The Lonely Wife

Nestled in an imposing residence quietly adrift along literary shores, a humble wife beseechingly awaits the anxious return of her daring husband.

He's exceedingly disposed to constant work and distracted attention, his habitual return inexhaustibly encouraging thoughts of duty and custom and privilege. 

A life of the mind imaginatively begets a fluid multifaceted dynamism, gently overflowing with tempestuous whimsy adamantly delineating mutated reverie.

A playful cousin less prone to diligence mischievously arrives to help run the paper, and is soon secretively and aloofly tasked with finding ways to eclipse the tedium.

Epic discussions temperately clad munificently hale cerebral senses, uncertain abilities actively invested with novel synergy and declaration. 

Both interlocutors timidly convinced they could one day publish their bold material, creative acts of embowered fertility interactively sew once barren plains.

The compelling dialogues swiftly improvised offer more than comments on l'écriture, the unforeseen discovery of a kindred spirit mellifluously manifesting infatuation.

Her sure and steady distant husband unaware of the nimble blossom.

Which emerges unrequited. 

For the bland despondent eternal dawn.

Exciting to see a thoughtful film which eagerly concerns itself with writing, from conception to publication to reception various stages un/resolved.

Rare to see universal expenditure vehemently crafting books and poems, extended insights into vast repositories of distinct discerning alternative accents.

Wholeheartedly enriched much more encompassing than a brief and limited character count, less enamoured with glib encapsulation and more akin to multilayered exhibition.

The liberal editor is distressingly bewildered when his trusted assistant suddenly robs him, and he discovers his wife's shocking desire for someone else who leaves for another.

For the new country, the post-colonial birth, which he has tirelessly been cultivating, he soldiers on with open-minded comprehension of stoic trust and humanistic confidence.

A feverish account of idle dreams.

Lost and scouring the refined wilderness.

Emboldened feeling exotically dismayed.

Sly temptation lithe and blaring. 

Dune

It's a shame Dune ended up being a negative experience for David Lynch. Some of it's very well done. I still love watching it year after year.

Some of the heavier action sequences like when the Harkonnens attack Arrakis or the sandworm battle at the end, don't fare as well as those that you find in Star Wars or Star Trek, and a lot of movie goers tend to focus on those transitions which are often filled with nail-biting excitement.

It would be nice to watch a copy without the consistent inner-character monologues as well, too bad it wasn't as huge as Blade Runner and such an alternative was never released.

Nonetheless, in classic Lynchean style the scenes with the villains still seriously impress, especially the introduction of the Harkonnens which I would argue is some of Lynch's best work.

It's grotesque and terrifying and over-the-top and the attention to detail is so immaculate, along with the chilling production design all focused around Kenneth McMillan's performance. 

I've seen him show up in other films where he didn't have a serious role, in Dune he steals the show though, alongside many prominent actors.

Lynch also thrillingly excelled with his less psychotic sublime nobility, notably during the scenes with Dr. Kynes when they head out to look over spice production. 

When Duke Leto demonstrates that he truly cares for the integral lives of his working people, it's a powerful moment that evocatively captures the democratic spirit of the times.

Kyle MacLachlan has his moments too as does Patrick Stewart, Siân Phillips, Francesca Annis, and Brad Dourif, in interviews I've seen with actors Lynch worked with the genuine admiration clearly shines through.

If you want to see Lynch the editor at work you should compare the theatrical version to the full-length feature, the excessively long studio-cut version that he had his name removed from.

It is much much much worse and you can see Lynch's genius in full swing, when you watch his director's cut and see how he saved so many scenes.

With strong performances, a complex plot, an intricate unique production design, along with his trademark wicked villainy, Lynch's version still impresses.

Denis Villeneuve's films are remarkably well done too and I hope he gets the next Star Wars franchise.

I hope they stick with one director for the entire run.

He's a contemporary sci-fi master. 

Far & Away

An industrious lad mourns the passing of his father only to have insult added to injury (Tom Cruise as Joseph Donnelly), as the landowner's bellicose representatives proceed to appropriate his property.

