Transformers: Rise of the Beasts

Struggling to get by, an ex-soldier's hardships rapidly increase (Anthony Ramos as Mr. Diaz), his younger brother in need of medical attention (Dean Scott Vazquez as Kris Diaz), his own application for work denied.

He's accused of being unable to work productively upon a team, and even though he consistently excelled, he can't move past one stingy hiccup.

Financial pressures and tormenting temptation lead to inaugural vehicle theft, but within the unsuspecting parking garage, lies a wild unsubstantiated mystery.

He's accidentally broken into a Transformer at a rather formidable time, for an ancient Transwarp Key has just been discovered, and Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) is recalling the troops.

Unfortunately, the key has been sought for thousands of years by the minions of the planet devouring Unicron (Colman Domingo), and they too reside on Earth, and hope to acquire the interstellar device.

The Transwarp Key would give Unicron the ability to travel anywhere in space without moving, without spiritual gifts or coveted spice, then consume unsuspecting planets.

Noah and the knowledgeable Elena (Dominique Fishback) have no wish to see their planet destroyed, and agree to help the aggrieved Autobots who see the Transwarp as their ticket home. 

But only half of the key has been discovered, the other half hidden in the jungles of Peru.

In which awaits another ancient manifestation. 

Of unheralded honourable Cybertronic beasts.

Ancient legend and contemporary endeavours boldly reveal our kinship with animals, the wild symbiotic sleuthing that provocatively impressed for thousands of years.

With our technological prowess and seemingly limitless expansion, have we not forgotten the lessons they taught us, as we mythologically depended upon survival?

If a God indeed created the planet would he or she not indeed also love its animals, and see such a grand impregnable imbalance as a misguided perversion of biodiversity?

Would he or she not then send calamitous storms and materialize hostile inclement climates, to cut our enormous numbers down and ensure less reliance on imbalanced slaughter?

As we consume without rationalized reckoning our planet erupts with meteorological tension!

Is it a striking divine criticism? 

Of unsustainable global disparity?

Biosphere

It does seem like the overarching narrative universally composed for apocalyptic consumption, is that our widespread dependence on fossil fuels will eventually lead to disastrous ends.

Fossil fuels being the ancient remnants of once ebullient and flourishing life, it's like that fluid life is integral to the planet's vitality, and it's limitless use devastating to it.

It's limitless use has led to exotic comforts and prolonged longevity only conceivable to ingenious cavepeople, but the resultant destructive weather patterns ominously suggest our efforts have backfired.

Further, the desire to consume by an affluent enormous ravenous population, has led to the exhaustion of global forests, and as carnal consumption exacerbates global heating, it's as if science has proven our practical limitations.

As if God created a biodiverse planet with manifold imperceptible checks and balances, which science slowly unravels, proceeding in error from time to time.

One such balance was the number of lifeforms the environment could reasonably sustain, and if one lifeform consumed the others to preposterous limits, other ways would be found to manifest jeopardy.

In addition, the versatile life blood (oil) was voraciously used up with no regards to moderation, the Earth responding with calamitous reckoning designed to promote inhabitability. 

In Biosphere, we find two survivors living on a planet thoroughly polluted, yet to bounce back from meteorological armageddon, living together in a secluded dome.

It's an odd balance of hyper-intensity and raw comedic lackadaisical mayhem, an enticing balance struck between zealots and the easy-going precariously situated within perdition.

Perhaps it could come to that who's to precisely predict such outcomes, the Earth is quite fertile however, and sometimes finds ways to recover rather quickly.

Take animal life in local environs, during the pandemic the economy wasn't shut down for long, but since then, knock on wood, I've seen unprecedented numbers of animals curiously engaging with their surrounding environments. 

There could be other reasons to explain the abundance of wildlife and perhaps it is cyclical as others suggest (I root for The Farmers Almanac) , but if so I've waited 25 years for this point in the cycle, it clearly doesn't come along very often.

Biosphere is an incredible film vibrantly brought to life by Sterling K. Brown (Ray) and Mark Duplass (Billy), who pull it off with authentic composure within foreboding chaotic inhospitable confines.

If you're a bit squeamish about gender relations the film may not be for you.

But if you look past them and embrace alternative storytelling, you may find a compelling narrative.

*Cool to hear so many old school references. 

