danielepinat Reviews

Rapture (II) (2019)

Why the title Rapture?

[8/10 · 25 July 2023]

I'm still perplexed about the title of the film and the film itself. The film should have been given a different name.

Indeed, the only indication of what the rapture should be is at the beginning of the film. Then, as the film progresses there is nothing truly related to the consequences of the rapture. Why wasn't the couple raptured? Is the UFO responsible for the rapture? Is there a relationship between the rapture and the UFO attack? Confusion nothing but confusion and I still try to understand the religious aspect of the film. What about self sacrifice? Are the aliens portrayed as evil angels? But why?

Star Trek: Picard (2020–2023)

The return to knowledge

[15 February 2020]

Probably the force of Star Trek Picard as compared to Star Trek Discovery is that Star Trek Picard picks up where Discovery has failed: Historical continuity as opposed to ideology without remorse such as in Discovery which was a gaggle of extrem leftwing unfounded social, psychological and historical hogwash supposed to be facts without having proven exact in the course of history. Which authors of the past has proven that true knowledge was repressed by white male patriarcal privilieges? Jean-Paul Sarte would return to his grave having listened to Star Trek Discovery. Yet, as soon as Star Trek Picard started, episode one, Picard tells a reporter: ''You don't know your history. You are a stranger to your history'. Magnificient words. Any one who has seen the first episode and does not know what Dunkirk represented will have viewers either snob Star Trek Picard or go back to the history books and discover the past and not go seek refuge in the mumbo jumbo of white male privileges as vomited by Star Trek Discovery. Indeed, the fourth episode Candour, again Star Trek Picard leads us back to high literature as expressed by Alexadre Dumas: The Three Musketeers. This powerful symbol will be developped and demonstrates that our actions today are those expressed by the past as written in books which should enlighten us as to create a better tomorrow. Star Trek Picard is the beginning of a new journey which should bring back to the idea that a better future is still dreamable. Star Trek Picard is truly Star Trek Discovery, the redisovery of our true past.

The Predator (2018)

A tribute to autism

[28 September 2018]

There are 3 aspects of the film that I believe makes it a good basic sci-fi if not a good sci-fi horror film which are the main theme on autism, the predator technology and finally the basic story development.

First of all, nothwithstanding the violence, the gore or the low level plot that demands careful listening in order to understand the story , one aspect of the film's written reviews on The predator that is missing, is not having focused on the central theme which is autism.

From the beginning when we first encounter Rory McKenna (Jacob Tremblay) we sense something peculiar with him. When in a classroom he reveals to be autistic the story goes on to have him discover how the alien technology functions and later that the Super predator wants to capture him to take his DNA.

In addition, Casey Bracket (Olivia Munn) mentions that the future generation of humans will be autistic, nothing more is said on how that will come about. Will it be by a new alignment of planets? The increase of vegetarian meals? A rise of non smoking societies? Vaccines supposedly responsible for the rise of autism children will be forced on children in order to have superchildren? Or...

The second aspect which makes it a good science fiction film is the alien or predator technology. Let's admit it, the predator technology is just grandiose. I hope such technology will exist in case a new world war is started. It will give hope to humanity that the war won't last long. Especially when we see the predator armour at the end and Quin McKenna (Boyd Holbrook) says it will be his armour.

Finally, the basic plot based on low humour, gratuitous violence that some scences could have been avoided to let more explaining by the characters. The story can't be cheaper than that.

In all a film that I would rate 7/10.

Star Trek: Discovery (2017–2024)

A disaster

[24 September 2017]

Ouf! What more can be said. After 10 minutes I wanted it to end. Why? No emotional attachments to the characters. Captain Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) who is difficult to understand, Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) who speaks as fast as a laser being fired. What is she, an android? A Stephen Hawkins' offspring who knows more than Stephen Hawkins himself. What about the moral that is supposed to be transmitted! ''It's a mutiny'' Good grief if not Pathetic. And what about the Klingons? OK, a good show for those who learn the Klingon language. Sad for a debut. Why wasn't the cast of the Star Trek Into Darkness chosen? Yes CaptainGeorgiou, laser to oblivion Number One. No big loss.Time to have someone else. A series that is beginning that is so distant from the viewer at all level that it is safe to say:to distance itself from its public, to go Where no TV shows have gone before.

Part 2- One week has passed by and I finally resolved myself to watch, after the 6th rerun, the last 40 minutes of the second episode of Star Trek Discovery after having been disillusioned after the first ten 10 minutes of episode one and then being insulted by episode 2.

The question I asked myself after the second episode was: Are we still in the STar Trek philosophy or are we in something new?

Indeeed, Stark Trek Disovery is bringing the series to a new paradigm that will obliterate the humanistic view of the exploration of space too that of warfare. And, is this not in link to our current society?

When Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) is killed at the end of the second episode and had said to Michael Burns that after serving 7 years with her, she, Burns, still had a flaw in her humanity and was not yet fit to command a star ship, and when Anderson (Terry Serpico) Admiral of a star ship meets his death when a Klingon cloaked vessel smashes into his star ship after he negotiated a cease fire with the Klingons in order to discuss peace, and when Enseign Connor (Sam Vartholomos) is sent to sick bay to heal his burns and instead encounters Michael Burnahm (Sonequa Martin-Green) to say to her that what they were going through was not about space exploration and discovery but war then is killed in an explosion, he mentions if war was Star Fleet's philosophy.

What the 3 have in their comments and attitude is the remains of the Star Trek philosophy and humanism. With their deaths seals the original Star Trek view of space exploration and meaning

Probably the series will have the viewers assist to the transformation of Michael Burns where her humanity will develop and have her bring back the Starfleet philosophy of what space exploration and discovery means. But in the meantime, I believe we will assist to a lot of war and the beautiful toys of warfare equipment.

I would go further by saying Star Trek Discovery and, just the word Dicovery, means the self discovery that Michael Burnham will go through in the war process. Or,probably the discovery of war as a way of life.

Part 3-Update

After watching the first 6 episodes I asked myself was I right to think the way I have.

There are three things now to consider.

First of all, why call it Star Trek?

Wouldn't it have been more simple to give it its own direction? Its own title, its own philosophy? Why Star Trek? Especially that an sentient being , the slug, is finally sent in space to have it survive. This is not Star Trek which is to kill or use life forms for base purposes.

As a fact, one could relate to an episode of Voyager where Janeway (Kate Milgrew) encounters a badly damaged federation vessel using an species for the vessels engines. Janeway fought the idea. True to the Star Trek philosophy.

Secondly, about the lizards.

Probably descendant of the house of Raptors. You know, millions of years ago on planet earth where the dinosaurs roamed the world, I believe a few velociraptor eggs were taken by a forgotten alien species living somewhere in the universe and dropped the eggs on a distant planet to have them evolve as what will become the Klingons.

Let's not even mention the Vulcans.

The Philosophy

Now, this is where it become interesting and why Discovery should have had an orientation of its own.

And, I would add, is this series a harbinger of what will happen to our society? And that is, How far will a country (planet) go to win a war? Think Russia, Korea, China, ISIS.

I believe we have not yet seen everything. If this is Discovery's win the war at all costs philosophy then what lies ahead? It should be beyond imagination.

If there is a fragment of Star Trek in Discovery it would be to show us what the future holds in warfare knowledge and technology even to sacrifice what needs to be sacrificed in order to survive just like the slug.

Scary! Indeed.

Cell (I) (2016)

Weird ending

[28 April 2017]

I'm not a movie or book fan dealing with zombies. And, when I bought the book Cell by Stephen King, I didn't know what to expect. After reading the beginning of the book and when I discovered it was to be about Zombies, I put it away and never finished it. Many years later and as of today,I discovered there was a film on the book and today I've seen it. In the name of zombies,can someone explain the ending of the film to me?

Notwithstanding some flaws of the film like the scenes in which the characters are immersed, one day in a city and the next in the country or from a sunny day to a minor snow storm and this without any development on how it got to that, that is merely film construction as in nothing to get upset about.

However, when Clay Riddell (John Cusack) arrives at the antenna near the end of the film, drives through a hoard of zombies circulating the antenna which caused the zombie epidemic,and supposedly finds his son to discover his son is a zombie who is calling upon the hoard of zombies probably to eat Clay's brain like in all zombie movies where brains are a delicacy to finally detonate the ice cream truck full of explosives, we see Clay and his lost son reunited to die in the blast.

Or, did they die? And,if they didn't die, we see Clay (John Cusack) as a zombie walking in a circle around the antenna and to go further, we see Clay walking with his son in the country and as I am to assume, before hell breaks loose through the cell phone if not by conspiracy and why not done by the Illuminati while were at it.

Therefore, did they die?

Or, was it the movie's antenna mind control put into our reality to say to those who saw the film: you are now under the control of the antenna.Your mind is now controlled by the antenna, you are now zombies!

Indeed, I will reread the book to the end to seek answers to say whether the film's ending is weird or what!

Bunker 6 (2013)

Insanity or what is going on in Bunker 6

[26 March 2017]

What a strange film this is.

Are we in post insanity where Grace has been living alone for a long time after everyone died, I suppose of having been murdered by her?

Nothing is clear in this apocalyptic film. At times we can believe she is having flashbacks of what happened in the past to wake up in her reality that everything in the bunker is collapsing.

One moment she tries to contact the outside world then later on the communication room is in pieces with wires hanging here and there in a way to show that the bunker is degrading.

