The failures of the previous season continues into this season, with a Doctor who has been reduced to a driver of some magic school bus and companions that seem more like tourists then fully developed characters with impact. The episode also starts with a giant plot-hole so dumb its an insult to the intelligence of the audience. When they re-introduce the companions, remember that the Doctor has a time machine. You will see what I mean. Do these writers understand even the bare basics of writing a story involving time travel? Production value is decent, which only makes it more frustrating the writing is so terrible. Thus, if you were a fan of Doctor Who and don't enjoy episodic disappointments, you'd be better off considering this series as already concluded. Because this now feels like a lazy knock-off.
Reviews
10 Reviews
22 July
(2018)
Too long with strangely little impact
14 October 2018
Very poorly prioritized pacing hurrying through the actual attack in less then 30 minutes, thus missing out on several key aspects making it very surface level and uninspired. The acting is mostly poor, probably because the Norwegian actors were speaking English with sometimes very heavy accents, which unfortunately came off anything but natural. So even though facial expressions were usually on point, what was said almost always sounded as if read from script. Thereby rendering scenes that should have been gut wrenching seem rather silly or stale instead.
The use of handheld camera only served to cheapen the experience, almost making it look like some sort of soap opera. Most of the film is basically hospital and courtroom drama, which could be fair enough except its way too long. It seems to me most of the positive reviews are motivated more by politics then the quality of work on display here. Either that, or they have mistaken this film with Erik Poppe's Utøya 22.juli, which with a full hour shorter runtime leaves much more of an impression.
Almost impressive how they've managed to make this subject matter seem flat and boring, with several strangely failed attempts at being impactful. You almost forget this is based on something that really happened, as you sit there waiting for the film to end. Not recommended.
The use of handheld camera only served to cheapen the experience, almost making it look like some sort of soap opera. Most of the film is basically hospital and courtroom drama, which could be fair enough except its way too long. It seems to me most of the positive reviews are motivated more by politics then the quality of work on display here. Either that, or they have mistaken this film with Erik Poppe's Utøya 22.juli, which with a full hour shorter runtime leaves much more of an impression.
Almost impressive how they've managed to make this subject matter seem flat and boring, with several strangely failed attempts at being impactful. You almost forget this is based on something that really happened, as you sit there waiting for the film to end. Not recommended.
The Mask You Live In
(2015)
Hatefulness dressed up as concern.
7 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Incredibly condescending, misleading and even the core premise is entirely false. The term "be a man" does not refer to not being a woman, as these documentary makers just asserts. This is an entirely constructed dichotomy they've invented in order to justify the pathologicalization of male identity that constitutes this entire film. Being a man is as opposed to being a child. Has nothing to do with femininity. It refers to behaving like an adult, accepting responsibility, not throwing emotional fits, dealing with problems instead of just complaining etc. These filmmakers try to assert the term leads to emotional trauma in boys, because it supposedly disallows femininity. This piece of nonsense put to film even tries to suggest that masculinity is unnatural, while femininity is the gold standard to which boys should strive. They even go so far as suggesting all the worlds ills are due to masculinity, which is both extremely narrow minded and reeks of feminist fanaticism. They correctly identify problems like broken homes and bullying as emotional tolls on boys, but then they pretty much blame the boys for their own emotional suffering. Apparently because they are not dealing with emotional stress the way girls do, which allegedly is the magic solution to everything.
These ideologues evidently subscribe to the scientifically thoroughly debunked idea of gender as a social construct, and thereby the boys woes are due to their blank pages being filled with the wrong programming. There is so much this documentary could have tackled, but instead its a mess of politically charged preaching of feminist rhetoric. Faking a concern for the well being of boys in order to demonize masculine behaviors as a sickness in need of a cure. No words describing positive attributes typically associated with masculinity are ever mentioned, and this narrow focus on negative traits most of which aren't even gendered, shows how this film indeed comes from a place of gender supremacy. This misandric psychobabble spares no sophistry to posit masculinity as an overarching problem. Obviously they flat out ignore the common acceptance of female on male violence, because that would ruin their shallow narrative. Of course they will not tackle violent mothers, despite this being the most common violence children experience at home. Girls favoritism influencing boys behavior is apparently not a thing. Never mind that, as these boys are merely not being human correctly.
This is just another piece of propaganda doing nothing to challenge preconceived notions or explore unknown territory. It only exist to further strengthen the prejudices its obsessive creators deem righteous, no more challenging to the mind then flatulence. If what this film proclaims had any root in reality as opposed to radical feminist mythology and an extreme form of confirmation bias, then a hypothetical society without men would necessarily be a utopia. So unless you are a true believing feminist disciple lacking independent critical thought, you will find this film infuriatingly ignorant in its disingenuous approach to a serious topic. In fewer words this film can be described as hatefulness dressed up as concern. Truly sickening.
P.S.: Other reviewers seem to suffer from the misapprehension that giving this film a bad review somehow proves something about the reviewer. These are mere typical feminist shaming tactics and it is quite remarkable to observe how predictably and mindlessly these are still employed. You should apparently just listen and believe without question, because scrutiny and skepticism are the biggest enemies of dogma. This is an acceptable ideal only if you are a mindless follower. Think about that.