Unaccustomed to blunt disparity he takes the law into his own hands, and sets forth in perilous search of the oblivious aristocrat in question (Robert Prosky as Daniel Christie). 

Yet he's discovered asleep in the barn one scandalous inopportune strict morning, the estate owner's daughter having cleverly detected and proceeded to relieve him of his balance (Nicole Kidman as Shannon Christie). 

Nevertheless, he's soon challenged to duel where that very same lass comes uproariously rising, and leads him away in fact to a ship bound for North America.

The two make an awkward glib pairing as the fashionable lady must learn to work, while Joseph excels in the world of prize fighting and graciously teaches her how to make an honest living.

Pride diabolically emerges however and the honourable Donnelly soon loses his head.

Banned from ever boxing again within Boston.

They struggle to find food and shelter.

While watching Ron Howard's Far & Away I was reminded of realist ambitions, and the ways in which many artists in my youth delicately strove for historical accuracy.

Thus we see actual clothes being washed long before washing machines were invented, and near the end sundry wagons and horses vigorously line up to compete for Oklahoman land.

Class and privilege also haughtily fade as the levelling tides of prosperity mingle, the old world manifesting itself anew, while raw opportunity seeks its annulment. 

In terms of lending old and new world preponderances in a thrilling narrative equipped with romantic candour, Far & Away imaginatively and mischievously excels and makes me wonder why more hasn't been made of it.

Even before the Mission Impossible days Tom Cruise still cut his teeth as a prominent boxer, in conscientious drama wherein elfin which age old pluck and tenacity applauded.

Nicole Kidman also prospers as the stern maiden creatively and reflectively improvising, learning to follow her thoughtful instinct in a land much less prone to ancient pride.

Imagine Jane Austen was more of a rebel and took to the seas with Ernest Hemingway. 

Classic integral Ron Howard. 

Co-starring the daring Colm Meaney (Mr. Kelly).

Blood & Wine

The lives of a somewhat traditional family descend into bitter vengeful chaos, after the thieving of a diamond necklace encourages too many unanswered questions.

Had the covetous husband (Jack Nicholson) not sought an uncharacteristic financial panacea, he could have continued selling his wine and perhaps turned his struggling business around.

He even provides his step-son (Stephen Dorff) with age old advice attempting to mean well, the youngster rather dismissive of his by-the-book step-dad and generally uninterested in commercial counsel. 

It's in fact an offbeat salute to disorganized youth and improvised dreams, as the adults prove rather immature and the young ones radiate unworldly competence.

I didn't find Blood & Wine comic while startlingly considering its inherent disillusionment, but when you compare who Mr. Gates tries to be in the film, with the contradictory results he rashly spawns, there's certainly dark humour afoot, that betrays lucid masterful mischief.

I was sad when Bob Rafelson passed away this year because Five Easy Pieces was one of the first independent films I saw, also the first to leave a significant impact no doubt it's a timeless gem that shouldn't be forgotten.

I likely would have still discovered independent cinema but it still definitively functioned like a productive catalyst, and I began to watch more and more underground exemplars of less general attempts to create mass amusement.

I imagine it's still a great place to start although there's no standard recipe for this sort of thing, with lifelong bizarro eclectic trial and error heuristically harkening holistic happenstance.

It was easier with video rental stores if the owners shared a wide ranging perspective, and with shows like Siskel & Ebert to playfully present honest heartfelt takes (still available on YouTube the last time I checked).

It's not that much more difficult now but finding quality films may require a little more effort, but if the desire's there, there shouldn't be barriers preventing you from finding tens of thousand of extant picks on iTunes and YouTube.

I suppose it's actually much easier to just rent films from iTunes or YouTube, if you do enough research. You can watch them from the comfort of your home and there's always a copy available. I found it much more fun to visit and compare individual rental stores, however. Some of them had incredible collections.