Again, nothing is clear to how insane she has become. Seems that two worlds are colliding in the bunker. The past which seems to have been livable and then a shift to what in the world is going on in the bunker!

When the green light finally turns on, she puts a key and is taken outside the bunker with some snow left to represent the nuclear winter coming to an end. Yet, the trees in the background have grown relatively fast. Especially after a nuclear bomb has detonated. How far from the bunker did it happen?

Was she inside the bunker for too long a time that led her to insanity? I would imagine yes because of the trees. In addition could there have been a defect with the light?

I'd like to see a sequel to this somehow good Canadian Sci-Filow budget film.

I liked the movie and give it a 7/10.

Leap! (2016)

Ballerina-Reuniting with a great art: Ballet

[3 March 2017]

Tired of watching modern dance movies that has you say: Another one of Hollywood street dancer groups with all its acrobatics that must have come from America's got talent aiming for Hollywood that tosses aside the traditional dance of Ballet?

Produced at L'Atelier Animation in Montreal, Canada, Ballerina (2016) is majestic at all levels from the animation to the story itself.

A basic story of a young orphaned girl Félicie (Elle Fanning) who dreams to become a ballerina leaves with her friend Victor (Dane DeHaan) who also has a dream that of becoming a famous inventor, both go to Paris to meet their destiny.

What makes this a beautiful animation is that the story is not bogged by irrelevant metaphors or irony that distracts from the story that would have us distracted to the relevance of the movie based on something that could happen anywhere such as achieving one's goal. One does not say during the film that this scene is ridiculous that it diverts us from the message.

A success indeed.

First of all, the story itself. Set back in the 1800's where Paris is growing and where all hope is possible and notwithstanding the fact that Félicie (Elle Fanning) will take the identity of another person Camille Le Haut (Maddie Ziegler) is not new in the move world. Yet, the story progresses logically to have her be discovered as a fraud. What Merante (Terrence Scammell) sees in Félicie when he discovers the truth is what he sees in himself, one with passion. As a fact when he says to Camille and Felicie why they dance, in his harshness in his selection of candidates lies his humanity. He doesn't insult Camille but asks her why she dances?

Here we have the theme: Are we born to dance or do we become dancers that can be applied in all aspects of society? Are we born with a gift or do we become the gift?

Secondly, the choreography is absolutely amazing. It compares with all the acrobatics seen on America's got talent or in movies such as Rocky Balboa. Remember his training against this Russian guy? We see two types of training, the natural versus the mechanical training using modern equipment.

What about the competitive choreography between the two girls? Superbe!

If the film gave me shivers three times then I admit to the success of the film animation to have struck a chord in me. And, if my grandchild was able to relate to his life one scene which was the union of Félicie and as Odette (Carly Rae Jepsen) and which has also brought me back to when I bought tickets to the Ballet then I consider this animation a true marvel to which I give 10/10.

Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man (1991)

A film of many biker clichés

[28 February 2017]

Directed by Simon Wincer 1991 this film, and let's admit it, is a a wonderful comedy even though it was not supposed to be one. Truly, who takes his film seriously?

Even though this film is a biker film and produced in a time where being a biker was an ''in'' thing, we follow two men who live their lives the myth of what a biker life is: Freedom, drugs, alcohol, cheap hotel rooms, clash with the underworld, all the clichés of the biker world are united in one film.

As humour and to defy the underworld which both men do by entering a bank where drug dealing is king, there is a scene or a parody of the Vietnam war with the helicopter shooting the bank. The use of the helicopter is a tribute to the Vietnam era.

Secondly, the abandoned air field with airplane derelicts again seem to portray the vestiges of the Vietnam era. Probably the abandoned airfield is a symbol of the decrepitude of the biker era that was once a dream to be attained for many.

The end of the film where Harley Davidson (Mickey Rourke) leaves his long life friend Marlboro Man (Don Johnson) to live a new life picks up a beautiful woman considered a Biker woman who would be bored by a mundane life and the myth of the biker picking up women is a cliché that is still in the dreams of anyone dreaming of becoming a biker and the freedom associated to this world.

The Lego Batman Movie (2017)

The Lego Batman Movie: For Kids or adults

[27 February 2017]

Directed by Chris Mackay, The Batman Lego Movie 2017, outdoes itself in terms of being a film not only for kids but also for adults.

With themes such as the father and son relationship with which Bruce Wayne (Arnett) will be confronted by the arrival of a new adopted member Derek Grayson who will become Robin (Michael Cera), Batman's missionary status as being the only one to be able to stop the villains now questioned by the new Police Chief Barbara Gordon (Rosario Dawson) who will become Batwoman, the psychological bond between the Joker(Zach Galifianakis) and Batman, the array of villains that come from the void like the Dayleks from the Dr Who series, and what about King Kong, these motifs could leave anyone perplexed as to the age this film is addressed too. However, the themes which are universal could easily be grasped by children of all ages.

