Thunderball

Bullseye backwater Northern discretion metropolis moxy rummaging rituals, ye olde Big Smoke exclamatory bastion jamboree janglinter-stellargo sweepstakes. 

Strategic caution animate build-up ignited anticipation stepping-stone schema, stoic exactitude creature coagulate disciplined doctrine autumnal cloak. 

Sugarbeat sway bungalow diphthong arrhythmic mojo soaring centennial, intrepid ensemble offbeat syncopation novel Nostromo depth-conradicals. 

Nuclear Norbert surmiser stealth dragon-boat bulletin infernal ruckus, metallic mechanized Mordecai mocha silicon stammer electromagnetism. 

Caribbean swagger cephalopodlings reflexive rambling cicada flutter, lakeside loceanic non-chalant nestle invigorating voyage intricate mission.

Icy exterior fermenting frost indelicate disposition streamlining fleuve, extracurricular severe centigradiant ewokkie-talkie treetop tenacity.

Ballroom maneuver freeflowing rush serendipitous shakedown acute commiseration, deputized famished disintegration gargantuan glade embowering silchouette. 

Embellished chou-fleur stuffingerlineage poetatomtomahawk squashtonbaby, gravelveetartartan pumpkinkstandardice rollcutivivation turkeenerf-herdermal.

Scoop-gobbledegook disproportionate pita puffin fastiduitedious stilts, clement vocalibre exseedentary boogie-woog nerverdure modest matriculates. 

Blastercine hommage home run derbeelze ladda-scrabba-blue-jabba crucible crunch, intermittent Ojibway incremental Algonquin Thanksgiving inninjas Six Nations stride. 

Forestéd-talons feverish flights supersonic swoop aerodyne lather, take-off-eh-sucré heightening exhibition skydomicîle-sambience Roger's zentripetals. 

Felicitous sentier trailblazing teamwork warlockerroom staff efficacious bearings, integral artistry verge virtuosos orbitathletism inherent fun.

 Nice to see the leaves changing colour.

Chlorophyll candour.

Neticulous nesting. 

Many thanks family and friends. 

It's been a good year.

Many animal sightings. 

Ragtime

Sigh.

Ragtime's ambitious no doubt indubitably it proceeds with grandiose lofty intentions, most likely seeking academy award nominations with the sets and the period and the subject matter.

It's one of those films that examines freedom from a despondent viewpoint however, and a sympathetic character resorts to violence to achieve just dividends.

What he's asking for isn't outrageous he just wants his car cleaned, fixed, and an apology, from the scandalous band of misfits who themselves behaved outrageously.

He had done nothing to them his only fault was to have been successful, and then to have lived as other successful people do, even though his skin was black.

What does it matter, why do such petty jealousies motivate so many people, do your best, apply yourself vigorously, have a laugh, what else can you do?

Coalhouse could have just taken his car and cleaned up the mess and eventually forgot about it, extremely frustrating to have to do that but a better outcome than what happened in the long run.

He would have returned to his successful life and left the goons behind to rot, he certainly complained to everyone he could and naturally became more angry when they couldn't help him.

Now, they recked his car and abusively humiliated him there's no question he deserved satisfaction, but turning to acts of terror goes far beyond the initial crime and riles up collective prejudicial misgivings.

And he doesn't get satisfaction in the end, rather the police wind up shooting him after he threatens to blow up a museum, they gun him down when he eventually gives up even though he's unarmed and helpless.

Depressing is the word for such a film it's extremely depressing and sad and hopeless, it makes you feel ill and sick after it's over and by no means encourages another viewing.

I know this is what is recommended by many searching to expand minds and cultivate consciousness, but the revolting way you feel when the film finally ends also makes its shelf-life and influence less long-lasting.

Take a film like Dances with Wolves which tells a tragic tale of honour and friendship on the other hand.

The statistics presented at the end are grim.

But the fight against racism isn't tragically lurid.

The Rock

Decided to revisit The Rock last Summer after stopping by a local thrift store, and impressed was I as it chaotically unreeled.

It reminded me of a time when I still considered blockbusters to represent the best of what cinema had to offer, long before I discovered non-British European movies (I already knew about British films), Québec's vital film industry, Takashi Miike, Kurosawa, or Criterions.

Blockbusters are still kind of fun, especially when they're deep, the big picture critiqued in miniature, striking slices of stark sensation.

After the insane number of sequels released last Summer I even found myself wishing another Skyscraper was in the works, not a Skyscraper sequel, to be precise, but something sort of different that at least attempted to start something new.

Even if it channelled Die Hard.

I've mentioned this before.

Stuber filled the gap meanwhile.

The Rock never had any sequels and if it had they likely would have seemed preposterous, or at least too logically improbable, if they had sought to reunite Cage (Stanley Goodspeed) and Connery (John Patrick Mason).

The film's actual plot still likely seems preposterous if you read or talk to people about it, or see it I suppose, even if it rationalizes insanity well.

If you don't like action films or sports I imagine watching The Rock would be excruciating, 20 plus years later no less, some of its best lines as ra ra as they are hyper-reactively appropriate, like watching solid Monday Night Football, a Raptors/Clippers showdown, the Leafs facing off in Montréal, or Hamilton taking on the Argos.

As far as I remember, it was released before globalization took off, or just as it was taking off, when America was examining itself critically, even from militaristic perspectives.

And the hero's a green nerd (Cage) who'll pay $600 for one of the Beatles's worst albums (old vinyl though), his partner a dangerous Brit who's been locked up for at least 30 years, like Michael Bay of all directors was deeply concerned with creating something memorable, something that had never been seen before, in sharp contrast to so many new action films.

Take some of these scenes.

After some tourists find themselves locked up on the Rock, there's a really short moment that lasts long enough for one of them to say, "what kind of fucked up tour is this?"

It's funny, and could have easily been left out, but Bay realized how cool it was, and kept it in to generate humour and tension.

