Change Your Image
wanglese
Reviews
Genius (2017)
Historically and factually inaccurate, but watchable
Sigh.
Episode 6. There's a scene where they have Einstein discussing using and eclipse to photograph stars displacement by the gravitational field of the Sun in order to prove his General Theory.
Einstein never suggested this. It was others.
Worse, when he's having trouble getting funds for the expedition to do this, he says "There will not be another eclipse for years".
Einstein was not an idiot, and knows that Solar Eclipses happen every year, and are predicted well in advance.
The treatment of Mileva, his first wife is incorrect in almost every detail. Yes, she was a contributor, but not his equal in the way they try to parallel her with Marie Curie to Pierrs Curie and therefore wronged in not being defended by Albert for a Nobel Prize.
Watch it, but don't expect accuracy. Read a book on Einstein for accuracy.
WWII in HD (2009)
I do not see this as Propaganda at all!
Watched this. 12 peoples accounts of what they saw and experienced.
Not propaganda. There were 2 sides to this conflict. The evidence is all around for anyone who isn't a product of Post WW2 post modernist education.
Japan was an absolute agressor, from WAY before 1941 (The Japanese behaviour in China is WELL documented). The Nazis were also known for the horrors they inflicted.
Some people started the wars. Thank god the allies ended it so that idiots from Latvia can post nonsense without living in fear of their being rounded up.
War is terrible. Sometimes people have to fight them because to not do so contributes to the pitiless oppression of those who want to oppress.
This documentary is excellent, real, and gets a 10 out of 10 from me,because it's an account from people who were actually involved, and saw it with their own eyes.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Not bad at all
Spoilers below! OK, this is as good interpretation of the HG Wells book. It's far,far better than the first film attempt (with Gene Barry).
Great effects, which for once don't get in the way of the story. I was expecting to see a Spielberg version of Independence Day, with lots of fighting against the invaders, kind of a "Saving Private Ryan vs the Martians".
The alien machines were simply awesome,well realised and the suggestions of the battles in the distance, and the noises were very chilling.
When the main character kills the Tim Robbins character, it shows the desperation that Tom has reached in order to keep his surviving child alive. This was surprisingly good characterisation by the writer, director, and I have to say, Tom Cruise.
Worth having on DVD when it comes out.
OK. Now for the gripes.
1: The alien machines were planted millions of years ago in the ground. What, we never spotted them, none at all? Far fetched.
2: The heat ray effects were great, and Spielberg showed us bodies flying apart, several times over.Seems like he enjoyed doing that. But when it came to showing the needle going in from the machines and sucking up the blood, he chickened out and decided to be discreet. Not that I was particularly interested in seeing blood being sucked out of people, but the reluctance to show it stood out like a sore thumb.
3: There was no logical reason whatsoever for the son to survive. The audience had accepted that he died, but Spielberg just HAD to have the happy reunion in the end. Which denied the pathos that he had built up. The Tom Cruise character had shown he was flawed, was capable of making mistakes, and didn't have all the answers. Leaving the kid dead would just have been more real somehow. No explanation of how he survived, when the entire hilltop went up in masses of flame.
Having said that, the scene where his son says "you have to let me go, I have to see this" was kind of like Tom accepting that his son was a grown man, and adult. Very poignant, but bringing the kid back? Dumb, and spoiled the poignancy.
Ignore the flaws, go and see it and enjoy it.
Troy (2004)
A hollywood reinterpretation of classical greek legend.
A Hollywood re-interpretation (let's be honest and say MIS INTERPRETATION), of a classical Greek legend.
If you are hung up on the original legend as told by Homer, then you will feel uncomfortable about this film. The opening credits should have had a warning "Based on characters and events as told by Homer, and any resemblance to the Illiad is purely accidental"
OK, I Still enjoyed the film, at over 2 hours, I didn't feel the time go by, but I kept noticing faults, both historical and geographical (see below)
Brad Pitt has some awesome swordfighting moves (which you see from the first fight he has), and the fight between him and Hector (Eric Bana) is terrific.
The landing at the beach at Troy is an ancient version of the D-Day landing in "Saving Private Ryan", but nevertheless well done.
Peter O'Toole looks old (well, he *IS*), and his eyes, which used to be the most amazing eyes after Paul Newman, look tired. Nice part though.
OK, what's so bad about it:"
People die who didn't die in the original story, people live who died in the original, and Paris is a more sympathetic character than he was entitled to be. But heck, all the Greeks are presented as baddies, and the poor Trojans are the only sympathetic characters. It's more told from a Trojan point of view.
They even CHANGED THE ENDING!!!!!!!!!!!
If I was a Greek, I'd make sure the Americans get the worst accomodation at the coming Olympics. I bet the Greeks get upset about this interpretation.
OK, Note to Hollywood: History and Geography Lesson: History: The war lasted 10 years, not 2 1/2 weeks!!!
Geography: Look at a freaking map!!! Turkey (Troy) is EAST OF GREECE, so when you are on the beach, the SUN SETS IN THE WEST, as does the moon. Every time you see the sunrise (more than once in the film), it's rising from the sea, a ohysical and astronomical impossibility.
SCORE: 5 out of 10. Mostly for the action scenes, and some OK acting.
Van Helsing (2004)
A good ride. Enjoy it.
Just got back from seeing it. What a ride!!!
Like "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns" before it, leave your critical thinking at the door. You aren't going to see this movie expecting it to have some deep insight into the human condition are you?
Enjoy the ride. This is an excellent blending of rollercoaster live action with awesome special effects, and it's a rollicking good story.
Hugh Jackman is good enough to please the ladies, and that hat is going to become as memorable as Indiana Jones' Fedora (the movie calls for a sequel of some sort). Kate Beckinsale is simply adorable and looks great in bitch boots and a leather corset. (She needs to be careful she doesn't get typecast, because her role kind of reminds me of her role in "Underworld" - she's NOT a vampire BTW)
Speaking of Kate, like Rachel Weisz in both Mummy films, Stephen Sommers lets her be an action heroine, and not keep fainting when the monsters come, as films in the past used to.
Kate is probably the best action heroine since Sigourney Weaver in the Alien films.
The only bit that was a minor let down is that they hint on the origin of Van Helsing, but it's not completely explained. Maybe they are planning a sequel.
I always judge a film on wether I would buy the DVD. I'll go out the day it's released, and buy myself a copy.