In addition, the humour, the special effects or using the modern day villains such as Valdermont from the Harry Potter series, makes it an updated film using both the past and modern truants to make this film appealing to all ages.

Yet, the character of Bruce Wayne as Batman is at time annoying due to his stubbornness or to his refusal to admit that a family life is still possible. His way of responding to his Butler Alfred(Ralph Fiennes) by dancing in the Batcave is hilarious yet sad since this psychological denial leads him to crime fighting as a mission or a way to escape his denial. Probaby Batman should join a Crime Fighters Anonymous (CFA) program and follow their 12 steps if any.

I recommend highly this film for anyone with a child's heart. I give this film 10/10.

Black Mass (2015)

Black Mass a film or a documentary film

[27 February 2017]

Black Mass 2015 directed by Scott Cooper should not be called a movie but a documentary film not on the life of James Whitey Bulger but on the hideous and gruesome murders committed as a true criminal as Stevie would say about Bulger in the film.

Briefly, the spectator is drawn in all the horrendous killings Bulger committed or had other people do for him. Not much is said when it comes to his growing up in South Boston with the Winter Hill gang or his stay in Alcatraz and how everything led to his perverted life as what could be called serial killing.

There are two scenes worth the watching and it is that, first of all, the dinner scene where he will slowly manipulate Morris by showing some form of humanity where friends gather around the table, forgetting for a moment the evil they bathe in when Bulger to Morris says ''You and I gotta have a little sit-down here, only to talk especially about the recipe of making a good marinade steak.

As a spectator, I believed the dinner scene would be some form of escape from the drudgery of their lives as thugs, to bring in some relief of what it is to escape for a moment the life of crime, however , the evilness of who Bulger is, is at its utmost perfection. No humanity exists in the underworld.

The second is how Bulger's murder's Stevie's stepdaughter in front of Stevie himself and not acting to protect her. How can a person stand to see someone who is part of a family even if by alliance like being a stepdaughter not react? Probably, when Stevie begins his confession to the FBI and when asked how he would describe his boss. The camera is focused on Stevie's face and on a closeup shot he replies ''A real criminal''. I assume his inaction towards the killing of his step daughter is one of admiration towards his boss or the fact that he is so involved in murders that now, if he would act against his boss he would act against himself thus leading to his death if discovered. No one knows.

An excellent film, yet, a solid heart is needed to see a film such as this one where almost 2 hours of murders are shown that goes beyond what one can imagine what crime life is all about.

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

Is this film serious?

[10 July 2016]

What can be said about Independence Day 2: Resurgence, if not a film full of special effects that it lacks a story since it has many stories.

Or should I write: A film with so much content that nothing can be grasped in terms of content to reflect on. It seems impossible to relate to a character, a particular story of a character or a history of an event.

Too many characters, too many stories that it is difficult to concentrate on one that another one begins without answers to another. Or, are we in Star wars? Species? Aliens? Resident Evil? What film parody or parodies is this film based on if it is supposed to parody something?

There are at least 3 things to ponder on.

First of all, at the beginning of the film when Thomas J. Whitmore (Bill Pullman who plays the role of the former president of the USA who now seems to be senile), has on his desk a book called: The History of the Luftwaft. Is this a message linked to the TV series Ancient Aliens where the film links the Extraterrestrial attack on earth as being somehow linked to Nazi Germany and their secret weapon?

Secondly, why at the end of the film we see Paris and the Eifel tower not destroyed, especially when David Levison (Jeff Goldblum) says in the film the aliens attack our landmark. Yes, London is obliterated, nothing stands. Why preserve Paris?

Thirdly, why Dr. Catherine Marceau (Charlotte Gainsbourg, the French actress who portrays a French physician)? Why not a German physician using a Nitzchien framework: Destroyer of minds why not the destroyer of civilizations? At least France gives hope.

Unless this film is merely American propaganda celebrating the 5th of July and a delayed thank-you to France since it has given the Statue of Liberty for the USA's independence from England where its obliteration by the aliens, it's sad that a film with such potential has not truly developed a story but used special effects to cover up its poor story.

The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

Is Tarzan well depicted?

[7/10 · 8 July 2016]

If I have to Compare Tarzan:The Legend of Lord Greystoke with Christopher Lambert in the role of Tarzan (1984) and The Legend of Tarzan (2016) with Alexander Skarssgard as the leading role, I will have to admit that the former is a true reflection of whom Tarzan is compared to the latter which is mostly a story based on the history of Colonialism and Tarzan a pretext to talk about this sad moment of history: The Slave Trade.