I've never seen anything like it in a Marvel film, even if they excel at multidimensionally entertaining.

There's also a high speed chase through San Francisco that revels in cinematic mayhem, that introduces a tour of the city, on a trolly, as everything goes to hell.

Then, as an elite group of Navy SEALs prepares to take on well-heeled Marines on Alcatraz, and Mr. Goodspeed seeks a breakdown of what's going on, one of the SEALS (Danny Nucci as Lieutenant Shepard), a relatively unknown actor at the time who had yet to say anything in the film, delivers an extremely precise borderline passionate synopsis, that startles as it summarizes, and shocks with exhilarating brevity.

What an opportunity for a young actor.

Nucci totally nails it.

There's nothing like that scene, that moment, in current action films, like the lines were created to give someone the opportunity to build a career, instead of all the roles going to world cinema's best and brightest.

It's like the actors in The Rock are fighting to build or sustain a career, from Vanessa Marcil (Carla Pestalozzi) to Tony Todd (Captain Darrow) to David Morse (Major Tom Baxter) to John C. McGinley (Captain Hendrix), no one holding back or resting on old school precedent, just givin' 'er hardcore with ample opportunity to do so.

There are at least 17 actors who stand out in this film.

That's a script that cultivates 1990s diversity (written by David Weisberg, Douglas Cook and Mark Rosner).

Cage and Connery work well together, the former frenetically perspiring athleticism, as he's suddenly thrust into the frenzied fray, replete with doubt, inexperience, and a pregnant partner, Michael Biehn (Commander Anderson), Ed Harris (General Francis X. Hummel), and William Forsythe (Ernest Paxton) givin' 'er too, the film's just so damned professional.

With a ne'er-do-well landing on a spike near the end.

This is what blockbusters could be like before pirating.

Greater risks.

Greater reward.

I'm recommending The Rock.

And watching it again this Winter.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout

The sacrifices Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt) makes for his Mission: Impossible franchise add an authentic dimension to its outputs that ironically causes them to appear plausible even if they versatilely redefine the extraordinary.

The effort he puts into making these films is incredible.

If you watch a lot of action adventure movies there are times where some of their plots seem quite ridiculous, obviously enough, which is part of the fun assuming the laws of physics aren't utterly ignored, GoldenEye.

If they are utterly ignored you need strong supporting intelligent possibly wacky characters presenting theoretical justifications for the inaccuracies, numerous Star Trek episodes providing fitting instructive examples, man those shows must be fun to write.

But since Mr. Cruise does his own stunts, the impossible seems attainable, the ridiculousness appears rational, and if his character is thought to metaphorically represent high stakes success, however you choose to define it (a small business, exceptional narratives delivered during cruises, a butter tart that knows no equal, a pot of chili), the fact that he does his own stunts synthesizes the imaginary and the realistic in a compelling way that parallels Jackie Chan himself, who would make a wonderful addition to the franchise.

Fallout sees the return of Hunt's dependable team, Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) and Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames [how can neighbours not recognize Ving Rhames?]) excelling at consistently delivering opposites-platonically-attract-interactions, their characters asking pertinent questions, performing exceptional feats, freely conceptualizing reliability, while indisputably materializing assured structural cool.

Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin) and Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) spicing things up as well.

Fallout presents a solid instalment complete with an intricate constantly evolving embrace of active efficient improvised deconstruction, new personalities (notably Henry Cavill as August Walker and Vanessa Kirby as the White Widow) chaotically introduced to the mayhem, a classic focus on nuclear weapons (fitting for contemporary times) fuelling the intensity, historical romance complicating mission prerogatives, traditional character traits present but not frustratingly exaggerated (a downfall of so many sequels), blunt seemingly foolish observations cloaking discerning intellects, improbable goals pursued regardless of demanding setbacks, level-heads tying everything together in a manner that isn't difficult to stomach (directed by Christopher McQuarrie), the sixth constituent of a franchise focusing too heavily on its own internal dynamics at times.

Make sure each instalment in a franchise simultaneously appeals to fans and people who have never heard of it and you're moving in a Wrath of Khan direction.

Mission: Impossible still hasn't had a Captain America: Civil War or Wrath of Khan moment, but there's still plenty of time.

Fallout's still a motivating thought provoking film that will likely appeal to eager fans along with new recruits unfamiliar with its unique style.

Voluminous aftershocks.

Realistic proofs.

Raw spontaneity.

Damned impressive.

If you want sincerity in an action film, Mission: Impossible distinctly delivers.

Back in the day I thought they'd stop making them after number III.

That was 12 years ago.

Crazy.

Aus dem Nichts (In the Fade)

Germany was a ruin at the end of World War II, rubble and ash produced by insane bigots who thought they were incarnated Übermensch playing out predestined roles.

The Russians crushed them.

The Allies dealt them crippling blows.

Tens of millions dead, goals unachieved, millions still mistrust and vilify Germany to this day, and even if postmodern Deutschland sets the standard for environmental sustainability and multicultural inclusion, and Nazi Germany was governed by brutal thugs who terrorized many into submission, when you watch World War II documentaries about Nazi death camps, or see how they slaughtered local populations when retreating, it's still difficult to separate the horrors from contemporary wonders, the scum, from the conscientious.

I do separate them, Germany shows up in the news doing something incredibly advanced so often that I can classify Nazi Germany as an aberration, and 21st Century Germany as a triumph, but watching those videos provokes latent passions that can't simply be reasoned away with vigour or ease, they were so systematically brutal, so void of compassion or humanity.

It's happening again elsewhere.

Atrocities that shouldn't have been forgotten have been forgotten and new generations of violent racists are once again politically active, have been for years, unconcerned for the lives and futures they would ruin, unconcerned with anything but themselves.

Aus dem Nichts (In the Fade) presents a loving family whose husband is a model of rehabilitation after having served his time in prison.