Blood & Wine showcases unleashed aggression from unwilling participants habitually docile, the results mind-boggling and incredibly awkward as unaccustomed emotion lacks orthodox sublimation.

Michael Caine (Victor) before finding his avuncular role as Bruce Wayne's stern but caring Alfred.

Jennifer Lopez (Gabriela), Stephen Dorff and Judy Davis also impress. 

Like film noir without a private detective.

All About Eve

A celebrated actress at home on the stage, routinely delivering multifaceted exonerations, of unspoken thoughts and dreams, desires, ambitions, theories, a daring picturesque virtuoso, caught up with rhythmic sage.

Involved with a significant other, in a situation lacking scandal, discursive variation tact frivolity, consistent thoughtful bustling capers.

An idea forged through shades transformative delicately shared to invoke dispute, enlivening playful courageous wagers, and joyful crazed repute.

The introduction of another, obsequious and bashful, offering her services for little in return, as the weeks pass she slowly accumulates subtle regard for performance earned.

Her name emerges in conversation with consistent animate praise, remarkable piecemeal code conversion sundry trades professed liaised.

Enriched through understudy awaiting fortune shifts stage lights, the occasion swiftly surging with a levity airtight.

As newfound inspiration reimagines ways and means, novelty or contagion flows sustains the evergreen.

Bit of a downer for the resourceful Margo (Bette Davis) who didn't see it comin'. Fame persisting less assured now that Eve (Anne Baxter) is in the running.

A traditional take on awestruck rivalry that extols acting, reflective fervour, All About Eve introduces a competitive element that transfigures as it stupefies.

I imagine its age old subject matter still resonates today, not only in terms of acting, but Netflix etc. and countless ads prove there's neverending commercial work for any actor.

I even saw David Spade starring in a recent Netflix film (it was terrible) and it looks like a new Bill & Ted film has been released (not on Netflix), plus famous directors like Martin Scorsese, Michael Bay, and the Coen Brothers have released films on Netflix, which I never thought I'd see happen, it's like the medium's extending careers indefinitely while still forging opportunities for younger talents, the game has seriously changed, and it's fun to view the superstructural transformations.

For advertisements, when I was growing up, if you ever saw famous actors at the height of their careers in ads it was surprising, I don't recall it ever happening, but from time to time you see it nowadays, meaning there's less work to go around (love the A & W guy!).

It's like there used to be a code of sorts where film actors never did television/series or commercials, and television/series or commercial actors wanted to be film actors, perhaps that's slipped away into the past, along with reputation and prestige.

Margo takes a break in All About Eve and perhaps will work no more, which would have been a shame, considering the incredible work Nicole Kidman's doing, not to mention Jeff Bridges or Tom Cruise. 

Adversarial competitions aside, All About Eve's concern with acting as opposed to writing or directing reminded me of my youth, when it was important to see everything an actor had made, before I became familiar with auteurs. 

And I doubt that will ever go away, the public love of actors is something timeless. 

I'll still go see a film if it's starring one of my favourites.

Even if I'm supposed to know better.

😉

Working Girl

Caught up in a fast-paced sleazy biased combustion, unafraid to bite back but running out of options, a creative, imaginative, brave cutting edge ingenue, moves forward with bold reckoning, to wildly make definitive things happen (Melanie Griffith as Tess McGill).

Her new boss (Sigourney Weaver as Katharine Parker) breaks her leg skiing so she's tasked with managing her affairs, and while taking care of this and that, discovers one of her ideas was stolen.

Since her boss is immobile and was likely going to pass her work off as her own, she decides to pursue it herself, improvising in nondescript motion.

Daringly poised on the boundless shifty breach, she accidentally makes first contact, and he's as enamoured as he is intrigued (Harrison Ford as Jack Trainer).

But she can't let him know she's technically not an executive, and can't believe her bad luck when she finds out whom he's dating.

Back home her steady beau has thoughtlessly found someone else (Alec Baldwin as Mick Dugan), and her plucky best friend (Joan Cusack as Cyn) wonders if she's gone too far.

