child and then they switch to him as a tattooed adult with only brief mentions of his past later on. Well this movie wasn't all bad I feel it may have been more interesting to see the elements of Max's past this film was lacking like his car thefts rather then bothering with the plot about a space station which lacks a decent explanation as to its existence.
38 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
House M.D. (2004–2012)
House isn't what it once was.
28 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
House M.D. had a lot of things going for it: an excellent cast, interesting medical cases, a touch of comedy, etc. These elements allowed this show to be a considerable success.

However, with the breakup of the original team at the end of season 3 things started to get worse and worse. House M.D. tragically turned into a soap opera, and whatever interesting medical element it disappeared. The show started to focus on the romantic relationships between House/Cuddy, Chase/Cameron, and Foreman/Thirteen. All of these relationships ended tragically, with the female character eventually leaving the show. By season 8, all of the original female characters were gone, and Kutner had previously committed suicide, so the excellent cast and the interesting medical cases that made the show great were no more. Even the comedic elements of the show disappeared as the show became dark and suppressing.

As such, by season 8, House M.D. lost everything that once made it great. For me, the last straw was the departure of Lisa Cuddy and the imprisonment of House. Cuddy was adorable and after his prison sentence, House lost whatever believability he may have still had. Since the show has gone down hill I think season 8 may be it. Hopefully the series producers can still give us a nice finale.
17 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Wire (2002–2008)
One of the greatest narratives ever told
9 October 2010
How did HBO manage to get an amazing group of actors and a superb plot and keep it going for five seasons? More people should ask themselves this question so that they may emulate the success of this series.

The wire isn't a show though, it is one 60 hour long narrative. Therefore you should watch it in order from start to finish to feel the full effect.

The wire is not some convenient fiction it is reality. By illuminating the failing education system, drug addicts, drug dealers, police corruption, and city politics it presents to you the bigger picture of the cycle of corruption in Baltimore.

This show is both entertaining and informative, humorous and horrific, beautiful and ugly. It is truly a masterpiece, but don't take my word for it, see it for yourself.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
You might like this film if you are beyond reason
9 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
However, if you are reasonable, let me point out two ridiculous things that firmly set Star Trek in the area of fantasy rather then science fiction: the Q continuum and time travel (the basis of this movie).

Time travel is ridiculous in too many ways to count. The first of which is if it is possible where are the time travelers? If it were possible it would be the most devastating thing ever. The first group to invent it would go back in time to when everyone else was still bacteria and conquer the galaxy.

The way the Borg would go about using their time travel technology is they would go back as far in time as possible and upload to the earlier hive mind their knowledge of time travel, futuristic technology, and enemy cultures. The Borg would then construct several more time machines and go back in time again with fleets of spheres and conquer the galaxy and then the universe.

And if those points weren't enough, what makes the time travel in this film completely ridiculous is that by going back in time and meeting the humans of the past they would've completely altered the future and the entire structure of the federation and the Star Trek universe, but that didn't seem to happen.

Additionally, this film completely ruined the Borg. In the Best of Both Worlds they seemed to be an irresistible force of nature, however, in this film the real identity of the Borg is revealed, they are actually a bunch of mindless idiotic zombie beings without any goals like perfection.

And they have a queen too now, what is up with that? The queen serves no practical purpose and she has nothing to do with the Borg philosophy. She was just stuck in there as a plot device and to further transform the Borg into a silly joke, not to be taken seriously. In essence the Borg died with this film.

And what the heck is the Borg queen doing talking? I thought the Borg were beyond that. Sound is an incredibly inefficient means of communication, it is slow, it cannot travel across long distances or across space (which raises the question of how do they hear external sounds on the enterprise? Do they have artificial sound?), it is hard to decipher, and you cannot transfer very much data with it. Therefore the Borg use more efficient mediums. Namely they use radio wave communication like what we use today with the Internet except they extended into interstellar space by using subspace channels.

In conclusion if you intend to watch this film shut off your mind as a lack of critical thinking we make this film far more enjoyable.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Zeitgeist (2007 Video)
Is this supposed to be a documentary?
8 September 2010
If this movie is documenting something it certainly isn't in this universe. This is more of a fiction film then a documentary.

I don't know that you can even call this a fiction film, it is more like two fiction films with a segment taken from Loose Change stuck in the middle.

(1). Religion

This part is probably the most believable part of the film, because they mix truths into the fiction, we know for a fact that ancient society revered the sun, the seasons, and nature, and that the Egyptians had one of the earliest religions.

However, they distort the truth in this section in order to paint a picture that simply isn't true. First of all, they claim that the reason Jesus is crucified on the cross during December is because the Sun passes through the Crux at that time.

That is false, first of all the sun never passes through the Crux because the Crux is not a zodiacal constellation, and secondly it is mostly observed in the southern hemisphere (e.g Australia) and not in the Mediterranean countries this movie describes, so the Crux is probably not even the origin of the Cross in mythology.

Besides that falsehood, the movie claims that Horus, Krishna, Attis, Mithra, and the like are all almost the same, which is an outright lie. First of all none of them were born on December 25!! Horus was born on around August 24, Krishna was born on July 21, and we don't even know when Jesus was born, the Christmas holiday is just there to celebrate the winter solstice. We don't know that that was the day Jesus was born.