He's devoted to raising his son, loving his wife, and doing his best at work every day to provide for them.

Their multiethnic family is thriving and making positive contributions to greater Germany, but this offends a Neo-Nazi couple, who detonate a bomb in front of their multitasking business.

The husband and son are killed, and the wife is left suffering ad infinitum.

The film hauntingly focuses on her grief to accentuate the extreme hate crime's malevolence, the eventual trail of the murderers an exercise in sheer torture, as a victim must directly face the impenitent killers of her family.

What is reasonable doubt?

It must be incredibly difficult to make such decisions.

Reason isn't a blue sky or a shining sun.

As many others have pointed out, the vicissitudes of reason rationally articulated can logically drive someone insane, especially if they're the victims of a crime.

And the perpetrator's guilt is obvious.

Aus dem Nichts moves from despondency to hope to vengeance as it desperately seeks retribution.

Patience is an aspect of the sublime.

But how does one keep a cool head when forced to contend with total chaos?

With inflexible ideology?

Does logic apply to the actions of victims of terror?

Rationally?

Patriots Day

Once you move past the flag waving and the patriotism and the obsessive communal pride and the righteousness of it all, the ra ra ra, Patriots Day isn't so bad, a multidimensional humanistic account of the heroic men and women who boldly risked their lives to hunt down loathsome terrorists after they attacked the Boston Marathon crowd in 2013, a vile act objectifying infamy, the product of pathetic misplaced ambition, madly demonstrating sociopathic idiocy, fortunately they were caught and dealt with strictly.

Edited by Gabriel Fleming and Colby Parker Jr., multiple characters, each playing a role in the ensuing chaos, are intelligently introduced and skilfully interwoven, each short scene adding a bit more depth, each brief moment humanistically diversifying.

Thereby augmenting terrorist horrors.

One character shows up more often than the others, Mark Wahlberg as Sgt. Tommy Saunders, a wild passionate smartass police officer who never holds back what he's thinking.

Within a hierarchy, if the higher-ups have forgotten to take steps that you feel are necessary, it's important to delicately speak your mind, carefully choosing which battles to fight.

The fight is real and threatening in Patriots Day, so Saunders expresses himself freely throughout.

The film doesn't just focus on law enforcement however, it also provides the victims of the bombings with lots of screen time, as well as a brave young Chinese entrepreneur (Jimmy O. Yang as Dun Meng) whose knowledge leads to an explosive confrontation.

And there's cool little scenes too, like the rooftop zeroing-in where the national and the local colourfully exchange ideas, depth and pluralization consistently added, a sophisticated well-thought-out investigation of the city of Boston.

Which clearly responds to the Hollywood lumps it took in 2015.

With serious grit.

And undeniable attitude.

Like a mainstream independent film oddly focused on homeland security, Patriots Day shocks as it sweats, synergizes as it sizzles.

It makes it clear that it isn't encouraging Islamophobia either, carefully acknowledging that these were extremist lunatic exceptions.

Saunders delivers quite the speech in the end.

I didn't expect it to be so sensitive.

It maybe could have used a couple more takes, but it still courageously salutes discourses of the heartwarming, emphatically tenderizing amorous relations, which hopefully aren't criminalized due to some shortsighted jackass's bigoted ideals.

Legalizing love is a strange way to go about things.

People fall in love.

There's nothing more beautiful than that.

Eye in the Sky

Speculation.

Strategic planning.

Cold calculation.

The human factor.

A peaceful Kenyan family who loathes yet fears extremists lives day to day in a militarized zone, embracing their loving routine while terrorists plot suicide attacks in the compound next door.

The British military has waited years to either capture or eliminate these fanatics and is ready to strike but requires direct authorization.

At the perfect moment, extraordinarily complicated and dangerous steps having been taken to ensure legalistic legitimacy, the adorable daughter (Aisha Takow as Alia Mo'Allim) of the family begins to sell bread within the proposed airstrike's targeted area.

Eye in the Sky hierarchically examines the politics and ethics of proceeding with the mission, humanistically stylizing the decision making process at executive, legal, operational, and civilian levels, internationally evaluating torrents and tributaries to disputatiously justify the repercussions of its actions, debate clad in detonation, textbook points on cue.

Interrogating the greater good.

The crucial unknown.

Millions have likely been spent leading up to the moment and preventing suicide attacks which will result in dozens of casualties seems like the logical decision.

But the peaceful family, if their daughter is killed, may then turn to extremism, convincing friends and relatives to join in the call.

I'm surprised this point wasn't mentioned in the dialogue which otherwise intellectually explores several hypothetical perspectives.

Conditionally, there are too many variables to confidently predict certain outcomes, and it is known that the terrorists are preparing to launch suicide attacks, and that dozens of deaths are more serious than one.

Painstaking steps are taken to ensure the girl's survival and a brave clever conscientious objection is even made by the soldier responsible for launching the strike.

Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren), eager to terminate her target, eventually takes matters into her own hands and lies about the girl's survival odds in order to secure the right to annihilate.

The audience is left to decide whether or not she made the correct decision.

The concluding moments, reminiscent of speeches made by Jean-Luc Picard, suggest director Gavin Hood thinks she did not.

War laid bare.

Unforeseen probabilities.

Possibility obscured.

Eye in the Sky rationally supports opposing viewpoints with argumentative clarity yet is somewhat too neat and tidy and at points I thought I was watching television.

It still boils down incredibly complex structures and their inherent departmental checks and balances to an accessible narrative replete with critical controversies.

Open-ended investigations.

Well thought out yet too polished at times, Eye in the Sky materializes the imaginary components integral to the ethics of fighting the war on terror, to lament both conscience and innocence, while statistically analyzing bursts of compassion.

Pleasantly lacking in sensation.

Loved the Alan Rickman (Lieutenant General Frank Benson).