But this is her chance and she's set on success, and her idea's a good one, even if she struggles ill-composed.

Unaccustomed to high flying competitive hostility, she still elegantly disarrays.

The results are mixed if not edgy inasmuch as Working Girl invokes sentimental style.

Since Tess is uncertain, as she applies the knowledge she's learned in school, without professional backing, it makes sense that the film should be a little bit wobbly, somewhat disjointed, like a working form in contextual motion.

As she becomes more sure of herself, Griffith and Ford piece together some convincing scenes, and the ending's sure and steady, as it soothes the latent aftershocks.

It's a sympathetic tumultuous testament to feminine strength, which sincerely values Tess's trials, and sincerely sways their sombre projection.

She's tough, and doesn't put up with nonsense, even though she's clearly dug in deep, and lacks a wide ranging social network, and has betrayed the only person who would hire her.

But even if the film's disjointed pulse aptly reflects genuine attempts to define oneself, some of the scenes still fall a bit flat, without enigmatically enriching the staccato.

There's one where Tess stands alone at night surrounded by mist for instance, that would have seemed much more classical if it hadn't been so sentimentally hewn (a number of solid scenes that don't fit well together at times coalescing in the end, is different from several solid scenes added to some melodramatic downers that don't fit well together at times stitched together in the end).

Mike Nichol's has made many great films but he's a bit off in this one.

It would have been stronger if Tess's boss had been a man.

And Griffith had received top billing.

It's still a solid examination of willful resolve struggling under realistic hardships.

With many endearing scenes.

Where the actors work so well together.

War Dogs

Rowdy comedy director Todd Phillips attempts something more serious with War Dogs, but without his trusty asinine array of inebriated misfortunes, his reliable armada steers dismally off course.

Not to say he shouldn't continue trying to make serious films, War Dogs simply representing a transitional foray creatively lacking in displaced junkets, full of miscues that can be corrected, capsuled, correlated.

Boring.

It's like The Wolf of Wall Street's adolescent fanboy.

The structure's there, rambunctious young adult friends who grew up together illicitly earning a living, capital concerns trumping ethical endeavours, as they serendipitously cash in.

Cocaine is taken, incredible risks abound, women are exploited, consequences cursed, slowly leading to a predictable climax that highlights greed's lack of foresight with typical reckless contagion.

One of the friends does have a conscience that separates the films a bit.

But The Wolf, even if it also wasn't that great, still had a dynamic script with a robust cast showcased in fluid mischievous condemnation, that at least impressed for lengthy intervals.

War Dogs still makes a thoughtful point about supply and demand, capacities and so on, the fact that sometimes massive entities are the only ones who can skillfully martial all the requisite personnel to fill extraordinarily diverse orders, in manageable temporal allotments, but it's not enough.

Monopolies can theoretically drive up the price while crushing innovation if their unchallenged prowess grows stale with pomp and complacency.

But I really don't know much about them.

That isn't to say I don't want to make a lot of money.

Cashing-in big time would be pretty sweet.

Some sort of more durable necktie perhaps.

Wars aren't all about establishing markets for the sale of goods as War Dogs contends either, although many of them do seem as if such characteristics motivate their degenerative sensations.

There can be more than one.

Every year a new season begins, every 4 years a new President's elected.

In a country like Libya, if everyone fighting to be the next Gaddafi put down their arms and moved towards forging a working constitutional consensus general prosperity might indeed flourish.

Easier said, as violence unleashes violence, chaotic infinitum.

Unchecked butchers.

Gaddafi.

Hussein.

ISIS.

The soundtrack's a mess too. Good songs, but, barf.

Creed

Driven by an intense desire to prove himself in the ring, Apollo Creed's son Adonis (Michael B. Jordan) quits his steady job and embarks in search of training.

His privileged upbringing and headstrong individualistic nature don't smoothly fit in the grizzled pugilistic realms in which he must flourish however.

Unable to find a trainer in L.A, he soon flies to Philadelphia to court a legend who may be willing to take him on.