The next claim they make between these myths is that they share the Virgin Birth element, well that is not true, Krishna's father was Vasudeva, Horus's father was Osiris, Dionysus's father was Zeus, Mithra was born of a rock, we don't know that Attis's mother was a virgin, etc. This is all part of the fictional universe this movie depicts.

Furthermore, Horus didn't have 12 disciples, he had 4 semi-divine followers, and 16 human followers, for a total of 20 followers, so this connection between Jesus and Horus is totally fabricated. You can find a connection between all sorts of deities from religions, the idea that they performed miracles, etc, but no correlation as major as the one this movie depicts.

If any of these claims were corroborated they would be taught in every History class from here to Timbuktu. But these claims are not, because they are simply made up nonsense made to attract more viewers.

Viewers that are attracted because it makes them think they know something that the majority of people don't, well you don't actually know anything from this that other people don't because it is false knowledge! To this day there have been hundreds of Egyptologists, Archaeologists, Historians, and scholars of a variety of fields working on this topic, studying Religions and looking for connections between them. Leave this to them, please, let the scholars do the work, don't just throw out the last hundred years of their work and pass this fiction story that was written in probably written in a couple weeks as truth.

If you honestly do believe this is true, find the sources, find the corroboration, find the supporting evidence, and present it to Peter Joseph so he can add that to his film and his website, until then, you should outright reject all the new claims in this section of the film as they are unsubstantiated nonsense.

(2). 9/11 Conspiracy

I won't get into this part of the film very much, if you want to know more read a review of Loose Change or any of the thousands of documents out there refuting this conspiracy theory.

Put quite simply, those buildings were not built to withstand a deliberate timed attack from planes that were full of fuel like that. The engineers who built the towers prepared for earthquakes, wind, and other natural phenomena, and they even prepared for the possibility of a airplane accidentally crashing into the building, but they certainly had no clue that such an act of terror would occur.

(3). International Bankers

This whole part of the film is to attract to people that consider themselves politically to be Anarcho-Capitalists, these people believe capitalism is the perfect system and if they just get rid of the evil group of bankers behind the federal reserve everything will be okay.

And they make up lies in this part of the film too. Like the idea that J.P Morgan created the bank scare of 1908, and that there was a group of secretive bankers that conspired to create the federal reserve, and that the federal reserve created the great depression.

Shortly after talking about the international banking cartels, they go into the war industry and how War is a Racket, a racket that businessmen have been using to make billions and billions of dollars for centuries, and that is true, however, they mixed that with fiction, fictional ideas about how the U.S government attacked itself and covered it up, which I agree the Nazis did, however, there is no evidence that the U.S made it the "norm." After talking about war, they bash the EU, NAU, AU, SAU, and the UN so it seems they have erroneously concluded that these unions are evil. What doesn't make any sense is a few minutes later in the conclusion of the film they urge unity.

Finally, I agree that the people of the world should unite, take charge of their own lives, participate in society, and contribute, however, don't do it on the basis of ridiculous conspiracy theories!!
86 out of 133 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2012 (I) (2009)
Too many mindless escape from disaster scenes
26 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The movie was off to a good start, Helmsley was introduced to the impeding disaster and the audience was presented a decent explanation of why this disaster is going to happen, which certainly helps. It would've been insulting to the audience's intelligence if they just said here is the disaster, it is happening, with no explanation as to why. Then there is an interesting build-up and we get to see some interesting and thought provoking scenes.

But then the disaster starts to strike, and Jackson has to escape from it and at this point the producers expect you to go into mindless mode, stop asking questions, stop thinking and just watch our expensive and fancy special effects in a series of disaster escape scenes. And there is just to many of these escape scenes, they start to get boring. This movie goes on two and a half hours, they could have seriously cut out forty or so minutes by just getting rid of some of these mindless escape scenes, then the movie would be far better.

They just introduce the audience to the idea that the poles are shifting and the world's plates are being rearranged without any satisfactory explanation, and there is immense flooding and they only spend a couple minutes talking about why this is happening. Cut out some of these action scenes and put in some more content explaining things.

This movie contains a copious amount of biblical references, for example the boats are called "Arks", there is an immense flood that these boats escape from using their advanced technology, and there is a reference to Mount Ararat in the alternative ending. These biblical references are not explained and they assume the viewer has prior knowledge of the bible. These biblical references do not belong here.

Additionally, I felt that the Yuri character did not belong here, but then again he may have been useful in conveying the point that only very rich elites will have the power to escape a disaster like this one. Overall I give this film a 5/10. This film isn't that bad, it has some relatively nice special effects but it relies on them too much rather then investing in a good thought-provoking plot.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Toy Story 3 (2010)
I wouldn't recommend this dark, joyless, product-placing, fantasy/horror film
24 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Fantastic Elements: First of all, I am not particularly fond of the fantasy genre as a whole because of its tendency to be disconnected from reality. In the case of the Toy Story franchise, it is posited that toys can be brought to life.

So what is a toy? It seems that a toy could be practically anything that you like to play with, so it would then seem that anything could come to life in the Toy Story universe, which doesn't make much sense. Why do certain inanimate objects in the house become alive while the table doesn't? It seems completely arbitrary.

Additionally, how is it that these toys come to life even though their very own creators believe that they are merely inanimate objects? I simply don't see how they could unknowingly create these conscious beings.