The Smiling Lieutenant

A bored yet daring idle officer (Maurice Chevalier as Lt. Niki) is begrudgingly convinced to assist a friend, who's fallen for a violinist (Claudette Colbert as Franzi) who swiftly plays at a nearby nightclub.

He heeds the fraternal call but during the performance finds himself smitten, his sudden infatuation generously rewarded with a spur of the moment late evening call.

It doesn't pass in jest something long-lasting seems to materialize, but as his exuberant feelings manifest, a sensitive Princess (Miriam Hopkins) happens to notice him.

She thinks he's smiling at her and indeed ridiculing her august manner, her father the King (George Barbier) soon bringing him forth so that he can clearly explain his strange facial expressions.

The King's country isn't a large one yet he still seeks routine pomp and circumstance, and is somewhat annoyed when his Austrian relatives don't provide an elaborate reception.

He's rather habitually ill-tempered but easily placated as well, thus while furious with the confused lieutenant, he doesn't outrageously break down.

Unfortunately for Niki, who has no interest in moving to Flausenthurm, he's soon betrothed to the aggrieved Princess, and festively married shortly thereafter.

But he longs for his highly strung belle who genuinely reciprocates with amorous duty.

The Princess lacking worldly orchestrations. 

Trusted to find versatile improvised harmonies.

It's an awkwardly scandalous vision playfully subverting regal pretensions, wherein which cosmopolitan mischief overwhelms age old ostentation. 

A role likely coveted by many disingenuously finds itself bitterly upheld, the bewildered disconsolate provincials at a lugubrious loss to restore wholesome decorum. 

With their honest and sincere trust I found myself somewhat taken by these royals, having fallen into the romantic trap, accidentally set through hardboiled declamation.

I don't really follow the British Royal Family, I have to admit I've never been that interested, not that I didn't respect the age old Queen who seemed to genuinely care about her subjects.

But considering what Harry's given up and the risks he's taken to defend Duchess Markle, there's no doubt in my mind she's a bonafide Princess, even if she's not playing the role.

An American Princess I suppose imaginatively fusing the grand juxtaposition.

I don't pay much attention to them either.

But I do admire their courage. 

Sweetie

Another imaginative exploration of creative random unhinged expenditure, wherein which therapeutic regimens lack generalized familial accord.

Thus two sisters unaccustomed to objectivity attempt to congenially cohabitate, with respective partners and alternate routines disputatiously abounding with cacophonous resonance. 

It's a cool look at regenerative eccentricity vividly applying itself to adulthood, there's no nightly newspaper anywhere to be found nor 9-5 signifiers reupholstered on television.

The one sister clandestinely gets what she wants and instinctively believes in reflexive fortune telling (Karen Colston as Kay), her adoring husband does his best to entertain and admits at times to incredulous longing (Tom Lycos as Louis [he's like the Australian Fred Ward]).

The other habitually chillaxes with neither plan nor propitious pattern, yet consistently amuses with innocent endeavour as she vigorously experiments with tactile temperaments (Geneviève Lemon as "Sweetie").

Her father is sincerely adoring and doesn't understand Joy's sincere criticism (Jon Darling as Gordon), a classic compassionate and understanding citizen perhaps a product of the Australian New Wave.

Yet even if I contend that said New Wave humanistically diversified the land down under, with a versatile continental spirit effervescently blooming with cascading retention, there's still somewhat of a stiff upper lip that prevents ye olde Sweetie from cohesively acculturating. 

Likely uninterested in running the gauntlet as a newfound immigrant where her unorthodox spirit may have met with less vitriol, while unsuccessfully living a non-traditional life (within reason), she succumbs to the pressures of bitter castigation and loses sociocultural mobility.

I suppose I don't know if I'm correct or if it's just a byproduct of cultural osmosis, but living beyond Anglo-American borders seemed to generate peace and tranquility.

After running the gauntlet I found people weren't that concerned with commercial life emphatically immured, there were still intensities but applied to different things, I certainly never would have cooked dinner for anyone.

As long as I kept things chill things proactively progressed and life was moderately rewarding.

Seemed like the way things were progressing in the '90s. 

Which I would have understood through alternative perspectives had I grown up there. 

Mansfield Park

I imagine Mansfield Park was written when the 19th century's abolitionist movement was rapidly advancing, and the cruel and ruthless practice of slavery was soon to fade into oblivion.