But Rocky's (Sylvester Stallone) been retired for many a year, and doesn't take to Adonis's ultraconfident approach, until he remembers the chance Apollo Creed once gave him, and decides to once again professionally serve.

The talented intent savvy well educated rich young upstart must acclimatize himself to Rocky's strict streetwise regimen in order to become a contender.

Rocky has the knowledge he requires.

And is willing to keep his identity secret, to respect his desire to make a name of his own.

Creed struggles with one of its most difficult inherent weaknesses well; it was easy to generate sympathy for Rocky, even in Rocky IV, but not so easy to sympathize with Adonis.

Not that it isn't easy to sympathize with his desire to succeed, it's just that when you see him trying to control things with attitudes his humbler less affluent competitors rarely adopt, it is somewhat grinding.

His desire to make a name for himself and the respect he shows Rocky spar with this point of irritation however, and at least establish that he wants to be humbler, he wants to integrate, it's just quite difficult for him to do so due to his enriched psychology.

It's still his dream and it's inspiring as he follows it regardless, making sacrifices in its pursuit, even if he always has the silver spoon sustaining him.

The finished product may be frustrating for Michael B. Jordan though, Stallone having stolen so many scenes that you leave the theatre thinking more about how his character progressed than how Adonis's was crafted.

Younger generations might not care about Rocky so much.

Best Supporting Actor nomination?

At the same time the script seems to be self-reflexively chiding the franchise as Rocky trains Adonis while undergoing chemotherapy, the balance between rejuvenation and tradition simultaneously excelling while convalescing.

Things are too easy for Adonis in Creed, trainer, beautiful partner, and title fight all falling into his lap without a back breaking struggle sincerely belittling him.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed Creed as it followed Adonis on his journey of self-discovery, even if it's not as heartwarming as Rocky, he still dedicatedly perseveres and does his best to cultivate his gifts.

If the film had focused on his Mexican fights and he had not met Rocky until the end, it may have been stronger.

Spy

Feet stompin' fist poundin' head boppin' finesse, dodgin' unlodgin', deke death's caress, the test swerving strenuous random incisions, athletic acumen, jocose renditions.

Cro-Magnon.

I wasn't expecting Spy to be so consistently funny.

Apart from the first 15 minutes or so, the comedy cleverly entertains, a study in rapid-fire instantaneous comebacks, mellifluous mouthpieces, agilely exchanging feints.

Channeling Archer.

It follows the emergence of a multidimensional spy, Susan Cooper (Melissa McCarthy), as she leaves command headquarters and heads into the field for the first time.

She's the only one capable of successfully completing the mission because her organization's adversaries are familiar with all of their active agents.

Rick Ford (Jason Statham) doesn't trust her and hilariously errs critically, his outlandish tales providing ludicrous added depth, hardboiled yet klutzy, stumbling the whole way through.

Casting by Zsolt Csutak.

Modestly audacious, Spy blends the wholesome and the crude to frenetically fry and sensationally sizzle.

Cloaked like a reborn marbled masquerade, it excels at enlivening, while mischievously poking fun at gender.

Heartfelt.

American Hustle

Serious sustained elusively sentimental cirrhosis, soberly conceived and symptomatically executed, the established bland underground beacon coerced into serving an opportunistic senseless gold digger, retentively reliant yet arrogantly exploitative, the combination's blinds leaving him susceptible to implosive cracks, their fissures directly proportional to their aggrandizements, seismically de/centralizing, corpus allumé.

Feminine elements complicate and complement the messy procedure as pressures coruscate emotional embers, and logical jealousies prevaricate relational rationalities.

Should this film be taken seriously?

On the one hand, as Irving Rosenfeld's (Christian Bale) character, the intelligent flexible streetwise devoted husband scam artist, suggests, we definitely should be, as his livelihood and familial security depends on it, even though he's a criminal.

On the other, as Richie DeMaso's (Bradley Cooper) character, the brash insubordinate wild-eyed FBI agent, suggests, we definitely should not be, as his reckless and life threatening decisions are simply too preposterous to take, even though he's enforcing the law.