How could the toys conceal that they are alive and why? Why would Woody for all of this time refuse to talk to Andy and then all of a sudden at the end decide to communicate to him by writing something down on a piece of paper?

Mrs. Potato head left her eye at Andy's house and she was still able to see with it? There is some kind of wireless transmission going on here? Why is it that Buzz Lightyear had his consciousness temporarily shut off by a process that was manufactured by humans that are presumably unaware of the toys supernatural intelligence? How exactly does this supernatural intelligence relate to the machinery that was manufactured?

How is it that the daycare center was able to be administered by toys like Lotso, with their surveillance footage of toys, the monkey with the security cameras, cars patrolling every night, toys constantly being moved around, toys having themselves filled with sand, and so on without being noticed by the humans??

There is simply too many things which don't make sense, but hey this is a fantasy film. Perhaps it is presumed that you will be incurious and mindlessly receptive to what is being presented here.

Plot: The plot essentially adopts a "prison break" style. Humans play little to no role in this film, so I think they could've just made the entire plot toy-centered, as the human-toy interactions are scarcely utilized in this movie. Instead they could've just made the film entirely centered upon humans, then it would've been considered to be a below-average prison escape film. However, they didn't do that, and people elevate this movie to a higher status because it has the toy story name and it uses the toy story characters. Personally I don't think that makes a movie good, I don't think you can just take some plot and substitute the characters for Toy Story characters and somehow come out with something that is a "masterpiece" as many people are claiming.

In the beginning of the film the toys are in the comfort of Andy's home. Then at about 15:00 in the toys are mistaken for trash and thrown away. They feel rejected and they lose the comfort of their home. They then begin on a joyless and unentertaining quest to find a home that just gets darker and darker as the film goes on.

After leaving Andy's house they go to sunny-side daycare and at 32:00, the toys are thrown around and treated like trash by the children at the daycare, it is at this point that the film takes on its horror character and prison escape focus. The toys are put into awful and dark conditions, sometimes compared to hell and the holocaust, certainly not something young children should be exposed to.

At about 75:00 they decide to throw Lotso out of the daycare when they escape, and suddenly the daycare is turned into a toy utopia and suddenly all the toys are free and well off. Its not as if such changes can happen so quickly in the real world, progress is always gradual. Some people have even proposed that the toys died in the incinerator scene only to go to heaven which would explain these changes.

Finally, when they are free, Andy decides to give away all his toys. So what?!? If Woody really wanted to he could maintain a conversation with Andy when he is in college as his already showed that he is proficient with computers and phones, so he could just call Andy or talk to him over the internet. However, for some unexplained reason they can't converse with one another. In that case Andy can just buy new copies of those toys just as Lotso's owner replaced him so that no big deal on his part, and if Woody doesn't want to maintain a conversation with Andy that is his loss.

Product Placement: It just so happens that the computer Woody uses to search for his home is an Apple. We get to see many advertisements for Apple products, and there is even an iPod in there, courtesy of Pixar studios. Other products such as Mattel's Barbie & Ken dolls are advertised, and most importantly Disney has rolled out its own line of merchandise based upon the main toy story characters that will certainly be a very profitable business for them. It should be pretty clear why Disney chose to use toys in this movie when they could've just used people, they make lots of money from selling those toys. And this is not the last you are going to see of them, Disney holds the copyright on them for the foreseeable future and they will continue to sell them and build films around them, so as to maintain their profitable business.

Conclusion: If you actually cried over this movie, save your tears for a REAL tragedy, the real tragedy is that the Chinese workers who are actually creating these toys are treated like slaves. (See the documentary - {Santa's Workshop: Inside China's Slave Labour Toy Factories})
15 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Inside Man (2006)
I am confused.
2 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Was this movie supposed to be exciting? For me it was too predictable, they said outright that Dalton was not the type of person that would hurt or kill people so I didn't really feel any suspense or surprise from that point on.

Who exactly is the protagonist of this story? Was it supposed to be Dalton and is he supposed to an admirable character? Just because he didn't kill anyone doesn't make him a good person, and it doesn't make his whole bank robbery forgivable. He stripped people down, kept them from their families, and frightened them. Besides that he stank.

Also, what is with this movie's name? Who is the Inside Man? Is the point that you cannot identify the inside man? Is the inside man the person who told Dalton about box #329, if not who the heck told him about that top-secret safety deposit box? Either way, was this whole perplexing affair meant to leave me in a state of utter confusion?

Moving along with the story, Dalton robs the bank and the police essentially do not offer any resistance. They said "you won't attack because we haven't killed anyone." Does a robber all of a sudden get the right to hold hostages just because he leaves them alive? Why didn't the police resist the robbers more often and earlier?

Okay, so the police finally decide to invade the bank to save the hostages, even though they knew the hostages were aware of their operation due to a cleverly placed bug. The robbers then join together with the hostages and they leave the bank together, that way the police cannot distinguish between the hostages and the robbers.

What I can't understand for the life of me though, is that once the police had the robbers in their custody, why couldn't they identify them using all the voice recordings, camera footage, and cell phones they had?!?

If the police were competent they would've used Speaker Recognition software with recordings of the robber's voices to identify the criminals. Moreover, factors such as employment status, height, weight, skin color, and gender could be used by the authorities to ascertain the corrupt culprits.

