Change Your Image
captbeefheart6
Reviews
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
ho hum
It would be a reasonably sure bet that if someone has seen the prior films they will be seeing this one. In other words a sure-fire hit. As such you might expect they'd relax some of the requirements forced upon a big budget film - i.e. less emphasis on action and focus on the story. But alas not. And to rub salt into the wound is the nature of the action. The opening and that rather chaotic somethingorother in the middle at the Weasley residence is really quite forced and uninteresting; another would be the inclusion of Quiddich-why do that when its involvement in the development of Ginny & Harrys relationship is cut? Speaking of that, there is no development it just sort of muddles along through a series of disjointed events and is whittled down to a lone kiss. No actual relationship. Development indeed.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
I wanted a Transformers movie;
instead I got the Whitwicky Mom & Pop laughin, more ugly US Military FRACK YEAH!, the damn ancient astronauts from Stargate & Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, college hijinks, and enough romantic angst to make a Harry Potter fanfic blush. Its pretty hard to screw up Transformers: Autobots vs Decepticons. Simple, right? But when you have hack producers who just don't care, a director with ADHD doing his own thing, and writers raised by J.J. Abrams who religiously following the Screenplay Guru roadmap. Then somehow the film winds up filled with a whole lot of other nonsensical meaningless dreck leaving the Transformers relegated to supporting characters in their own movie.
Star Trek (2009)
Urgh.
I'm not an obsessive fan - I've never dressed up, never gone to a convention, never been part of a fanclub, never learnt Hamlet in the original Klingon, never written a fanfic, read a couple paperbacks when I was a kid (dreck), etc.
An ordinary viewer.
I'm realistic enough to agree with people like Philip K. Dick that it by and large was old scifi pulp militarism reheated and Nicholas Meyers that whatever pretensions it claimed to aspire to it was often just gunboat diplomacy in space.
The whole thing about being about something bigger was Roddenberrys vague flailing around at an idea without any actual work being put into it.
But on occasions in the original series and Next Generation and in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 8th film they actually managed to get near or reach these high ideals of being about something more. Or if not that then at least tell some good stories with interesting characterisation. And of course there was Deep Space 9 (back to realistic: lets not beat around the bush, someone at Paramount ripped off Babylon 5 big time).
What is this new film? A dumbfounding 'reboot' (lol guis I accidentally continuity-wat nao /b/?)*, a few minutes for some juvenile emotions, the rest hot air couched in enough screwing around with the sound design and frenetic editing and busy directing - shakeycam close-ups, dutch angles, whip pans, sweeping dollys, lense flare etc. - to make Michael Bay blush, and action action action.
*Starting over from scratch is one thing, J. Michael Straczynski counter-proposed that very idea when he turned down joining the writing staff on Enterprise, Battlestar Galactica would be another example. But that's not what this does. It actually has to go and destroy its (future) history before it can exist. Wipe it out of existence. You can decide for yourself what exactly that means or if it has deeper Freudian or Jungian or Campbellian implications for the creators of this film. Its like Old Man Biff stealing the DeLorean and going back to 1955 with the Sports Almanac.
Gaza Strip (2002)
The Settlements the Gas, and this & that
Those that have posted negative reviews somehow managed to make several interesting mistakes that suggest that they too are cherry-picking the facts; (1) they somehow just blunder right over and completely ignore the fortified Jewish-Settlements built in the Palestinian-Territories. Remember that when they complain about this documentary ignoring their litany of complaints. (2) Others complained about the poison gas rumors, I don't know if its true or not, but those who claimed no proof was provided evidently weren't watching when the doctor from Doctors Without Borders provided her diagnosis and video footage of the affected people going through whatever it was they were going through was presented. Remember that when they complain about this documentary ignoring their litany of complains. Further more, this documentary was not intended to provide a clear and concise look at the conflict going right back to 'the beginning' and providing a clear and concise look at all the atrocities, crimes/war-crimes, forced removal from land, etc that all parties have committed you want that go watch PBS, Frontline, the BBC or something. It was meant to go look at the people living in the Gaza Strip, and see who they were, what their lives were like, what they live through, etc. There is no way to justify the intentional & deliberate killing of civilians, to even attempt to is give up all claims to humanity, and this is a standard we must apply to all of us. Finally while I consider myself a pacifist, I don't know how long I'd be able to continue denouncing all forms of violence from my Parisian-café while Nazi-German troops patrolled the streets, or while selling newspapers on a street-corner in the Gaza Strip and peoples homes are demolished and refugee camps are established so that those who have a rather odd interpretation of their religion can take other peoples land for themselves. (Note: I do not intended to compare Nazi-Germany with Israel and its Jewish-Settlements, if you see it other wise then I apologize. It is merely to provide a historical example of which there is little or no argument over the validity of, i.e. the French-Resistance)