But it hadn't yet as this narrative took shape so some of its characters seem rather outdated, as they lavishly live off the profits of enslavement in luxurious temper and ornate fashion.

Even if the story and its situations seem somewhat ghastly from current perspectives, it's strange to see characters genuinely presented outrageously profiting from the slave trade, I imagine it was daring and even groundbreaking at the revolutionary time, as it ethically shocked the established practice, and brought fresh perspectives to politically bear.

Thus, with the abolitionist movement passionately sermonizing in the background, Jane Austen theorizes Victorian realism, and creates a hypothetical yet possible set of circumstances, wherein which Society struggles with change.

The father, one Thomas Bertram (Harold Pinter), isn't squeamish about his distant holdings, and indeed brutishly profits from their labours, with no qualms or concerns regarding worker well-being.

His oldest son of the same name (James Purefoy) even captures his wickedness in a series of vivid disturbing drawings, which lead to his grand disillusionment, and general disregard for family life.

His younger brother Edmund (Johnny Lee Miller) has never visited their land or enterprises oversees, and has matured in the finest ethical tradition, even if he can't settle upon an occupation.

He grows up with one Fanny Price (France O'Connor) and the two fall in love through books and imagination, but they're both rather unacquainted with their own interests, and eventually find themselves about to marry others.

Even though they live with everything at their fingertips, and want for nothing material throughout their days, Tom and Edmund still detest their father's practices and express their criticisms with virtuous outrage.

It's unsettling to see people living so ostentatiously considering, but within the novel's historical context, perhaps it helped encourage the end of slavery.

Thomas has switched his interests to tobacco in the end and seems to have abandoned profiting from extremist tension, the counsel of a younger generation definitively having influenced his ridged composure.

I was surprised to see a Jane Austen narrative so sophisticatedly concerned with social justice, I had always presumed most of her books concerned marriage, and had no idea they examined broader issues.

Marriage is also of the utmost concern within the farsighted Mansfield Park, but it's regarded as another form of human entrapment, as Edmund and Fanny seek to fall in love.

The story's quite robust however and even though borderline romantic, still undercuts its amorous zeal with cold calculated depictions of poverty.

Still should people like Edmund and Fanny find each other love may flourish boundless and eternal.

I'm not sure how many liberties the filmmakers took with the plot.

But I'd very much like to read Mansfield Park. 

Lean on Me

I must admit to knowing little about the daily operations of American schools, I've seen various films and read books presenting snapshots, but I remain largely unfamiliar with concrete details.

Thus when focused on a school like Eastside High as depicted in John G. Avildsen's Lean On Me, at first I'm tempted to trust to exaggeration through interests in presenting irate shock.

But perhaps my lack of knowledge is tending to obscure manifest realism, and there are indeed schools comparable to this one down South, even if they're tough for Canadians to envision, I could never imagine things getting that out of hand.

The school's discipline has deteriorated so profoundly that extreme measures are suddenly called for, as a new principal is effectively hired with the hopes of increasing its state average (Morgan Freeman as Principal Joe Clark).

If its state average does not improve the state itself will take objective control, and personal flair and individual reckoning may fade into bureaucratic oblivion. 

Naturally their personal flair has lacked efficient recourse to strength in recent decades, and manifold undesirable elements have arisen to challenge rational rule.

It can be heartbreakingly tragic when genuinely concerned individuals are rashly ignored, and a lack of upheld respect for authority leads to wild insecure degeneration.

Mr. Clark's methods aren't widely appreciated and he's honestly difficult to deal with, as he takes absolute control and refuses to listen to anyone else's opinion.

He fights the unruly head on and makes great strides in encouraging learning, unconcerned with image or friendship or reputation he authoritatively expresses himself.

Within the extremist example the case is made for sharp edged discipline, if things degrade to such a level a hug and a bandaid may not solve things.

The question is what happens the next year after the situation has evolved, and newfound pride in educational advancement establishes roots within the school?

Then does the headstrong leader gracefully adapt to the less volatile circumstances, and once again encourage democracy amongst students and staff alike?

If so, the unfortunate necessary embrace of hard-hearted methods finds justification, if such a situation existed (massive drug dealing etc., not something as harmless as gender identity), and couldn't be remedied otherwise.

If the leader doesn't relax power or refuses to acknowledge his fellow staff, then disconsolate dismal camaraderie may lead to the loss of highly valued personnel. 