One of the most confusing things is the fact that the main robber, Dalton, somehow got away from the police. Even though he talked to that child about his PSP game, yelled loudly at the hostages, had several conversations with Frazier and White, and he basically led the entire operation. Based on this, don't you think the police, or at least Frazier, would notice the absence of the main perpetrator? They even indicate in the ending segment of the film that Frazier recognized Dalton's voice. Why did he recognize it so late?!

Speaking of that, are we supposed to believe it was a complete coincidence that Frazier and Dalton met up? According to the movie, Dalton wanted to leave undetected so he obviously didn't plan on Frazier being there. It is hard to believe such a coincidence would actually occur.

Maybe if this film had a take home message that would make it pretty good, but I haven't really figured out what I am supposed to get out of this movie. Don't rob banks? That probably isn't it, after all their robbery succeeds. Buy property when there is blood on the streets? Or is it the other way around? Either way they only spend like two minutes talking about Case's former affairs with the Nazis, there is no buildup and no visuals of the event, so for the most part those scenes are easily forgettable. In conclusion, don't watch this movie, all you will get out of it is confusion.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
District 9 (2009)
28 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
There is a species known as "Prawns" originating from a planet with seven moons in the Andromeda Galaxy. Prawns are adept in developing biotechnology, such that they have made their spacecraft, their guns, their fuel, and practically the rest of their technology dependent upon their biology. If they are so adept at it, why didn't they develop the biotechnology to transform their species of drones into highly intelligent independent individuals?!?

Sparing that, they could have at least brought along some other individuals independent from the hive mind, that way they wouldn't have to be completely screwed when the hive mind dies or when someone launches a biochemical attack. In Star Trek they bring along Klingons, Vulcans, Betzaoids, Androids, etc, so if one of them falls to a virus that causes mental retardation, at least the rest can continue on. The Prawns could at least build a few robots like data and make their spaceship highly intelligent, again so that they wouldn't have to be screwed over when the hive mind dies.

Okay, so somehow it ends up that their hive mind dies and their crew is completely direction-less and screwed over. Their spacecraft should still communicate back its status to the other Prawns, or did they lack basic communication technology?!! Why would the prawns forget about one of their own spacecrafts? NASA keeps pretty good track of its spacecrafts, so why can't the Prawns with all their technology do just as good of a job??

Okay so their crew is screwed and the rest of their species forget about them. The last thing they should do is land on a foreign planet! They have no idea how advanced or hostile that planet is, or what sort of deadly viruses and toxins that planet might contain. In reality they would just sit around the sun and harvest its energy to power their spaceship. I am sure the comfort of their spacecraft and their alien technology would be far superior then the slum-like conditions they had on Earth.

Granted they do use biotechnology a lot, I simply do not see how biotechnology could be used as fuel. Besides that why on Earth did the fuel turn Wikus into an alien?? In addition, why do they have the technology to reverse the transforming effect this fuel has on humans?

Moving along to when the aliens are on Earth in the film, why didn't the aliens, with the exception of Christopher Johnson, use their guns to retaliate? Why do the Prawns like cat-food in the first place? Why would they trade their guns for cat-food, and why would Nigerians stockpile guns that they can't even use? Why does the government approach the situation so poorly and why does the government allow human beings to stay with aliens in district 9? What about inter-species prostitution?!?! What is that about and why isn't the U.N dealing with these things, to at least protect the welfare of the people on the human side?

Now lets consider the completely unlikeable protagonist: Wikus. There is little to no character development and his plot is just as ridiculous as the plot for the rest of this movie. He does an abortion on aliens like it is funny or something? It isn't, the audience doesn't laugh with him so that scene is just stupid. He finds some volatile black fuel and that one of the retarded aliens failed to hide, and he gets exposed to it, why doesn't he go seek medical help immediately? Then when he is transforming why does his very own wife believe that he had "sex with aliens"? Come on, sex with aliens, that is just ridiculous! Then he moves to District 9, because the idiotic government has completely failed to place any decent security in the region. He meets Christopher Johnson and they are somehow supposed to bond? Even though Wikus attacks Christopher Johnson, and even though he committed countless crimes against the Prawns, Christopher Johnson still bonds with him? Come on that is just ridiculous!

Finally, what is the take-home message of this film? Treat retarded aliens that land on Earth with respect? Perhaps it is that human beings are cruel because everyone in this film is cruel to an incredibly fictitious extent. Even if it is that human beings are cruel, that does not really teach anyone morals, people are not going to leave this movie with an increased understanding of ethical theory so this film does not really have much of a take home message.

In conclusion, this film is highly over-rated. Some people praise it for being "original." It is not, this sort of theme has been thoroughly explored in films such as {Alien Nation (1988)}. Besides that the visual effects and CGI are not that good, they were done on a poor budget and there are many flaws, just check the Goofs link under "Fun Stuff." It doesn't contain plot holes in that link though, because there is simply too many of them to possibly fit in a single page.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This film gets better as you go along
25 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie starts out extremely boring. It merely employs the dull theme of a virgin "good guy" who wants to lose his virginity, well all the "bad guys" apparently "get the girl". This beginning was so boring I was thinking to myself "what the hell am I doing watching this?"