The hilarious repeated transitional scene which sees the camera shoot the ground floor of American Hustle's FBI headquarters and then rapidly shift its focus to the top, suggests that David O. Russell is seriously playfully shining (editing by Alan Baumgarten, Jay Cassidy, and Crispin Struthers).

His beams brightly illuminate upright politician Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), a true person of the people and loving family man, tricked into accepting bribes.

Ethically, I find it highly problematic when politicians take bribes to stimulate economies through casino construction since casinos can and have ruin/ed the lives of many a low-income worker.

Real worldly, a lot of people don't seem to care about these realities anymore and think being exploited is great.

Rosenfeld doesn't like being exploited although he earns a living exploiting people.

He feels guilty for his actions in relation to Polito's eventual arrest, because even though casino creation is exploitative, Polito is acting on the people's behalf, according to the film's cavalier combustion.

Great film on many levels.

But in terms of bribing politicians to achieve specific ends, it fails to reflectively hustle.

A suave sensational scam?

Not persuasive enough of a play.

But it does offer effective indirect advice on how to avoid being scammed and the script's excellent (written by David O. Russell and Eric Warren Singer).

Which works.

Ekstra

Taking a humanistic approach to the production of soap operas, focusing primarily on the arduous routines followed by their hope-filled extras, digging in real deep, opportunity jostling with obsolescence, divas, directors, and delays, a rigid overworked tawdry hierarchical continuity graciously swoons to sycophantically accommodate, while viciously displacing its retributive wrath.

The extras take the heat for egocentric conceits, yet flexibly flow in bleached toiled caprice.

Irony abounds as the stars and high ranking members of the crew act like precious progenitors of substantial stakes while creating horrendous gaudy cylindrical refuse.

The cigarette burn improvisation.

A tasteless product placement.

The insertion of an automobile.

Cinematically fell for Loida Malabanan (Vilma Santos) as she attempts to breakthrough, her roles functioning as metafictional realistic vindications as she fantastically battles the wicked, heartbreakingly symbolic, cold, and unforgiving.

Ekstra is also filled with congenial moments of accidental amicable trust, tightrope walking starstruck stalking vests, multiple different angles, competing operational perspectives.

On the fly.

Oz: the Great and Powerful

The Wizard of Oz meets Xena: Warrior Princess?

That's an A+ in my books.

The old school Wizard of Oz film with which I'm familiar was a lighthearted tale, adored by generations of fantasy loving children, devoted and unassuming, blindly caught up in its melodramatic charm, dreaming sweet dreams filled with hope and sincerity later that night, never failing, to wake up anew.

There's no doubt that there's some of this in Sam Raimi's envisioning of the land of Oz, wherein we find the Wizard learning to become the factor everyone believes him to be at first sight, but while we don't discover that there's something not quite right about him until Toto's astute perception in the Judy Garland film, it's obvious from the get-go that in Oz: the Great and Powerful Oz (James Franco) is a sleazy unscrupulous cad, successfully (and spontaneously) brandishing his smoke and mirrors, yet hopelessly lacking what one might refer to as conscientious considerations, apart from their individualized financial formalities.

The title itself offers further insight into these competing fantastic motivations.

Oz: the Great and Powerful sounds like the sort of ridiculous phrase you'd expect someone cravenly searching for riches, even if the search only takes place within their own head, to use to describe themselves, while also seeming like an exaggerated mesmerizing monicker carefully chosen to inspire charismatic imaginations, when its historical spectacle is taken into consideration.

I didn't know Sam Raimi had directed before entering the theatre, and his presence added a latent sense of potentially ingratiating cheesy carnivalesque conviviality to these contemplations, wherein bold mischievous alternative emoticons masquerade on a traditional family friendly frequency, seeking to covertly manifest their raunch(iness).