However, the strength of the film Tarzan (2016) relies,if we talk about whom Tarzan is, on the descriptive nature of who he is: Africa's ghost or the man able to communicate with animals. Especially, near the end, when he communicates with the crocodiles is noteworthy.

We can go further in the film's depiction of Tarzan, for example, even if not well developed, is how Tarzan will unite the animals of the jungle for a one extraordinary stamped.

In addition, one could say that the special effects showing Tarzan swinging from one tree to another closely resembles Spiderman.

However, the great flaw of this film is that of not having focused on Tarzan and his amazing gift of speaking or communicating with animals. It would have been fun to have gone deeper into his gift and not dwell on a tragic historical part of history.

To conclude, in the 1984 version when Tarzan (Christopher Lambert) fights the leader of the gorillas, it is worth the viewing. In parallel, the gorilla in Tarzan (2016), the ape he was brought up with, considers Tarzan, his brother, an outcast. The battle between the two is weak compared to the 1984 version.

A film, that I hope, will have a sequel if the true focus on Tarzan would be his gift rather than politics.

Maggie (I) (2015)

A film based on humanity

[8/10 · 20 April 2016]

A beautiful film in regards to its humanity as shared through the film's characters.

A family is confronted by their teenage daughter Maggie (Abigail Breslin) who is contaminated with a dreadful disease which is Zombieism. She did not catch it inadvertently but caught it by having been bitten while out in an escapade on a night out when the town was invaded by zombies when she new it was forbidden to go. Teenage rebellion against the family like the two brats in the movie 28 weeks later that caused the destruction of London and Paris.

Now, this movie depicts what it would be like if a member of a family would be confronted with a contagious disease which is irreversible and that only the death of the infected one can preserve the safety of the others.

Indeed, the movie goes on a step by step development of the contagion of Maggi and the results on her environment such as family, friends and other members such as the police, doctor which will lead her at the end to commit suicide.

The only problem I have with the movie is this: Can life continue as usual with an extreme infected member of the family? Further more, with such an infection in this case Zombieism, at what moment does Maggie lose her humanity since all along the movie it is said that she should be quarantined ipso facto. A reference to the Anne Frank Diaries is a must to understand life as usual in extreme conditions.

In fact, all along the movie she shows no loss of her humanity. We can clearly see this in the scene where Wade Voegel (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is sleeping on a sofa and Maggie approaches and smells him. Her transformation to a complete zombie has not yet peaked to the irreversible.

However, if the doctor and police insist she be put away, have they lost their humanity knowing there is nothing that can be done and to save the rest of the population Maggie must be killed? Who is truly human here?

We can also ask, how far will a family go in denial or semi-denial? Does denial mean keeping one eye open while sleeping?

At the end, she commits the inevitable by putting an end to her life.

I ask myself this question: Was she dead at the moment she was bitten and her loving family going into denial or did slowly die as to have a family act in a way to have her live live as long as possible with them showing the last of their humanity as they know it when she dies.

As Hamlet would state it: To kill her immediately or not to kill her immediately, that is the question.

Gravity (2013)

Gravity as symbolic of new era

[6 February 2016]

Gravity Gravity is in fact, a beautiful film. What to add if not to write about the special effects, the characters or the plot. And, what about the symbolic aspects of the film which makes it a desirable film to talk and write about. An aspect neglected when talking about the film. The acute use of symbolism starts at the moment after the first catastrophe when George Cloney breaks away from Sandra Bullock in order for her to survive. She enters the Russian Spacelab and takes off her astronaut outfit. After taking off the outfit, she swings her arms upwards to see her body in full extension to a point that before she reaches a foetal form, her extended body shows her legs as if they had become some sort of a mermaid tale. It might seem far-fetched, yet I would advise to take a close look at that scene again. The, she attains the foetal form where one cable looks like the umbilical cord then we are afterwards launched through a narrow corridor which could be the uterus. From that scene on up until her reaching and landing on planet earth, it will be her growing up experience as the tight tunnel in the Spacelab could be a representation of her coming out of the uterus. But, where would this all lead up to? The only flaw I see in regards to the symbolism and that is, and we could ask a question, at what moment does the shift from our reality, that of a space catastrophe which has been the fault of the Russians and their missile launch on American satellites to bring us to a new dimension as we will discover it at the end. The only moment I see is when inside the Spacelab George Cloney comes back, then, she wakes up alone. I believe the Twilight Zone effect starts at this point where the fantasy kicks in to bring to a deeper level of thinking and plot development. Our reality has disappeared for a new one. How can all of this be linked? Near the end of the film, when she crashes in a lake somewhere which could be China since she used the Chinese Spacelab, it is to ask if there are still people on earth. Now, the capsule is flooding with water and like a mother's womb full of water she reaches the surface like a baby getting out of the womb. As we are shown, we see only her head out of the water, a solitary background, and she reaches shore dragging her way out like the first amphibian that populated the earth before the dinosaur era. And, more interesting, it makes the link to the foetal form in the Russian Spacelab and the mermaid effect, with difficulty, she succeeds in standing up. The camera angle filming her legs is for one reason: To show the new era of humans that will originate from her and the male she will seek since she could be viewed as Eve and her future mate Adam the background almost representing the Garden of Eden. What then, is special about her legs? When one observes the camera angle, her left leg is in full view showing her muscled side which demonstrates human training and exercises. However, the right leg which is further back shows a skinny leg which resembles that of an alien leg feature, skinny. In other words, the new era of humans would be half human and half alien due to her prolonged stay in space and experiences. In all, I would say that a film of this nature is very rare and more should be made. I rate this film 9 out of 10.