Fortunately this film picks up pace around the point Nick and his family move back to their original trailer, then Nick's rebellious personality comes into play and he goes through all sorts of ordeals to try and get back together with his first love: Sheeni. It gets even more interesting though, when Trent goes over to Sheeni's house. At that point, things get quite interesting because Nick has to act quickly to avoid the police.

It is nice that this movie picked up its pace, however, those extremely boring segments still undermine this film's overall quality.

Furthermore, this movie's lack of real comedic scenes was a considerable disappointment because I came into this movie thinking it was a sort of "feel good" comedy film. In the end, I only laughed like once or twice. One of which was to the illegal immigrants joke, and in retrospect that wasn't that funny because that is a very serious issue.

It really is too bad I didn't find a funny or uniquely interesting film here. 5/10
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Watch this if you are a Christian that likes post-apocalypse films
24 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The apocalyptic theme has been thoroughly explored: the Fallout games, Water-world, I am Legend, Mad Max, Children of Men, and so on. The bartering, the subjugation of women, the "evil biker gangs", and the resource shortages are all too familiar, such that their cinematic appeal has diminished. What makes this film exceptional is the fact that the protagonist is a blind Christian man who is willing to kill to protect his braille bible.

This movie is essentially a fantasy movie. First of all, bibles have become a very scarce resource, even though in reality the bible is one of the most printed books in history. Besides that, there are countless digital copies of the Bible which could be accessed with electronics such as the electronic music player Eli possessed. Instead, in this fictional reality, all of the copies of the bible got wiped out, and somehow a braille bible just happened to be laying underneath the rubble and Eli just happened to find it.

Furthermore, Eli initiates several unrealistic battle scenes where he single-handedly defeats many opponents at once, even though he is old and blind. Some people have said that perhaps Eli had the "hand of god" supporting him, after all, he apparently heard some sort of voice which lead him in a basically pointless 30 year journey across America.

I also find this religious element to be unrealistic, why would god create an apocalypse or support someone like Eli who killed countless people. Doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible: "though shall not kill"? In addition to this, are we supposed to come out of these movie thinking Eli is a good person, even though he killed countless people over a braille bible?

In conclusion, it can be quite stunning to realize Eli's blindness and how this explains so many scenes of the movie. This and other parts of the movie were certainly somewhat good, however, when I reconcile those good scenes with all those parts of these movie that were religious or confusing, I end up with a 5/10.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Earth 2100 (2009 TV Movie)
Don't bother watching this film.
24 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Global warming, flooding, droughts, natural disasters, diseases, over-population, refugees, peak oil, resource wars, why not throw all of these things together centered around a single character and then conclude the movie by saying that we need to create a green and environmental future?

This film does not establish a clear relation between each of these problems, it just jumps from one from issue to another, and it can be quite confusing along the way. Besides that, things are centered far too much on America and the life of this fictional character: Lucy. I don't think they mention Africa, South America, The Middle East, or Australia, much or at all. They talk about China and India a little: apparently they declared a resource war against one another, however, they don't go into it that much after that.

In addition to this, there have been oil shortages in the world before. See {The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (2006)}. People would import lots of bicycles as the price of gasoline for cars goes up, they would start growing their own food as the price of food goes up, and so on. People wouldn't be senselessly driving in their cars to get super-expensive gas as is implied here. They over-dramatize every issue to a 'worst case scenario', especially the issue of peak oil.

How exactly did the population go to 9 billion and then down to 2.7 billion and where exactly were these population changes distributed? In order to support a larger population, such as one that has 9 billion people, you would undoubtedly need advances in agriculture and architecture, so that bigger buildings can be created and so that more food can be produced. Besides that there are things which are limiting factors to the expanse of the population, such as the birth control programs in China and AIDS in Africa.

Moving on, was there any good reason that those sea-barriers had to fail? I think they would have made all sorts of precautions to assure that they would work correctly, and they would predict the event before hand so that they could drop the sea-barriers without resistance. Furthermore, if they wanted to construct a modern green city, they most certainly wouldn't do it around New York, when New York is immediately threatened by the floods and diseases. Instead, they would most certainly create the city around Siberia or Canada, because in this future those areas would become warmer and more habitable, so they would make for an ideal place to create a "beacon of hope" for this post-apocalyptic society.

One thing that was really disturbing is the communications breakdown, and the idea that the scientific breakthroughs could be lost. One of the people interviewed for this show said "if it is some electronic based thing it could all be lost" considering modern storage capacities, you can store so much data that there is little threat to the ability to successfully store it. Sure a nuclear apocalypse, or a massive raise in the Earth's sea-levels could seriously threaten life and civilization as we know it, however, I do not think it poses much of any threat to digital data or our communications systems.

We could easily store all of our scientific breakthroughs/literature/videos/software on a couple of hard-drives and put them in spacecrafts/satellites that would be completely impervious to all Earthly matters, in addition to this these spacecrafts could send radio waves down to Earth. This could form the basis of a communication system used to reconstruct human society after such an apocalyptic event as the one this film depicts.