Criminal

Shockingly discarded as an infant, an incarcerated sociopath is given a second chance to live, but in order to do so the consciousness of another must be creatively grafted onto his soul, so that he can discover the whereabouts of an unwilling terrorist, and terminate the dictations of armageddon.

Does the soul have anything to do with consciousness? Does it exist? Is it an eternal regenerative quintessence that innocently survives death regardless of the ways in which an individual lived his or her life, radiating thereafter in a transitory state able to embrace different forms of illumination with permanent subjective clarity?

No clue.

Bill Pope's (Ryan Reynolds) soul/consciousness becomes an integral part of Jericho Stewart's (Kevin Costner) in Ariel Vroman's Criminal however, enabling him to feel for the first time, as he's covetously hunted for instinctively seeking freedom.

There were aspects of Criminal I would have changed had I been given final edit, but I loved the film's laid-back sensationalism.

An anarchist seeking global rule can unleash the apocalypse if he gathers the information he seeks.

But the film's lack of stunning visuals, Kevin Costner's chill performance (even if he's constantly fighting), and unconvincing poorly written villain (Jordi Mollà as Xavier Heimdahl), deflate its grandiose pretensions while smoothly levelling-out the inherent absurdity.

I would have changed the beginning and ending even if they celebrate redemption (there must have been another way to do this), Jericho does remember highly advanced details at times that seem at odds with his brief sudden visual intuitions, and when he's on his way to take on Heimdahl, I would have cut the scene where Dr. Franks (Tommy Lee Jones) asks him to stop (hardcore cheese).

Nonetheless, it's like watching a film from the 90s, direct and to the point, kinetically intermingling the unapologetic and the angelic with wholesome rash rage, I actually felt like it was the 90s while viewing, well done well done.

Criminal blends the violent and the gentle with dramatic comedic indifference that leaves you anticipating what's to come in terms of the consciously conscientious.

The world could end if an unrepentant criminal doesn't act on lessons internalized from a disparate personality living inside him and challenge those responsible for his eclectic demise.

It uses the surveillance techniques revealed by Snowden to disable a mad terrorist yet keeps George Orwell in the loop to critique those very same surveillance techniques, slyly playing a clever double game.

If you take the film seriously, it seems like it's naturalizing ubiquitous surveillance.

If you appreciate the ludicrousness, it's like it's championing Orwell.

Jericho was under constant surveillance but in the end he's a free man, potentially with both job and family.

Thought provoking.

Bunch of great actors delivering modest performances that help procreate the film's unconcerned momentum (apart from Gary Oldham [Quaker Wells]) who has to be livid).

I think it's pastiching The Terminator. The villain wants to be responsible for Judgment Day. Jericho is like a Terminator. And someone says, "get out," at one point.

There's a great shot from the top of a stairwell looking down on Jericho as he looks up, the shot accompanied by a platter of apples on the first floor.

Solid character names.

Iron Man 3

Adding a surprisingly human dimension to Tony Stark's (Robert Downey Jr.) Iron Man, through which relatable stresses such as panic attacks are relativistically normalized through recourse to the exceptional, Iron Man 3 finds him suffering from the aftershocks of his debut with the Avengers, aftershocks which force him to begrudgingly confront his mortality.

Kind of.

At first, he compensates by stretching his extroverted insignia to the limits by trash talking a terrorist who then uses his arsenal to obliterate the Stark residence, leaving him theoretically helpless after he barely escapes.

He is exceptional however and thanks to an avenue of inquiry established by his prior research, fortunately lands himself in a crucial situation wherein his gifts are practically vetted.

Screenplay writers Drew Pearce and Shane Black (who also directed) do a great job here of rationally justifying a seemingly highly improbable scenario.

Colonel James Rhodes's (Don Cheadle) dialogue with Stark is used to rationally justify another seemingly highly improbable scenario later on as well.

They also play with the device which sees franchises seeking to extend their limits by introducing youth (something remarkably different more generally) to nurture a newfound pluralization.

Yet shortly after doing this it becomes clear that the Iron Man films will not be (heavily) relying on such devices, as Tony harshly yet avuncularly explains.

Excellent confident synthesis of the particular (the Iron Man films) and the universal (movie trilogies generally).

Some of the minor characters shockingly receive a lot of depth as well as comedic components of Machete's narrative unreel.

The film makes it clear that experimenting on humans is unethical by attaching this component of its narrative to the villains, villains who were created by Stark's callous self-obsession.

In the end, Stark perfects their methods, however, thereby leaving the film in an ambiguous domain wherein which it's difficult to discern what it's clearly stating.

Clarity is important regarding such matters.

The protagonists use technology to differentiate themselves, the villains, experimental performance enhancing pseudodrugs.

These drugs themselves were developed using nefarious methods, and in my opinion, the film would have been stronger if Stark had destroyed everything having to do with them, even though he was indirectly responsible for their creation, in order to find an alternative cure for his condition.

I understand that this is highly improbable, but having an exceptionally gifted iconic individual not use said gifts to actively create an ethically acceptable alternative by overtly employing different tactics while directly acknowledging said differentiation doesn't make sense to me.

Not using research obtained through such means to pursue beneficial ends does make sense to me.

The ending would have been stronger had Iron Man acted accordingly.

G. I. Joe: Retaliation

Better than the first G.I. Joe film.

And a good episode of G.I. Joe.

Cobra's back and still tryin' to take over the world.

The Joes are betrayed and have to head to the underground for cover.

They're able to find this cover quite easily and confidently stroll around in broad daylight even though the American government, whom Cobra has infiltrated, is looking for them.

But like I said, it's a good episode of G.I. Joe, following a format which employs improbability as a cogent asset in order to conceal their recruitment tactics.

There is a clever scene which neutralizes attempts to analyze the film following the opening credits, wherein Duke (Channing Tatum) and Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson) are found playing militaristic video games, a scene whose immediacy implies that the film has been made in good fun and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Message received.