The next school year isn't the focus so the overarching jury provides no verdict.

However the school resists being taken over.

And becomes a safe place to learn again. 

The Man in the Iron Mask

A vile king sits on the throne of France who cares not for his people's well-being, throwing lavish parties while they struggle and starve even feeding them rotten food refused by the army.

His knowledgable aids freely advise him to modestly listen to their desperate pleas, but in classic despotic fashion he hears nothing and does little more.

As fate would have it, much more liberally so, he has a twin brother locked-down in prison, his face hidden behind an iron mask, his identity shattered his will forlorn.

When it becomes clear that the King won't budge even after wise counsel loyally implores him, the Three Musketeers bust the duplicate out and begin to train him in royal affairs.

But will the switch go smoothly not the easiest thing to hoodwink aristocrats, getting to the King even more treacherous even if he unsuspectingly trusts them?

They almost make it, it almost works but pesky D'Artagnan (Gabriel Byrne) foils the plot.

Having a scandalous secret of his own.

To zealously lay threadbear.

The Man in the Iron Mask makes starkly plain the inherent dangers in relying on monarchy, even if the second Louis the 14th (Leonardo DiCaprio) is just and considerate, it doesn't mean his successor wasn't wicked and cruel.

Democracy levels the playing field thereby eliminating despotic traits, at times even revelling in ebullient generosity (many thanks to Trudeau's Liberals), is it not preferable to hinder corrupt autocrats?

I suppose the opportunity to play a musketeer and frequent lavish palaces etc., is far too tempting to flippantly ignore, but you wonder how so many first rate actors found their way into this brash debacle (remembering Swann in Love). 

It certainly has popular appeal and likely did well at the box office, but even the sword-fights aren't that entertaining, ah well, what do you when they offer millions?

You have to be much more clever in a democracy which is why they often aren't quite so brutish, as the knavish premier of ye olde New Brunswick has swiftly discovered in recent weeks.

Perhaps the Conservative Party of New Brunswick's bitter criticism of their autocratic leader, will serve as an example for the rest of the county should other provinces get out of hand.

So many variables to abruptly consider should you seek political leadership.

Why not study William Lyon Mackenzie King?

He certainly kept at it for awhile.

The Accidental Tourist

How can the sure and steady traditional orthodox commercial life, be indefinitely extended everywhere, as you travel across the globe?

Would it be prudent to ubiquitously apply local standards irreducibly, regarding low key American cuisine, in Paris, London or Amsterdam?

That's precisely what Macon Leary (William Hurt) sets out to do as he travels the globe, writing helpful guide books for queasy tourists who'd rather not try international food.

He arrives in a select location and seeks out uniform Americana, and transmits the wholesome data back to his audience in waiting.

He's somewhat reserved and shy and never really has much to say, his comfortable life rarely ever changing from ye olde cradle to uptight grave.

But his son meant everything in the world to him and after he passed definitive woe emerged, his wife (Kathleen Turner as Sarah Leary) unable to endure the silence, their once practical marriage ending. 

At a new neighbourhood dog shelter a talkative maiden asserts herself thereafter (Geena Davis as Muriel Pritchett).

Presenting newfound romantic possibility.

And sundry improvised alternatives. 

I wonder what the stats say about travelling abroad, do most tourists want to try French food from France or would they stick to homegrown favourites across the pond?

My main reason for wanting to travel is to try local food from other countries, to just feast in Mexico for a week or indeed in France, Japan, or China.

Leary's books are mainly for business peeps who would rather not be travelling to begin with, so perhaps several of them wouldn't be definitively experimental, but I still wonder what the stats would be would they really still go to McDonald's while visiting Berlin?, certainly mind-blowing that people have such options, even if they seem somewhat monotonous.

People are defensive about their tastes and don't respond well to critical prodding, a lot of the inquisitive time, I gave it up long ago.

In my youth I didn't like to try new things but then found myself working in restaurants, and through habitual freeform snacking found I loved so many different things.

Unfortunately, people are often quite fussy about how they eat and want to prove they've precisely adapted to local custom, and attach corresponding snotty rules to dinner which generally makes things rather awkward.

Imagine turning something as cool as going out to eat into a stilted textbook pretentious reckoning.

I had a friend kind of like Ms. Pritchett long ago.

Those were enticing experiments.