In conclusion, this movie recommends that people change their habits immediately in order to go green, to get solar panels, and wind power. These are things we have probably already heard many times before so this ending segment probably won't be interesting to most people. They actually pose no real solutions to most of the issues presented in this film: natural disasters, over-population, peak oil etc.
30 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Avatar (2009)
Enjoyable film not be taken too seriously
21 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The story of Avatar is by no means original. Avatar is simply the story of Dances with Wolves retold in outer space. This raises the question: is it really necessary to retell this story in outer space? Well this change in setting does not make it impossible to enjoy this film it does make it so silly that it should not be taken seriously. I for one do not take the premise that a species so incredibly advanced that they are capable of interstellar travel would act this way seriously for even a second. Nor do I take the idea that they would happen to encounter a planet where the native inhabitants are are sexually attractive to them and perfectly in tune with nature like the Na'vi are seriously nor should anyone for that matter.

So the whole premise of this movie is silly but what is worse is that it is incredibly manipulative as well. The whole story is set up in order to manipulate you into accepting its message. And that message is that the Na'vi are good and the military is bad. In order to coax you into accepting this message the military is led by a comical stereotype whose only motivation is to acquire a make believe element called Unobtainium with completely unexplained properties. As a result you do not have to decide for yourself which side you want to root for because the producers of this film have already made this decision for you. Well it is still possible to enjoy this film despite all its flaws it should not be taken too seriously in the process.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What is environmental good?
20 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
What is environmental good? I would start out the movie with talking about this question. The Earth and the environment do not have interests and they do not care, as such we should define some sort of criteria so that we are not going at these things arbitrarily.

The movie itself focuses on the life of Colin Beavan - the "no impact man" and to a lesser extent his wife Michelle Conlin. They embark on a year-long adventure to try and adopt a lifestyle that has no "negative impact" on the environment which brings me back to the question - how do you determine if your environmental impact is good/bad?

One of the first things they do in their adventure is they change their eating habits and they become lacto-ovo vegetarians (they keep eggs & diary). Environmentally speaking, if the cows/chickens are going to be there anyways to produce eggs/diary how does not eating their meat produce some sort of "environmental good"?

The animals are going to be there, burning 90% of their energy as body heat, producing large amounts of excrement that ultimately gets into our rivers, and consuming huge amounts of water. In addition, raw milk has been deemed unsafe so they were probably consuming diary in this movie that was cooked which wastes electricity. I think by merely being vegan without cutting out many of your other habits, it wouldn't be too hard to have a negative impact that matches that of this family.

Eventually they spend energy to transport themselves to a distant diary farm. It is funny though because the diary farmer seems to imply that he cares about his cows and he "doesn't want them to die" yet he keeps them in tiny stalls, he undoubtedly drugs them to make them think they are pregnant, and he steals their milk which naturally is meant to go to baby cows. The natural way to go is if the mother, Michelle Conlin, produced her own breast milk and fed that to her children.

Moving on, at around six months they start cutting out electricity except for perhaps the cameras that were filming this movie. They end up using lots and lots of candles for light - producing that many candles most certainly takes a toll on the environment anyways, so I don't see what exactly they were trying to get at here. Besides this, there are solar-powered flashlights available for as cheap as 50$ that can last up to 20 years, such a flashlight would be a superior option for the environment.

I wouldn't tell anyone to give up electricity and to entirely give up using a computer and other modern technological luxuries, and they don't even give it up in this movie they just employ a "bourgeoisie solution." I call it a bourgeoisie solution because alternative energy like solar panels are only financially available to governments, corporations, and rich people. They end off the movie in a potentially insulting manner, implying that people are too shallow and self-interested to change their consumption patterns. If people could afford to purchase solar panels and other luxuries I am sure they would and I honestly think most people care about the environment they are just left powerless by the system.
5 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ignorant Lies
29 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Ben Stein in this movie interviews Richard Dawkins and he says there are eight billion people on the world which shows how ignorant he is about a very simple fact. I am afraid this is not the only fact this ignorant lier, Ben Stein, is not aware of.

One of the only apparent scientific arguments in here is not even against evolution it is against abiogenesis which is something that is easier to attack. They go about it by basically saying they had an experiment in the 1850s where the tried to create life in the Earth's current atmosphere and that shows that god or aliens jump-started life. That actually only shows that Bein Stein is ignorant of another basic fact.

The atmosphere was drastically different 3.45 billion years go when life formed! First of all there was cyanobacteria that created all the oxygen that we see in our atmosphere and that put all this carbon dioxide in the ground. Before cyanobacteria and there processes there was a different atmosphere and scientists have proved that life can potentially come to be out of controlled atmospheric conditions.

Another thing that is appalling in this movie is they bring on some ignorant creationist who calls evolution a quote "undirected process" and then there are other people who call evolution completely random. Both people do not understand a basic fact of evolution that it is directed towards creating species that can pass on their genes, which is not a random thing.

Then they get into this moral argument thing that there is no meaning to life without believing in religious lies which is another untruth. I propose instead that there is no meaning to life without evolution because without evolution what is the point of doing anything? We are already perfect right? There is apparently nothing to improve upon.

Then they talk about Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and I should bring up that many of them were indeed Christians and that is in the Christian religion to hate all Jews as Christ-killers and I think Adolf Hitler was seriously influenced by that since Adolf Hitler was a roman catholic once.