Other highlights include the best poppy condensation of a strategical debate I've seen in a while, which is simultaneously bland, comic, disconcerting and instructive, plus Roadblock and Duke consistently dissect their discussions while conversing.

Agents of Cobra do not.

Cobra's not hip to Web 2.0 applications.

Adam Reed is hands down the master of humorous observational conversational commentary.

Adam Reed did not write G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

And would not have ruined the affect by introducing a remark endemic to the Terminator series in the film's concluding moments.

In such moments, you synthesize your intertextual research into a franchise specific all-encompassing one-liner.

Ad infinitum.

Olympus Has Fallen

An otherwise dismissible action flick makes a good point regarding teamwork that can be transferred to sporting domains, amongst others, at least.

The point under examination concerns the removal of an esteemed member of the President's (Aaron Eckhart) personal security force after exceptional naturalistic circumstances result in the death of his wife.

At Christmas.

The esteemed member's presence serves as a constant reminder of the misfortune and he therefore must find work elsewhere.

When your team loses a big game or your strategic plan fails to generate predicted revenues there seems to be a prominent cultural desire to attach blame to a specific individual and then punish them accordingly.

Obviously when the game is lost or the revenues fall short there's a period where what could have been disrupts the cheery flow of social relations but shortly thereafter things (often) return to normal.

You still have an experienced team, and, obviously again, due to the tenacity of the competition you're up against, can't win all the time.

New deals are made.

Partnerships negotiated.

Adjustments taken into consideration.

And another NFL/CFL season begins.

Or BlackBerry takes back its former share of the market.

In Olympus Has Fallen, a rather downcast despondent far too rigid Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) (he's no John McClane [not that everyone needs to be like John McClane but he's a good model {different from the Kurt Russell model/which I loved in The Thing\}]) loses his job only to discover later on that he's the only shot the United States's got to prevent a terrorist lunatic from starting a war between the Koreas.

If he had still been on the job the terrorists may have never gotten a leg up.

Although if they had never let him go he would not have avoided the initial onslaught after which he (miraculously) finds himself in a position to disintegrate their network.

When the unexpected intervenes those who failed to find an exceptional solution within shocking unpredictable circumstances and were consequentially let go find the opportunity to prove their worth as the natural becomes corporeal and its features pursue mad personal goals whose existence presents the criteria for a successful occupational reintegration.

Perhaps that isn't a good teamwork related point.

Not a very good movie either.

Ugh.

Zero Dark Thirty

Accumulation. Asseveration. Evisceration.      

Kathryn Bigelow's bureaucratically bitchin' tenaciously pitchin' Zero Dark Thirty nonpartisanly coordinates the clandestine predications of a resilient stalwart team.

In/directly lead by Maya (Jessica Chastain).

Militaristically maneuvering from the collection of data to the formulation of hypotheses to the execution of ideas, they uniformly act like the production of a covert thesis.

Perhaps this thesis asks, "can we successfully fabricate a concrete entertaining internationally provocative blueprint which periodically articulates anti-terrorist protocols which seem bona fide yet cleverly dissimulate each and every event that took place, apart from the lengthy ending, thereby functioning as overt espionage (and trumping Argo)?"

This question may be a bit much considering that what takes place seems to follow a logical asymmetrical pattern the fabric of which conceals/reveals both sides (as depicted in the film) regardless.

Nevertheless, even though its bravado is qualified by stats and potentialities, Zero Dark Thirty impresses practical unrelenting retributive necessities across its apolitical spectrum, collocating resourceful avatars with seductive sentiments, in a potent, charismatic, collection.

The Dark Knight Rises

Not feelin' it for The Dark Knight Rises.

Don't get me wrong, the rapid pace and intelligent script make for an entertaining thought-provoking film, packed tight with a judicial balance of solid and cheesy lines/imagery/situations, set within an armageddonesque scenario which exemplifies the apotheosis of campy mainstream political drama basking in subtly sensational ludicrousy.

Note that it's just a movie.

Within however, the villain Bane (Roger Hardy), who works in the sewers and is backed by some of Bruce Wayne's (Christian Bale) excessively wealthy competitors, has been using construction workers and freelance thieves to launch a strategic attack which will incarcerate Gotham City's entire police force, set up a kangaroo court to 'judge' the wealthy, get his hands on a source of limitless energy that can be turned into a catastrophically destructive weapon, the whole time acting like a person of the people.

It's a bit much.

And the ways in which construction unions are depicted is frustrating.

Of course it's just a movie, within which Bane is a fanatical lunatic who employs absurd methods to achieve insane objectives.

I mean, what person of the people would destroy a football stadium?

But making him a 'person of the people' does cunningly vilify genuine persons of the people like Franklin D. Roosevelt (who still had to operate in a political dynamic which encountered expedient matters I'm assuming) which is problematic.

He is financed by the excessively wealthy, as mentioned earlier, which logically states that plutocrats are theoretically capable of using popular tropes to achieve despotic ends, thereby making Bane's adoption of the label 'person of the people' all the more problematic.

But this doesn't mean individuals who come from privileged backgrounds don't care about structural issues relating to poverty, individuals such as Jack Layton, and want to try to do something about them using legitimate political methods (pointing out a social democrat's rich upbringing is a divisive tactic used by the right to discredit them, from what I can tell anyway).

Having a source of limitless environmentally friendly power that can be turned into a weapon of mass destruction is also problematic, inasmuch as it indirectly vilifies alternative energy sources while propping up the nuclear/petroleum-based-product status quo.

Obviously, when your economy is seriously dependent on this status quo (see The End of Suburbia, 2004) and the ways in which its revenues fuel social programs, you can't simply change everything overnight without causing mass unemployment (perhaps I'm wrong here, I don't know, but it seems to me that if your economy is functioning with a significant deficit, large scale structural changes to its infrastructure will be disastrous unless they can definitively generate mass profits in the aftermath [which is a pretty big risk to take if you're not flush with cash]).