The Hurt Locker (2008)

Tribute to passionate people

[10 January 2016]

The Hurt Locker- A man's film (War) directed by a women, Kathryn Bigelow, is outstanding. Aside the idea of a man who seeks thrills and that his life at home is a bore and that one should accomplish himself through one's job, which he does by going back to IRAQ to live his talent and passion, will be a constant motif throughout the film either through the dialogues or pictures.

In addition the scenes of what is happening in IRAQ is worth the mention. The scene where bombs are buried on the road, and Iraqis citizens (some could be terrorists) who try to move their broken chariot pulled by a donkey and panic mounts, the question is how can a soldier keep his sanity of never knowing what will happen?

Always in constant threat in nerve- wracking days which are enough to damage anyone emotionally and mentally. Yet, we have Sergeant First Class William James (Jeremy Renner) who is an exception. He craves missions that will ask him to put mines out of use. He will stop at nothing to appease his passion and the mission he seems to be gifted with.

If the premises of the film is to live one's passion fully from the soft passion to the hard core one's like war and soldiers who live it then it this film is a tribute to them.

I rate this film 9/10

Rendition (2007)

Rendition- Is America lying?

[10 January 2016]

Rendition-the beginning of a new era of films which will deal with the subject of torture and America's involvement.

It is peculiar that this film has succeeded in being made. I mean, the film shows how the USA is participant in the use of torture as a means to get information from, in this case, an alleged terrorist.

When Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep) says that America does not torture, she is correct. However, what she doesn't say is that they are tortured elsewhere. A way to wash one's hands on the subject of torture. She could have added. So, why talk about it when it doesn't exist here? If it is practised elsewhere, that is not my problem or the country's problem

The role of Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal) who will replace his boss and for the first time will assist to his first torture without any preparation whatsoever, seems to me a bit far-fetched.

As a fact, can one be pushed unexpectedly without preparation and can be scarred for life in a violent world such as torture and go home at night and sleep well? As we can see the movie gives us an answer.

The film is a success since it deals with the current subject of torture that it may strike the audience off guard those who do not expect this theme to be treated in a way that makes America a liar: ''America does not torture.''

I rate this film 8/10.

The Seventh Sign (1988)

End of times not a grocery list

[5 January 2016]

The seventh sign A cute little horror film. A good film to learn more about the book of Revelations and to reunite with Christianity and its teaching's. In the movie, John Heard who plays a reverend says that the end of times is not a grocery list. And, the movie represents the end of times as a grocery list that needs to be ticked off each time a sign is shown. What makes it a good film is the use of flashbacks that define who the characters are such as Abby Quinn (Demi More) who is the reincarnation of Seraphia, David Bannon (Jurgen Prochnow) representing Jesus. In addition, the ending is not expected. When Abby is shot, and falls to the ground, the viewer doesn't expect Jimmy Szaragosa (John Taylor) to be killed thus making the Apocalypse inevitable. When rushed to the hospital, Abby sacrifices herself to save her child in order to save the world. As the Apocalypse is beginning, Abby was rushed to the hospital as if nothing was truly happening in the outside world. Indeed, a hard core of sceptics I may say. Finally, when Abby is confronted with the choice of self sacrifice she accepts it. I believe that during all the centuries after the death of Jesus, she must of had an unappeased soul. She had now the choice to redeem herself. When, in a flashback, she sees and says she would not die for this man, the feeling of guilt over the centuries was a heavy burden and this time confronts her past. To conclude,soon or later, we all have to deal with our dragons. How we will deal with them is a mystery until confronted with.

28 Weeks Later (2007)

Comparing 28 days later and 28 weeks later

[9/10 · 4 January 2016]

Comparing two zombie films.

