Aladdin

With the situation in the Middle-East becoming worse and worse every day, I have to ask myself, what would I do if I had three wishes regarding the region?

First wish: a long-lasting truce between the Palestinians and the Israelis. 

It's sad because it seemed like one was developing before the Palestinians butchered the 1,200 Israeli settlers. Now, after Israel's over-the-top reaction, it seems like peace is a long long long ways off, although there was a time when it seemed like England and France would never stop going to war.

Second wish: moderate life-affirming governments replace the bloodthirsty rulers of Israel and Iran.

I imagine most people in Israel and Iran just want to do what most people everywhere just want to do, that is, work a solid day and then relax with friends and family afterwards. Unless they're extremist nutjobs, they likely don't want to fight in a war that will only profit other extremist nutjobs. So it goes decade after decade in the Middle-East. Israel exists. And it's quite the cool place I hear. 

Third wish: the countries of the Middle-East forge a lasting peace through the creation of an interconnected trade union whose continuous maintenance benefits everyone.

If only they could do what most of Europe has already done. It's not too late for Russia to join. After signing a lasting peace deal with Ukraine. 

The Interpreter

So tragic there's such a huge gulf between critiquing power and possessing it, between imagination and practicality, competing bright responsibilities. 

What would have happened if Che Guevara had formed a well-meaning headstrong government, would it have been universally praised, or severely vilified like Castro's?

Would he have taken the time to build strong institutions with rational checks and balances, to prevent the rise of absolutism while maintaining socioeconomic consistency?

It's much easier said than done even if that goes without saying, European political institutions somewhat of a miracle when compared to alternatives around the globe.

But somehow through sustained mutation they've been peaceful and prosperous for quite some time, level-heads seeking reasonable consensus from non-extremist points of view.

If this tradition doesn't exist historically and there's no popular will to develop such institutions, how do you move from engrained despotism to sustainably developed reliable democracy?

Such a convergence of logical goodwill formidably depended on with dextrous vigour, somehow did emerge slowly over time, and despotism was overthrown however. 

But the absolute has come again become popular along with a shocking lack of tolerance, opposing viewpoints seeming to prefer rash brinkspersonship to clever rational debate.

The absolutists claim tolerance and personal liberty is another form of stern absolutism, even as it guarantees they aren't arrested within certain limitations.

Tolerance and personal liberty may not appeal to people far too prone to despotically upholding regulations, for whom deviations from a strict code of manufactured conduct results in diabolical shame.

But so many much less serious people don't see the extremist point, don't understand why they should never have any fun and live as if they're a frigid textbook.

It's not that they don't follow the rules, they just often see them like ethical guidelines, making sense within many situations, while at times lacking practical accord.

Thus, taught to generally think critically with an aversion to violence outside of pragmatic games (outlets for pent up emotions), they tend to promote fun and thought provoking amusement to make life much more thrilling outside of work.

If that's an absolutist viewpoint it's more universally liberating than strict extremes, which impose absolutist regulations and ruthlessly punish those who critique them.

How to slowly move towards a more tolerant society if government after government tyrannically disappoints?

There are too many factors that come into play.

But I'd start with independent education. 

Werk ohne Autor (Never Look Away)

An artist creates to define then reimagine himself in post-war Germany, extremist ideology having devastated his country.

His countries.

But it's not a psychological film, it doesn't examine Kurt Barnert's (Tom Schilling/Oskar Müller/Cai Cohrs) sadness in agonizing detail, preferring to focus on his development as an artist, and his relationship with Ellie Seeband (Paula Beer).

Differing post-war socioeconomic and sociopolitical realities which each require flexible attitudes regarding the ways in which a jurisdiction manages its resources comment within, as the two make their way, their world more of a complex fluid multifaceted mixture of traditional and unorthodox realizations, the application of such terms depending on one's point of view, than that which proliferates in East Germany after the end of the Second World War.

They're certainly full of life, of spirit, of vigour, of adventure, as Werk ohne Autor (Never Look Away) celebrates creation.

If someone chooses to make art that corresponds to a specific philosophy, and that choice corresponds to his or her creative gifts, I see nothing wrong with that, as long as they don't try to make everyone else do the same thing.

That's how I understand social democracy.

It creates an open space wherein everyone can create whatever they want, as long as they don't force others to create what they prefer in their own free time.

Who would want to see reality reflected everywhere?

It's a compelling vital crucial discipline to be sure, but so are fantasy and science-fiction, romantic comedy and fictional drama.

If one art form is given leverage over all the others, it does the arts themselves a great disservice, and the solemnity of its ethos risks transforming into farce, if not chaos, or oblivion.