But at the same time, not trying to find environmentally friendly alternatives to the petroleum/nuclear power base that can't be turned into WMDs or be inexpensively integrated into the grid is equally disastrous (I suppose while searching for such power sources it's important to hire people to continuously monitor whether or not their construction can lead to the creation of WMDs [obviously enough {perhaps this isn't so obvious: it took a very long time to cap the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 because they weren't prepared}]).

People often call me naive, but, whatever: "It was all the more [troublesome] because by nature I have always been more open to the world of potentiality than to the world of contingent reality"(Marcel Proust, In Search of Lost Time, vol. 5 [I don't think I'm like Proust, I just love reading In Search of Lost Time]).

Hence, as an escape, I did enjoy The Dark Knight Rises, but I can't support some of its structural issues inasmuch as, according to this viewing, they aren't very progressive.

There is the issue of Selina (Anne Hathaway) however who is trying to change her life around but can't due to the ways in which her criminal record prevents her from finding employment.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Take 'em or leave 'em.

Tezz

Two men on different sides of the law intellectually and physically face off in Priyadarshan's sensational Tezz, one seeking personal justice for having been deported to India and separated from his family, the other coming out of retirement after having spent his life foiling terrorist plots for the British government.

With a perfect record. 

A bomb is attached to a passenger train travelling to Glasgow which will explode if the train's speed decreases below 60 mph. If 10 million euros are given to Aakash Rana (Ajay Devgn), the disaster will be averted. Railway Control Specialist Sanjay Raina's (Boman Irani) daughter is on the train, adding to the melodrama. Counter Terrorism Agent Arjun Khanna (Anil Kapoor) is intent on catching Rana before he has time to explain how to dispose of the bomb. 

And egos explode. 

Within headstrong passionate personalities definitively express their emotionally charged strategic points of view, having been forced into a rationalized chaotic peculiarity. Extremes and modes of transportation abound as controversial decisions are rapidly made.

When ambiguity seems as if it may gain a foothold within the narrative's denouement, the law moves in and shuts thing down (thereby accentuating the predicament of the disenfranchised).  

You would think there would have been other ways for Aakash to be reunited with his family. 

But when taking into account the terms of Tezz's stark portrayal of the law's callous non-negotiable dismissal of Aakash's respectability, a sort of absurd understanding can be applied to his over-the-top benign all-or-nothing approach, since the rational framework to which he had devoted his productive life suddenly and unconditionally collapsed, leaving him with no constructive alternatives within the existing legal framework.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Can't say I've spent too much time watching the Mission: Impossible films, but as far as thrilling, accelerated, turbulent action movies go, Ghost Protocol is a success, as Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) improvises his way through another set of death defying circumstances, this time without the assistance of IMF.

Split-second decision making is instantaneously necessitated as plans see their counterpoints meticulously materialized through the systematic art of strategic vivisection.

Such decisions are supplied with as much logic as can be rationally fastened to their temporal limitations in order to obtain their furtive objectives.

Such logic need not be brilliantly qualified, but must possess enough cohesive extensions to readily trick its antagonists into falling for its deception.

If these extensions lose their psycho-material appeal, the related temporal limitations become increasingly restrictive.

Requiring an ass kicking.

Hunt and his innovative team still manage to move undetected from Moscow to Dubai to Mumbai with enough resources at their disposal to technologically infiltrate seemingly inextricable defensive infrastructures without being backed up by headquarters.

Agilely keeping an ace in the hole.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Wasn't as impressed with Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows as I was with Guy Ritchie's first instalment. Holmes's (Robert Downey Jr.) remarkable wit and resilient problem solving skills are once again prominently on display and his whimsical interactions with Dr. Watson (Jude Law) continue to entertain. The fast paced reactive comedic drama moves the plot along with picturesque pinpoint precision. An erudite athletic warrior who constantly goes out of his way to massage his own ego still seeks to prevent the masters of war from obtaining their goals. And the meticulous attention to detail worked into his split second evaluations commands a heightened degree of respect as the concept of awareness receives a veraciously sharp intrepid exposition.

But these elements aren't tied together particularly well.

Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris) struggles to maintain Holmes's level of acute alacrity. Some of the novelties which worked well in the first film such as Holmes's pugilistic propensities take up too much time in Game of Shadows to the detriment of his observational acumen. While the dialogue energetically motivates the action while hypothesizing/researching/analyzing/synthesizing the script seems like it was written with an equal degree of haste and more care could have been taken to include harmonious linguistic formulations (some incredible synergies would have resulted had these been in place)(linguistic formulations whose appealing character could have matched the intellectual intensity of the action). Having Holmes attempt to halt the escalation of a major European war places him in a position too grandiose for the execution of a successful first sequel (it's too over the top). And the female characters become static cardboard cutouts as the action progresses, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) having been poisoned in the opening moments.

While exciting enough and possessing a rationalized frenetic frequency, Game of Shadows attempts to move beyond the constructs of its predecessor too quickly while relying on them too strictly, and comes across as rash rather than bold, violently crashing into the sun.

Source Code

Duncan Jones's Source Code maintains a peculiar relationship with law and order. The overt dimension is sound enough: transport someone back to a moment in time located within an alternative parallel reality and have them discover information that can help stop terrorists when they are transported home. This is what Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) does in subsequent 8 minute intervals throughout as he tries to find out who planted a bomb on a passenger train bound for Chicago. Each time he is sent back, he's encouraged to detect the necessary information by any means necessary, with no concern for the effects his actions might cause to that alternative parallel reality. Hence, in order to fight terrorism in one reality criminal acts can be committed in another. If these alternative parallel realities don't exist this isn't a problem, but if they do, and they obviously do insofar as Colter is repeatedly transferred to them, it is an extremely serious problem, serious enough to destabilize source code's legitimacy. Justifying your pursuit of law in order in one dimension by any means necessary in another is distasteful to say the least and Source Code would have been a stronger film if this fact and its associated ramifications had been brought to the forefront.

