Change Your Image
BerkerTaskiran
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againSome titles may be placeholders which will be replaced with films that I think to be better when I have seen them.
And following years are wholly missing from the list, which will also be filled as soon as possible: 1920, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1928, 1930, 1943
Reviews
In the Shadow of the Moon (2019)
Time travel is impossible and the world is deterministic
This film uses determinism as a tool to justify the inevitability of events that happen during time travel, and uses it to slap the main character's and the audience's faces over and over again until the painful-to-hear monologue but the major hole here that is avoided is inevitability of events will prevent you to change anything by going into past.
And not just in a way that things will find other ways to end up that way. No sir or madam, the universe doesn't care about that. Results that lead to the destruction of the earth or minor events happen between are exactly the same for the universe. You can't even change a butterfly's single flap by a single degree by going into past. You might as well bomb the entire universe.
The act of going to past changes the past, undoes entropy, breaks all sorts of laws of the universe. Now you might just say "cool off, man, it's just a sci-fi movie", but if a movie is using determinism as a tool to justify itself then I can use the term to its true meaning to explain how meaningless it is. I wouldn't call this sci-fi because sci-fi implies probability, this has 0% probability.
And to be honest there is no way to justify killing a bad person by going into past, and I sure hope any cop will try to and hopefully succeed to catch you. Maybe let's think about more productive ways to prevent bad things from happening than breaking the laws of the universe and committing murder?
Sanctuary: Tempus (2011)
Time travel as a decor
This is just cliché. How appropriate for Imogene to die with the hands of his father, right? That way no need for Helen's hands to get dirty, no need to fight with the idea of saving a daughter for the sake of everything etc. She could just change the entire future for the good but since the producers don't have the courage to change every single familiar thing to us, they just leave a girl under a wreckage. I mean, seriously? She complains death of millions of people etc but she just chooses to ignore every single person who will die following 113 years. If you can't deal with these things, just don't use time travel EVER. There is no valid argument for not changing the past. Not to mention the second you travel back to past you're changing entire world. And not minor things. This explained in the episode with a sentence similar to "you can't make me explain current time travel theories". Right. This is put there just so they can say "we're not explaining but there are valid theories for time traveling that deals with these problems", they're not explaining because there simply AREN'T. Whole traveling back to past and not changing anything and some fateful thing happening is nothing but a way of using an interesting concept with no dare to change anything. Because change means unfamiliarization and they think that means people will like less their "products". But this is also wrong. A very well made "unfamiliar" futuristic world doesn't mean "unlikeable". One of the greatest sci-fi films "The Matrix" was an "unfamiliar" one. But in order to people like it you need to be good at it. This is where they fail. They don't have the courage, they don't have the talent. Unfortunately "Sanctuary" have gotten worse with each season, and right now I don't think the cancellation was unjustifiable.
Star Trek: The Mark of Gideon (1969)
Fools of Gideon
I found this episode horrendous. -As almost every episode of season 3. I always awe to see how writers choose to tell how death can be chosen over something. In this episode death was chosen over a long-life span, a disease-less life. They could easily solve the overpopulation problem by simply banning to populate by laws and apply prison or such sentences who broke it and do it strictly. It was first said that they couldn't sterilize people because every organs were restoring itself (this was also a hole against disease attempt but lets pretend this doesn't exist for the sake of topic) But then they couldn't even think of a solution by force of laws. Is really populating like animals and being vulnerable against diseases that important? Every being thinks of itself first, how creating life can be more important than your own? Of course you can care for someone more than yourself AFTER you have it. But giving up on your own life for something doesn't even exist yet is utterly rubbish. Thankfully actual scientists aren't like those surrealist emotional writers. The reason i raised my voice for this is because having a long life span is such a dream for us and is such an important thing to infinite possibilities of achievements therefore i can't stand when it's treated as if it was such an unimportant thing to give up. I can understand it if there is a valid reason for it but as in this episode there mostly isn't.