If I had to compare 28 days later and 28 weeks later, the comparison would be that the former is a good action film based on surviving a threat and while being on the road in order to find a mystical Eden, while the latter is more on an intellectual based film on relationships such as the two children and their father, lies that a father tells as not to bring to the surface his inability to have saved his wife while zombies were attacking the village.

In fact, one does not need to see the first to appreciate independently the two films.

For my critic of 28 days later, the idea of finding shelter in a mansion protected by soldiers who want to gang rape the women who are now in their custody in a supposedly core idea of repopulating the world, is quite scary as to see how people or survivors would react in an end of the world tragedy. It is a film genre where an obscure place is found only to detect the profound horror governing the find. It would be like Hansel and Gretel who, lost in the woods, come across a gingerbread house which is a form of haven only to discover the truth behind who lives in the house.

Without mistake the film does it very well.

Now, for 28 weeks later, the ingenuity of the film relies on the postulate that a safe haven has been created for survivors and that life can continue. The evil is now, not inside but outside. One can compare with Anne Frank's diary where the father amid the war raging he believes life can go on even if they are imprisoned in the house attic where they found refuge.

Yet, two children are brought in and meet their father who takes them in his loft and life as a family begins. Then, the boy misses his mother and with his sister go seek the home they lived in the country to seek out mementos like pictures. They find the mother, all are brought back to the city, the father reunites with his contaminated wife in the hospital, they kiss then hell breaks out.

Finally, the two children are saved and brought to Paris and they are responsible for the contamination of the last French survivors as we see the zombies rush out of the metro at the Trocadero, Paris.

The end of the two cities has come from the outside.

Some would argue that this film has some analogies to the Iraq war.

I would disagree since I see no glimpse such as symbols to the Iraqi war. However, I see some analogy to that of not protecting the borders of countries.

With the breakdown of borders by the unification of Europe, probably it sends a negative message as to limit entry to those who may be like the Trojan horse; enter a city with an unclear motive without anyone noticing it and bring havoc.

We see that today, some barriers are being installed as to limit unwanted immigration. Think of the barrier being mounted between the USA and Mexico, the wall already built in Jerusalem and now the whole of Europe with the Syrian immigrants, some countries creating barriers to slow their advance.

Sad! indeed. And some argue that there are terrorists are among the lot thus build barriers so they can be filtered out.

Vanishing on 7th Street (2010)

Unanswerd questions

[7/10 · 30 December 2015]

Vanishing on 7th Street

An excellent Sci-Fi thriller yet with many questions that have no answers to certain questions a viewer may pose and the ambiguous message behind the story makes this movie a ''what should not be done in film making''.

Now, as for answers on why everyone on earth vanished except a select group and why they have survived has yet to be explained only to have a hint from a newspaper cut-out mentioning the nuclear war possibility that Luke Ryder (Hayden Christensen) finds on the bar's wall that even as the story develops the characters give it a try in order to explain it like , the extraterrestrial phenomenon or the innuendo on the rapture and finally the CROATOAN hypothesis..

By the end of the film the questions remains, Why did they survive? No clear answers and to why did everyone disappear? Ouf!!!!!

The second problem is the message. What is it? What is the viewer supposed to get out of the movie? The last scene shows the two surviving human, a twelve year old boy and an 8 year old girl. They leave the church under a gorgeous sun and the viewer is shown a tree then a horse and apples on the ground. The horse is eating the apples and has a saddle on it which says Chicago Police.

If I'm to give my personal opinion on the the message it would be that it represents a new era of civilization that will fall again: the two children representing Adam and Eve. The tree, the Garden of Eden's forbidden not to touch tree, the apples that have fallen representing the fall of man and history to repeat itself by the children's descendants. The horse could represent the snake, because the snake tempted Eve and because the snake showed its good side Eve fell for it. In this case, the horse has the good side printed on the saddle and the horse carries the mortal sinners, the kids, on its back. Why didn't the young girl eat the apples with the horse? As one can see, my interpretation is an interpretation leaving place for much more. And, not a pleasant one to have a solid discussion on what this movie is supposed to bring as a message. Why discuss futility since the discussion will lead to nowhere. Probably this film was made for just pleasure. no deep thinking which it succeeded to do if it was the aim.

However, when the film ended I said: Bof….. If this is today's trend in movies to have the public leave the theatre and say Bof! Without answers to questions it may bring, then there is a problem with the movie. I mean if I'm to pay $15 to see a movie, as a client, I need to have my money's worth such to be entitled to have a story that can make me go further than just having seen a film..