Intelligent design isn't brought up into schools and into as many discussions because it is based on ignorance and lies and that is clear after watching this garbage.
36 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sickening and overly dramatic. GOD CANNOT FEEL PAIN!
19 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
It is sickening to see the crucification of Christ and they over-dramatize it, no human would have that much blood, especially someone as skinny and poorly-fed as Jesus. Throughout history many people were crucified such as 10,000 of Spartacus's soldiers. Why do they dramatize this particular person to such an extent? According to new testament canon this fictional Jesus character is considered to have all the powers of Yahweh as such he was omnipotent so he could have easily blocked out pain and he also being omniscient knew before hand that this was going to happen and that he would not die. He did not experience any fear, risk, death, or pain in this experience. Jesus did not sacrifice anything for these reasons.

As such this whole movie is based upon a deception, a deception not only that this fictional story is true but also the deception that Jesus sacrificed something and that Jesus felt any pain at all. There is no way Jesus could have felt pain according to the same people who created this story. I have yet to here someone address the issue that Jesus did not feel pain in crucification, as such this whole entire story is based on a lie.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Home (I) (2009)
Amazing, stunning, eye-opening, thorough ...
23 June 2009
This movie explores the corruption of modern society in a very thorough manner. It explores the corruption in the agricultural industry, where in America we produce enough surplus food that we could end starvation around the world but instead we waste it on things like the meat packing industry.

This movie demonstrates how the meat-packing industry wastes massive amounts of water, power, and food where the meat is about 5% of the food that was given at hand. They also describe how the meat packing industry is one of the greatest causes of air pollution because in fact many of the chemicals released from meat packing are worse then CO2 and the UN said that meat packing contributes more to global warming than the cars.

They don't mention it but meat and other forms of processed foods are really bad for people's health which is why the more developed societies have things like Colon Cancer, Heart Disease, and Obesity, well poorer societies do not and it is extremely cruel to animals. This is why I personally am a vegetarian.

This movie even explores how some people are using solar power to create a better life-style but that is not enough we need a government in the world that actually cares about this stuff instead of caring about pleasing the corporate bosses who are destroying the earth anyways.

This movie also explains how we are cutting down the Amazon rain-forest and we have already got rid of more then 20% of it and if we get rid of the entire thing there won't be much hope left for humanity. Humanity will be doomed. Considering that I am less then twenty I might live to see the earth turn into easter island. I have heard that by 2030 we will lose half of the amazon. Who knows maybe in 2050 we will lose the Earth.
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
21 (2008)
Good in the beginning and bad at the end
18 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
In the beginning of the movie you feel bad for Ben Campbell here because nobody is appreciating all the hard work that he is doing and he feels that people only respect money which is what eventually seduces him into this card counting business.

Well the movie quickly starts going down hill from that point on. The beginning is the best part, the middle is worse, and the ending is the worst.

Anyways when he is card counting he encounters Laurence Fishburne who can somehow unrealistically transport to the same casino as him. After card counting for a while he gets 315,000$ and keeps it in his dorm room where it gets stolen which is insanely stupid. Who would keep 300 grand in his dorm room??!?!

Anyways lets move on to the even stupider parts of this movie. Afterwards there is a chase scene where Kevin Spacey is conveniently lead to a limousine which has one of the casino bosses in it but seriously the odds of him even going that way was very low anyways the whole movie gets really very silly and confusing at the ending.

I mean the whole movie leads up to this? It didn't even make a heck of a lot of sense there like he went through all that getting screwed over in card counting and yet he still wants to bring his friends into it?? I mean there is no real climax in this movie. It leads up to nothing. I cannot give this more then a 4/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Idiocracy (2006)
This represents an original look into the future of society
14 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This represents an interesting vantage point on the future of humanity in which I have never seen anyone else present before. They make an interesting argument and it seems like it could actually happen in real life because they use evolution as an argument.

People don't really need any intelligence or any skills at all to survive in society because they have machines that can take care of it, so the only thing which evolution requires is the ability to reproduce more and stupid people tend to do that a lot more, so smart people might die out in the next hundred years if we don't do anything about it.

I mean their problem where they had their crops were destroyed because they did not use water is pretty stupid because the machines would take care of it. You know one thing that is considerable is why isn't there more fat people because it is highly likely that there would be more of them too but fat people cannot reproduce so it is quite an interesting situation...

I like that this movie shows how humanity could turn stupid but I don't like it when the movie itself is stupid as such I cannot give this more then a 6/10. This movie is really a lot like Wall-E but I think Wall-E is definitely better so I would recommend that first. I gave Wall-E a 7/10 so I cannot give this movie any higher then that.

Anyways bombarding you with all that stupidity throughout that movie can kind of make you feel stupider yourself in the end. I think the movie would do much better by reducing the amount of time in it by approximately 30 minutes. I mean for the first thirty minutes or so it was definitely all good when they were introducing the whole situation and the trash avalanches and such, but later some of the things were just too stupid. I would boost this to an 8/10 if it was shorter. Right now I leave it as a 6/10.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008 Video)
An interesting message but this movie needs some sort of order to it.
7 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Okay this movie basically can be divided into five parts:

(1). Monetary System w/ Ron Paul

(2). Confessions of Economic Hit-man

(3). Venus Project

(4). Religion

(5). Random Anti-American Stuff you can do

Okay first of all they start out with a discussion on the monetary system and they talk about how corrupt the federal reserve is but that does not really prove that there shouldn't be any monetary system just that there shouldn't be a federal reserve. Then they bring in Ron Paul for a while in there and he talks about the federal reserve but anyone who knows him, knows he is a capitalist and he likes free-markets as long as there is no federal reserve involvement. This part doesn't really help the video that much.