I think Netflix gets this.

I hope so, anyways.

There's so much more to be written about this film than what I've shared here.

It presents its demons without dwelling on them, belittling tyranny in the face of inspiration.

Isn't it so much easier to love?

And isn't life more worth living if so much of it remains unpredictable?

Carefree.

Outside of work.

Beyond race or creed or ethnicity?

Beyond violence?

*I've written about the affirmation of life in this review. This does not mean that I am supporting the pro-life movement. I support a woman's right to choose and should she choose to have an abortion I support her decision. However, when a child is born I support her or his right to grow up in safety in a culture where equal opportunity exists. And for them to enjoy the lives they live. Free from war and tyranny.

Venom

Having harvested interstellar phenomena, and obtained coveted extraterrestrial booty, a courageous spacecraft swiftly descends towards Earth, and none of its crew survives.

The alien lifeforms discovered bond with various hosts, begrudgingly commandeering their bodies, with intent most disruptive and grievous.

Including, but not limited to, heading back to space to find their fellow mucus-like beings, in order to one day return, and devour humanity.

Whole.

Or from the inside out.

It depends.

Both conscientious reporter Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and technocratic phenom Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed) eventually find themselves hosting representatives of the species, reps whose personality differences closely match those of Brock and Drake, the reps in fact searching for unique personalities, even if corresponding storylines can't withstand the symmetry.

Not Marvel's finest hour.

I thought perhaps the buzz was off, preferring to see it for myself before adding an opinion, but Venom misses 8.25 times out of 10, although there's something to be said for such a complete lack of refinement.

Something bad.

In a nutshell, the story's too blunt, too direct, too surface level.

It's not that you can't write a great story that's blunt and direct, many appealing stories are, as many have noted, Venom's lacking the aesthetic expertise that held those stories together though, everything's condensed into purposeful formulaic probabilities for instance, which unfortunately assumed they required nothing more.

It happens.

Ruben Fleisher's usually quite good, I don't know what happened here but I suspect his hands were too tied, his independent spirit was exorcized throughout production, and the result fell far short of his audience's expectations, since independent spirits often lack inspiration when conventionally constrained.

Took one for the team perhaps.

I suppose every Marvel film isn't destined to present a deep convincing narrative that cerebrally shocks and actively theorizes, but Venom does neither, and metaphorically secretes jingoistic protoplasm.

I suppose you need deadlines and a production schedule but when you're bound to make multimillions regardless, do you need to follow them/it so strictly?

You probably do.

I don't work in film.

It's kind of funny when Venom discusses his sociohistorical misfortunes with Eddie.

Too little too late though.

But something cool for round 2.

X-Men: Apocalypse

Entombed omniscience, eternally incarcerated in nocturnal necromance, once unparalleled god of an ancient world, tyrannical and ostentatious in luminous immortality, guarded by 4 devoted soldiers living and dying at his command, dedicated to ruling with neither compromise nor exception, suddenly unearthed by a clandestine Egyptian cult, to demonically deconstruct the flourishing postmodern world.

Auspicious ascension.

Consummate destruction.

The world is blanketed in relative calm as those with pseudosupernatural powers and their hardworking compatriots have learned to live peaceful lives, Magneto (Michael Fassbender) even having found a day job and wife, Professor X (James McAvoy) competently facilitating education.

But the extraordinary are still plagued by bigoted misunderstandings, forced to fight to the death or perform parlour tricks, and as Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) begins to rise he quickly finds enthusiastic neophytes.

To unleash a new world order.

The X-Men standing in his way.

X-Men: Apocalypse recasts the franchise, reintroducing favourite characters to the alternative timeline while ensuring traditional rivalries and romances ignite anew.

Too much time may have been spent exploring these traditions, Professor X and Magneto's everlasting polarity growing tiresome at points, future films perhaps expanding upon their routine dialogues, as they possibly explore alternative argumentative philosophies.

Relying heavily on what's transpired in the past, in the past, while laying the foundations to illuminate future irresistibilities, X-Men: Apocalypse isn't the best X-Men film but still delivers an exciting tale which encourages the development of its audience's better selves.

Things that initially seem strange or otherworldly can become as familiar as whatever it is you grew up thinking was natural and good, trying new things and having discussions with people from other cultures paving alternative avenues of inquiry with multidimensional crystalline curiosity.

Hopefully after last weekend's horrific tragedy in Orlando, people feel more willing to embrace less extreme world views.

You could live as long as Apocalypse and still encounter fresh perspectives to challenge your variable order of things with plump compelling intergalactic différence.

Without losing sight of where you come from.

Cross-referencing conversational data with research undertaken at your local universal library.