The opening credits themselves kaleidoscopically illuminate this multiplicity, ebulliently engineering a phantasmagorical dissimulation, for whatever audience, startlingly straightforward, arguably the film's best feature.

But after the Wizard lands in Oz and meets Theodora (Mila Kunis) the film is far too startlingly straightforward for the next hour at least. The lines are terrible. Kunis struggles to deliver them. But they're so bad that you start to think that this could be one of those great films which subtly satirizes its generic counterparts while trying to remain appealing to the young at heart in order to conjure a laconic lackadaisical laxative before suddenly introducing moments of kitschy consubstantiations which attempt to transform the preceding mockery into a campy enduring endearing romp, just as the Wizard casts off his mortal shell and takes on his ethereal form, while coming to believe that yes, he can.

When the brutal lines are isolated, with no community within which to blossom and grow, they're tough to take, but when the time comes for Glinda (Michelle Williams) and the Wizard to unite their citizens to fight Evanora's (Rachel Weisz) minions group dynamics socially network their way into a publicly pertinent pyrotechnic plurality, as the Wizard uses his artifice in a startlingly straightforward phantasmagorical dissimulation, lighthearted, melodramatic, and ridiculous yet conscientious and ingratiating, fighting the good fight against overwhelming odds, to save both his community's, and his own, imagination.

And the film too.

I'd like to read a study which places both films within their social historical contexts in order to elucidate which possesses a more substantial degree of traditional alternative reflexivity, thirty years from now.

Classic Sam Raimi.

En kongelig affære (A Royal Affair)

A gifted enlightened town doctor (Mads Mikkelsen as Johann Friedrich Struensee) fortuitously finds himself suddenly reshaping his country's (Denmark) feudal character in Nikolaj Arcel's En kongelig affære (A Royal Affair), relying heavily upon his lucid acumen to enact social democratic reforms. 

But a misguided sense of permanency and an affectionate indiscretion result in his ignominious downfall.

King Christian VII (Mikkel Følsgaard) wants little to do with ruling and prefers to revel in unconditioned debauchery.

Doctor Struensee does little to disuade his ambition and the two strike up an amiable friendship, prominently acting for the good of the people.

As opportunity strikes, freedom materializes, yet its nascent state fails to consider history's quotidien counterbalance.

As dinner is served, a competitive course of cultural compositions is collusively seared, and the foundations of a revolving polemic picturesquely present themselves.

Too picturesquely perhaps.

One of En kongelig affære's principal problems is that there aren't any proactive plebeian representatives. A film boldly illustrating a crucial moment in Danish social democratic development should have likely included characters to whom said developments directly apply.

Instead they're stereotypically depicted as a mob.

It may have been too maudlin to include proactive plebeian reps but it also lacks a healthy contingent of subtle continuous economically disadvantaged background personnages which could have diversified its filmscape.

Obviously doing this continuously throughout a film is expensive and time consuming, and since En kongelig affære highlights the dangers of proceeding too quickly with social democratic reforms, perhaps this is an example of form working hand-in-hand with content.

The economic dangers are obviously real but so are the dangers of a right wing government that constantly pleads poverty (or creates an inexhaustible debt) when there is in fact of abundance of wealth, and the film examines a period which inaugurated social democratic reforms, not one where they already hold partial institutional prominence in some countries.

The King is at least cognizant of his faults and logically prefers friendship to fidelity considering his own predilections.

The film also concerns a love affair.

Don't know if I've ever seen a better example of the ridiculousness of the absolute application of ideology than when the Queen (Alicia Vikander [Denmark's Keira Knightley or Natalie Portman?]) is told to be more ladylike while giving birth.

Outstanding.

Safe House

Fittingly timed considering Canada's conservative government's introduction of the hated Bill C-30, Daniel Espinosa's new action flick Safe House presents a young CIA agent tasked with delivering a rogue fugitive possessing private governmental information to an undisclosed location in order to bring him to justice.

For agent Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds), it's an opportunity to demonstrate his prowess and procure a more invigorating post.

For longtime fugitive (and former CIA agent) Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington), it's all just par for the course.