Okay then they talk about John Perkins, an economic hit-man, and this is really quite interesting but they just throw together things in a small amount of time like a half an hour and it is just not that interesting if you really want to know about this stuff his book that I read is very good and I recommend you read that it is called "Confessions of an Economic Hit-man". Shortly after talking about this section they bring in Jacque Fresco who says every single government in the world is pretty much corrupt and this really screws up the entire point of this last section and I am really disturbed by that. They talk about Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in the second section and then they say that he and his allies in Latin America are all basically corrupt...

Okay then they bring on the third part of the movie, but it was after an hour and I was already wondering what is the point of this whole movie is about anyways this is the most interesting part of the movie they talk about how we could build an underwater train that runs based on magnets. I think they should ditch the rest of the movie and just talk about The Venus Project the entire time.

Then they start talking about religion. Well this movie contains so many contradictions it could be a religion. For example they say that the machines being invented are oppressive when they talk about capitalism and then they move on to say that they are instruments for good in The Venus Project and many other confusing things like that, many of which I have already covered. For all these reasons I cannot give it more then 6/10.
7 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Taken (I) (2008)
I would recommend this over most movies
27 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Indeed this movie has its flaws, particularly some of the scenes in the last twenty minutes. People have complained that these scenes were too unrealistic and I recognize that criticism. What those critics need to understand is simply that this movie is only an hour and a half, and at least an hour of it was very realistic. If this movie was two hours long then I could really identify with those critics.

Anyways the particularly objectionable scene in the movie is when he jumps onto the boat from a bridge and proceeds to disable twenty or so men with little resistance. Liam Neilson didn't even get shot at once in that scene! Regardless, it was over quickly...

Moving on to the things that are good about this movie, I was really quite impressed by how Liam Neilson did that urban climbing to reach into the scene of the crime. It really draws you into the movie into the movie in the beginning and then it is non-stop action, and it is much more realistic then most action movies. Liam Neilson is quite simply awesome and he really helped make this movie what it is.

Some people say that this movie is "propoganda for the new world order" or something similar because Liam Neilson tortures people to find his daughter. Most people who watch this movie would eventually recognize that what Liam Neilson has done is not worth it and they won't come out thinking "torture is a great idea". I mean even the police were after him for how he destroyed countless pieces of property and he stole peoples cars.

If anything you realize that Liam Neilson in this movie really likes to torture and kill people after all they were suggesting that was what his profession was and that is what he was doing every single day (because he liked it). The only question is why the heck did he retire? He seemed like he would still be good at his old job...

If anything you will come out of this movie thinking that fathers should be more protective of their daughters until they get a husband, and I can speak from experience in saying that, that is a good idea.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Super Size Me (2004)
A ten despite the criticism
25 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The people who gave this movie a 1/10 should go to work at advertising McDonalds, after all they spend countless millions on that industry. They really need people like you who apparently believe nutrition is a myth, the people who gave this movie a 1/10 apparently think that all you need is exercise and the food that you eat is irrelevant.

Every good bodybuilder factors in nutrition and doesn't just exercise well stuffing trash in their mouth because they would get no results either way, they wouldn't get fat or built. They would most certainly get sick from all the hard work it takes to process the trash they are consuming though...

One thing that detractors have said often is: "Any jackass will become sick if they eat the same anything every day, three times a day, for one month." People in Africa live off of 90% brown rice right now and before a thousand years ago countless people lived off of mostly bread with a small amount of vegetables...

The reason you cannot live on McDonalds is it poisonous trash that causes cancer, obesity, and heart disease. Besides that to make this form of processed foods you have lose almost 10 times the calories you had originally in the process. Not to mention the electricity and other things wasted in making what is essentially a poison. All for the profit of McDonalds at the expense of common people.

All he is doing is representing the facts and quite simply McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Pizza Hut are all devastating to an individuals health and I can speak from past experience. It is fortunate that many people have came out of this movie recognizing that they will never eat fast food again and even McDonalds and others responded by adding more healthy options. This is all good.

What we need is exactly what he suggests in the beginning for minutes, for people to have meals cooked at their homes like he had when he was young. Fast food is devastating to these peoples health and you cannot trust corporate tyrannies to take good care of you. 10/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
WALL·E (2008)
Not that great if you really think about it.
25 May 2009
This movie seems great in many ways but when you put it into the perspective of the millions of dollars and the thousands of hours spent on this movie, you start to become disillusioned. I like to recognize all the criticisms of a movie before giving it a 10/10. I was going to give some other movies tens I viewed the comments with the "hated it" filter to see what people don't like...

This movie is really boring IMO for something they spent several million dollars on. I was literally falling asleep for some of this movie =/. One of the reasons I thought it was a 10/10 at first is people are going to come out of it thinking, "I am not going to throw things away as much" or "I will go out and jog." But in reality many people will come out of this movie thinking this is depressing and they will be negatively effected.

This relationship between eve and wall-e seems pointless and unnecessary in retrospect. The conversations where they just repeat their names like Pokemon is a annoying and headache-causing to many people. I personally recognize that many people like this movie and it is not all bad so I give it a 7/10, 3 less then I was thinking of doing at first.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.