The Lovely Bones (2009)

Purgatory

[8/10 · 29 December 2015]

Lovely bones. Let's admit it. A very strange film. Indeed, what is the framework on which the film is built on? What philosophy let it be religious or atheist impregnates it. A young girl is killed by a serial killer before she knows life and finds herself in purgatory watching over her family. The film itself is very poetic by the language used by the protagonist Susie Salmon (Saorise Ronan) which makes it a pleasant film to watch. However, the idea of purgatory as shown in the film: A bizarre one I could say. Yet, each artist let it be a writer, a painter, or other, all have an idea of what could constitute heaven, hell, purgatory, the garden of Eden, the soul, etc., and will describe it according to their view point. The movie does it very well, since the author Alice Sebold describes purgatory by how she sees it. The story is a basic one that of a ghost not at peace and stops herself from going probably to heaven until she accomplishes what she dreamt of that of knowing life (something similar to Ghost with Patrick Swayze) She takes over the body of Ruth and kisses Ray her last wish. The interesting thing about this movie is that while she watches over her family and the on going life of the characters is what normal people do as in this case if a child had been killed and the murderer not found, the parents would do everything to find the killer and with time go on with their lives with all of life's ups and downs. Again the movie shows it very well. In other words from purgatory she narrates what she sees: ''Nothing new under the tropics'' in terms of the story of a family in bereavement and how they deal with it. What constitutes the critical aspect of the movie is the idea of a ghost (Saorise Ronan) not at peace with herself until she takes over a body to know love for the first time. If this is what purgatory is to the author Alice Sebold then she succeeded to show her point of view: a new type of purgatory for young teenagers who will never know the joys of love. It could be for her a form of hell or an unexplainable sadness that we have yet to understand. That is what makes great artists: to be able to express a concept.

Man on Fire (2004)

Redemption

[10/10 · 29 December 2015]

Man on Fire, a powerful film on the theme of redemption. Indeed John Creasy (Denzel Washington) , plays a former operative agent now turned body guard to a young girl (Dakota Fanning). She is kidnapped and Creasy will be on her search without pity for anyone involved. All through the film, we will learn more about John Creasy and his past. One of his dialogues with Paul Rayburn (Christopher Walken) Creasy will say: Will God forgive us for what we've done''? Rayburn's answer is a small smile and says: ''No''. In addition, a recurrent scene appears many times showing a person in the water then blood fills the pool. You can't have a better symbol of a the redemption process gone through by Creasy as it will foreshadow the failure of his quest. One can go on and on in the analysis of the character's search for peace and answers to what he has gone through in the past and the will of a new beginning. I recommend this movie to anyone who loves to talk about a subject, in this case redemption, which the movie has a lot to offer in terms of content.

Moon (2009)

Why crash the antenna

[28 December 2015]

I don't know if I should say I liked it or not, however, an interesting Sci-Fi.

Yet, aside the good acting and the idea of using clones to replace astronauts which could have led to a film dealing on economy or savage capitalistic economy even in space, there are things which needed to be developed. For example,when Sam Bells contacts his daughter and she cries out to her father someone is asking questions about her mother, I assume the father is Sam himself, probably the first of the cloned Sam Bells.Seems that years have gone by therefore making Sam Bells on the moon station the third of many. Or, when the last clone, before leaving for earth crashes the lunar jeep on the antenna, why? Considering it is a Sci_Fi movie, I understand that to make this movie a science fiction, the idea of insanity due to a long solitude is better than dealing with space economy and using clones (in our earth's future-robots) which is less threatening as a subject since insanity to long periods of solitude is far from our reality.

Z Nation (2014–2018)

This review deals with 2 episodes that show little content when it comes to the story development.

[21 November 2015]

The problem with this series is that notwithstanding the quality of zombies developed there are no stories behind the episodes. It is as if the series is merely a fashion show of zombies created and shown to the public on the novelty of zombie creations. As a fact, season 2 episode 9-Rozwell, try to figure out what that story is truly about. The Rozwell ( The show uses z in Roswell). Is it Rozombiewell?? Or a parody of Roswell's conspiracy theory? If so, this episode is so purely basic that it is not worthy of an adult show.

Or, the name Bernadette: A predestined name like Saint Bernadette of Lourdes located in France? Will Saint Bernadette lead the remaining Roswellien people to a new life? Or, are the main characters on the road only a pretext to stories that have no meaning but just kill the zombies and see the creation of new zombies and its development on FaceOff and forget the content?

A second example, the episode with a group on Native Americans: A father holds a casino while his son and daughter live in the mountains and a humongous hoard of zombies are approaching at breakneck speed. Now, while the flock of zombies are on a rampage the story is so little developed that at the end the zombies fall off a cliff just like at Head Smashing Buffalo Jump in Alberta Calgary. What were the viewers of this episode supposed to have learnt on the natives and life styles of the past if only the very basic: we will fight for our land. Come on guys this is zombie world. Nothing holds! What good is the casino? For zombie slot machine players or black jack players? How little does this show offer! I hope the writers of the show will develop the stories more and continue to show the innovations on zombie creations. Not the other way round.