Frost has in his possession a file implicating several international intelligence agents in criminal activities. A mercenary by the name of Vargas (Fares Fares) seeks to pry it from his cold dead hands. Seeing nowhere to run, Frost turns himself in at an American Embassy in South Africa. He's taken to be interrogated at a safe house in Cape Town of which Weston is the "housekeeper." Vargas comes calling shortly thereafter, leaving Weston and Frost wondering which CIA agent coughed up the whereabouts of their hidden location as they frantically escape.

Into the unknown.

The film's anti-warrantless-police-online-surveillance agenda is highlighted during one of the chase scenes. Frost and Weston are fleeing Vargas and his men on the rooftops of a quiet shantytown. Some of the roofs aren't particularly sturdy and can't withstand the shock of the sudden tumultuous weight. Thus, as people simply try and enjoy their private life, mercenaries, fugitives, and intelligence agents come crashing unannounced into their homes, and then leave quickly, after having obtrusively disrupted their lives, in the pursuit of disparate self-serving agendas.

How does this relate to the ways in which Canada's conservative government has labelled environmentalist groups opposed to the development of the Northern Gateway pipeline as radicals within Canada and Bill C-30?

Well, it's cheaper to operate a mine/engage in oil and gas exploration/build a pipeline if you don't have to worry about reclaiming the land or behaving responsibly. But if you don't responsibly reclaim the land you create a toxic mess that leaves the area uninhabitable while people continue to live there. If you introduce a toxic substance into an ecosystem it has a lasting toxic effect.

Environmentalist groups seek to mitigate this effect so that such lands remain habitable and their drinking waters aren't irreparably polluted. If you are an environmentalist who has been labelled a radical by the government (as opposed to being labelled a responsible citizen who simply wants to have access to clean drinking water and doesn't want to have to clean up an industrial mess for the next century or so), whose to stop the police from monitoring your productive conscientious online activity and demonizing the sights you visit?

Demonizing is a strong word but so is radical and labelling environmentalist groups critical of the Northern Gateway pipeline development as radical is a form of demonizing, especially considering that a percentage of our elected opposition members of parliament are critical of the Northern Gateway pipeline, therefore I don't think I'm taking too much of a leap in thinking the police, through invasively monitoring your online activity after the passage of Bill C-30 because you are an environmentalist radical, can then take the next step of demonizing you within your community (hypothetically, some shitty anti-environmentalist law is passed after the passage of Bill C-30 [The Economic Stewardship Bill or something], it isn't debated in the House of Commons so media coverage is minimized, people aren't provided with the facts concerning the law and after someone breaks it they simply think that person's broken the law and are therefore a problem, the police having arrested the individual after monitoring their online activity without a warrant and discovering that by visiting a specific targeted sight they have engaged in radical illegal activity. They arrest that person, local media picks up on it, they are demonized within their community).

You think this is ridiculous? I repeat, labelling environmentalists critical of the Northern Gateway pipeline development as radicals is ridiculous, throughly undemocratic, and grossly irresponsible. Simply because they wanted to mitigate the environmental impact of industrial activity in their country in order to live a healthier life.

Environmentalists want jobs too and understand the necessity of mining and oil and gas exploration. They just want to ensure that it's done responsibly. The reason we have an environmental lobby is that these activities were not undertaken responsibly for centuries. It is not radical to believe that they will suddenly be responsibly undertaken without the influence of an environmentalist lobby.

In Safe House, Weston turns the situation around and releases Frost's file to the media who then begins to vilify the intelligence agents/governmental representatives mentioned within. Unfortunately, this ending indirectly supports Bills such as Bill C-30. Here we have a situation where invading the privacy of several organizations and making their private information public has positive results. By creating such a situation and making it seem cathartic, Safe House sinisterly supports the intrusive agendas of those seeking to freely invade our privacy and monitor our online activity by 'subliminally advertising' an example which motivates the invasion of privacy.

Although the roof crashing chase was a nice diversion.