Traitor

Jeffrey Nachmanoff's Traitor destabilizes the phenomenon of democratic patriotism from a variety of different angles, deconstructing its boundaries while reformulating them as well. The concept of friendship is also studied within, along with what it means to have faith, and the ways in which politics can problematize one's beliefs.

Samir Horn (Don Cheadle) is a devout Muslim who saw his father blown up by a car bomb as a child. He then moved to Chicago where he was expelled from high school for throttling 3 caucasian teenagers after they spoke none to kindly to an African American girl. Afterwards, he joined the military and when we meet him he is selling arms in Yemen. He is arrested during a raid which sends him to prison where his religious integrity wins him the admiration of Omar (Saïd Taghmaoui). After their escape, they join a terrorist organization and begin planning a series of strikes against the United States. And throughout this entire period, Horn has been working as a double agent for Governmental Representative Carter (Jeff Daniels) with the hopes of capturing said terrorist organization's kingpin.

Horn is pursued by Governmental Agents Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce) and Max Archer (Neal McDonough) (who are unaware of Carter's plan). Clayton's father was a baptist minister who would douse crosses set aflame by the Klu Klux Klan. When partner Archer wonders why every Arab Muslim in the United States is not automatically profiled, Clayton reminds him that millions of Muslims aren't Arab, making the action of racial profiling, ludicrous. Clayton believes the United States represents the good guys but Horn vociferously reminds him of their own terrorist activities. Every one is searching for the good while manifold persons are unwillingly sent to Heaven.

Horn's faith is the foundation of his being and he consistently reprimands religious hypocrites who forget God's authority. The same can be said for Clayton although his devotion is not as strict. They both seek the same ends, both tailoring their pursuits with ethical designs, one forced to live the harsh realities of his political allegiances, the other living within the political imagination of his faith. In the end, the African American leaves law enforcement behind and chooses to serve God at the local level, having realized that both national militaries and terrorist organizations exploit their soldier's faith for their own economic gain. The American of European descent continues to pursue his dreams, believing he is making a difference. Omar cannot accept his exploitation, and Horn must watch as his friend dies.

Nachmanoff melodramatically and coercively uses the relationship established between Horn and Clayton to suggest that peace can be achieved if one resigns themselves to democratic ideals, while simultaneously demonstrating the contradictory barriers standing in their way. On the one hand, terrorist activity seems futile insofar as governmental agencies possess records of everything you've ever done (and employ people capable of theorizing every thing you will likely ever do), on the other, those same agencies set up terrorist acts in order to place their spies in a position wherein they are capable of arresting individuals responsible for terrorist acts (whom they cannot locate). Within this matrix, the political manifestations of ethical ambitions intermingle and coalesce, highlighting the importance of acting locally, while stating that such positions cannot be postured without first having traveled the globe.

As a suspense film, Traitor suffers in its pacing, and never leaves its audience fearfully gripping the edge of their seats. At first I thought this was Nachmanoff's stylistic slip-up, but, upon further reflection, it seems that if one is to take the suspenseful content out of a political aesthetic, then creating a film full of suspenseful content which lacks a suspenseful form, serves to destabilize the prominent subliminal formal layer of many patriotic films (Mongol for instance), and broadcasts, and suggests that national politics would be much more patriotic if they could simply stop being so dramatic.

It's a hollywood film working within the sensationalistic terrorist tradition established by the Bush Administration which manages to overtly and covertly destabilize their paranoid cultural ethos, thereby working within the diluted frame it has inherited, to reinvigorate it's democratic commitment.

Live Free or Die Hard

I remember watching the first Die Hard flick as a child and instantly becoming addicted. It rivals Robocop and the Terminator for best action film and continues to deliver a strong mix of solid pounding timeless one liners and thrilling death defying situations to this day. I was slightly distraught after hearing that the fourth installment in the Die Hard series was being released since the fourth installment in a franchise is often a slipshod affair, thrown together to make a quick and careless buck at the expense of its loyal fans (Hellraiser: Bloodline, Star Trek IV, and Alien Resurrection stand as exceptions). But after viewing Live Free or Die Hard, I sit content, happy in the knowledge that director Len Wiseman (Underworld) and screenwriter Mark Bomback (The Night Caller) crafted an entertaining film that has me hoping that one day we may be fortunate enough to see Die Hard 5: I Just Want Another Cigarette.

The fourth installment in a series is often free to discover a completely new situation for its characters, one that strays from the narrative threads that closely linked the first three films/novels/texts (God Emperor of Dune for instance). Live Free or Die Hard recognizes this potential and delivers a fresh situation full of politically relevant commentary, intriguing new characters, and delicate action sequences etched on rationally chaotic backdrops. It’s another acute adventure for street wise John McClane of the NYPD. And fortunately Bruce Willis delivers the goods, discovering that crisp, charming character he's crafted for years (to which he adds a fatherly nuance that can only be described as abrasively benign).

In 1988, not possessing an intricate knowledge of computers and the internet didn't stop John McClane from outwitting Hans Gruber, but in 2007, McClane's technological illiteracy leaves him handicapped. Fortunately, hacker Matt Farrell (Justin Long) tags along, providing McClane with the cyber-related-know-how he needs to save the world from brilliant computer programmer Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant). Gabriel has launched a Fire Sale attack on the United States which proceeds in three stages: eliminating the structures that facilitate a nation's transportation, erasing the nation’s financial records, and disengaging its utilities. The dynamic established between Willis and Long is cohesive enough to overcome Olyphant's solid but one-dimensional villainy, and their witty dialogues quaintly yet corrosively accentuates their generational and psychological fissures.

The message of the Die Hard films seem to be that life is rough and things often don't work out the way you won't them to, but, nevertheless, when you find yourself confronted with such realities, you've still gotta, what’s the phrase, keep on keeping on?

Note that the relationship between McClane and grown daughter Lucy McClane (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) provides Live Free or Die Hard with the same familial punch that gave the first two films their endearing touch, and there's a subtle reference to FBI agents Johnson and Johnson from the original. And McClane can now fly a helicopter.

Not bad.

Imagery in Paradise Now

Okay, quickly here, some thoughts on the imagery from Paradise Now. The first scene that really struck me takes place when Suha (Lubna Azabal) and Khaled (Ali Suliman) are driving around in search of Said (Kais Nashef). The two of them have a debate regarding their alternate approaches to solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, Khaled seeing definite acts of violence and their attendant effects as the best way of achieving peace, Suha recommending peaceful politico-intellectual methods, i.e., debates and passive protests, as a more effective means of achieving mutually satisfactory ends, or at least a framework within which the possibility for achieving mutually satisfactory ends can be created. In this instance, Khaled can be thought of as employing a line of argumentation that believes equality will never be provided to subjugated people because their rulers seek assimilation or elimination rather than a community where both cultures can exist peacefully side by side. Hence, because dreaming of a peaceful political solution is naive and 'unrealistic,' we should strap a bomb to our chest and blow up the enemy so that afterwards angels can bring us to Heaven, which isn't so irrational when you consider the pervasive influence of religious fanaticism within a culture that uses such guidelines in order to create their rational and logical political and cultural methodologies (in a similar fashion to the ways in which the community within Rob Hardy's The Wicker Man functions). Even though the posture is also representative of lunacy.

Alternatively, you can form peaceful think-tanks that protest injustice effectively through hunger strikes, appeals to international tribunals, agreements to work with rather than for the oppressor in order to form a peaceful solution; a method that requires an extremely high degree of patience. Complex issues to be sure. It can be difficult for men to adopt the feminine point of view, especially within a culture firmly rooted in patriarchal rhetoric, for they are supposed to enter the 'world' and make a living in order to support their family. Their needs are immediate, tangible, and frightening, especially in a situation where a huge amount of impoverished aggression is attempting to compete with itself in order to forge a successful and long-lasting place within its culture (which is all the more staggering after you have found such a place and then have it destroyed by the Israeli army in retaliation for a suicide bombing from one of your counterparts, who wasn't as fortunate as you, ran out of patience, and sacrificed himself for his culture. Simultaneously, women can easily adopt the patient route if they are members of a society which does not provide their gender with any means through which they can form a substantial and influential political voice. Hence, they must remain patient, actually creating the resolve that traditionally minded men claim to have naturally, insofar as the strength and courage such women require in order to remain resolute in a situation where many of them are viewed as idiotic baby machines is of a much higher quality than that which simply engages in acts of violence (what is harder, to perennially fight with a boorish husband in order to have your peaceful, intelligent feminine point of view recognized and institutionalized so that its insurmountable strength can have the same kind of sophisticated cultural evaluation that surrounds its masculine counterpart, thereby forcing said masculine counterpart to recognize that what it claims to be its natural monopoly on wisdom is the product of an unjust patriarchal system that brutally castigates feminine methods of expression, or to blow yourself up in the name of God? What requires a more substantial variety of courage?). Even as Said and Suha race down the road searching for Khaled Said informs Suha that if she wasn't the daughter of a prominent Palestinian icon, he would likely be providing her with quite the beating, precisely because her points logically and rationally contradict his own (the point which contradicts the stereotype must be struck down by those who gain strength through its continuing affluence; by striking it down, the aggressor hopes that the physical examples that intelligently demonstrate its fallacious qualities will learn to remain silent: the basic and ugly formula for institutional bigotry). As Said and Suha travel down the road, an oncoming truck nearly strikes them as they accidentally swerve into the opposite lane. By including this scene, I think Abu-Assan is pointing out the fact that the debate held between these opposing ideologies is extremely complex, with no simple solutions. If, while having a debate, you crack the lens through which you usually view the world and from which you find guidance in order to live your life, it is possible for the terrifying force of the Real to manifest itself and quickly run you off the road. So pay attention to your principles while engaging in intellectual debates. The image of the oncoming truck contains more metaphorical weight as well, insofar as it also physically represents the force that Suha's reason has upon Said’s established identity, due to the fact that her wisdom breaks down part of his imperial conditioning, and opens up his mind to an alternate philosophy regarding existence.

Khaled experiences quite the shock, and near the film’s ending we see him in tears after he decides to no longer be a suicide bomber, while Said continues to refuse to listen. In the end, we see Said seated on a bus surrounded by Israeli soldiers. Earlier on in the film, Said was unable to enter and destroy a bus due to the fact that he sees an Israeli boy playing upon it. Because Said is surrounded by soldiers, we are lead to believe that he now has a legitimate target to attack. But we never see Said detonate the bomb, instead the screen turns white, representing either the consequences of an explosion, or the enlightenment gained by realizing that alternative methods of political expression exist. The light quickly fades to darkness, highlighting the fact that "this world is dark and this floating world is a dream" (Kurasawa's Hidden Fortress). No matter what decision is made or what ideology you accept, the outcome is in need of tenacious support, and whether that tenacity is manifested peacefully or aggressively is up to you, as is the decision you make regarding Said's final (in?)/action. I believe in Ghandi, and Suha, and that Said returned home to live with his family and perhaps raise one of his own, members of which helped disarm Palestine and Israel in order to create an egalitarian society, where aggressive tendencies are saved for paintball, and the world works together for the mutual benefit of all.

Note the subtle ways in which Abu-Assan highlights the beauty within Palestine throughout, whether it’s a romantic encounter between Said and Suha in the middle of the night, or the bounty of the tree growing within Said's house, supplying his family with fruit.

One more thing: Said's personality is dealing with the historical fact that his father was a collaborator and therefore insulted his families honour. Hence, he fights daily with his father's memory, trying to understand why he worked with the Israelis, wondering about things like honour and militant acts of justice.