These ideologues evidently subscribe to the scientifically thoroughly debunked idea of gender as a social construct, and thereby the boys woes are due to their blank pages being filled with the wrong programming. There is so much this documentary could have tackled, but instead its a mess of politically charged preaching of feminist rhetoric. Faking a concern for the well being of boys in order to demonize masculine behaviors as a sickness in need of a cure. No words describing positive attributes typically associated with masculinity are ever mentioned, and this narrow focus on negative traits most of which aren't even gendered, shows how this film indeed comes from a place of gender supremacy. This misandric psychobabble spares no sophistry to posit masculinity as an overarching problem. Obviously they flat out ignore the common acceptance of female on male violence, because that would ruin their shallow narrative. Of course they will not tackle violent mothers, despite this being the most common violence children experience at home. Girls favoritism influencing boys behavior is apparently not a thing. Never mind that, as these boys are merely not being human correctly.
This is just another piece of propaganda doing nothing to challenge preconceived notions or explore unknown territory. It only exist to further strengthen the prejudices its obsessive creators deem righteous, no more challenging to the mind then flatulence. If what this film proclaims had any root in reality as opposed to radical feminist mythology and an extreme form of confirmation bias, then a hypothetical society without men would necessarily be a utopia. So unless you are a true believing feminist disciple lacking independent critical thought, you will find this film infuriatingly ignorant in its disingenuous approach to a serious topic. In fewer words this film can be described as hatefulness dressed up as concern. Truly sickening.
P.S.: Other reviewers seem to suffer from the misapprehension that giving this film a bad review somehow proves something about the reviewer. These are mere typical feminist shaming tactics and it is quite remarkable to observe how predictably and mindlessly these are still employed. You should apparently just listen and believe without question, because scrutiny and skepticism are the biggest enemies of dogma. This is an acceptable ideal only if you are a mindless follower. Think about that.
Hearts in Atlantis
(2001)
Capturing tale with much depth.
16 December 2007
An unusual gem among the common filter of American Hollywood films, that contains all the necessary substance to keep you fascinated. Most of all this film gives you a deep and personal relationship to all the characters involved, who come alive till the point you forget you watch a film. It's been a while since I last experienced this while watching a film so the talent on display here was extraordinary. The story itself so well written it sneaks up upon you and grabs you, pulling you in when you least expect it. I must admit that I haven't read the book, but I feel now I really should do so.
The subject matter this vividly told story touches are fascinating on so many levels. Almost so this seems like an historical interpretation of the sense of unease during the time of the cold war. It also deals with prejudice, sexuality identity, fear and aggression, social norms and last but not by the slightest least love.
The screenplay, mise en scéne, editing, music and direction are also to be commended, not to mention the acting performances. I never really cared so much for Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector, though he does his role beautifully. I also get mighty impressed when I see kids that can act, which Anton Yelchin and Mikaela Boorem certainly proved they can. Hope Davis too manages to make her character come alive in a way I seldom see in recent Hollywood hotshots. Overall this film has enjoyed very good casting.
The only complaint I might have, is that the epilogue was a bit out of place. I personally find it somewhat condescending when a film "explains" to me what I've just seen, but after all this was only the last couple of minutes of the film. Makes you wonder if that just might have been a producer decision. So almost top marks from me to Hearts in Atlantis.
9/10
The subject matter this vividly told story touches are fascinating on so many levels. Almost so this seems like an historical interpretation of the sense of unease during the time of the cold war. It also deals with prejudice, sexuality identity, fear and aggression, social norms and last but not by the slightest least love.
The screenplay, mise en scéne, editing, music and direction are also to be commended, not to mention the acting performances. I never really cared so much for Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector, though he does his role beautifully. I also get mighty impressed when I see kids that can act, which Anton Yelchin and Mikaela Boorem certainly proved they can. Hope Davis too manages to make her character come alive in a way I seldom see in recent Hollywood hotshots. Overall this film has enjoyed very good casting.
The only complaint I might have, is that the epilogue was a bit out of place. I personally find it somewhat condescending when a film "explains" to me what I've just seen, but after all this was only the last couple of minutes of the film. Makes you wonder if that just might have been a producer decision. So almost top marks from me to Hearts in Atlantis.
9/10
The Great Global Warming Swindle
(2007 TV Movie)
Convincing documentary if only it had any root in reality.
16 May 2007
Never mind the fact that the perspective of this documentary is slanted harshly to the right, condemning the left, the environmentalist movement and people critical of unrestrained capitalism. Never mind the inflammatory claims put forwards about the scientific community along with the environmental movement being beyond reason. Even never mind this outrageous claim that the global warming issue is stifling the development in developing nations.
When it comes down to fact this documentary have manufactured its own. The writer/producer/director of this documentary (Durkin) excused himself with the following statement, when confronted with the fact that he had used outdated data of questionable validity in his graphs: "The original NASA data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find". When some concerned scientists contacted him about validity of some of the statement in this documentary, Durkin simply told them to go *beep* themselves. He even stated "Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making." If that wasn't enough, contributors to this documentary claim to have been misrepresented, and that false assertions with no scientific validity had been made through their words taken out of context. Any of the key arguments vigorously assured in this documentary, were all rooted in falsehoods that are easily refuted by simply fact checking the basic premise of the argument.
However impressive the animations and visualizations in this documentary, it doesn't help the fact that what they describe is plain untrue. Not on the basis that it shows merely one opinion without even a remote attempt at scrutiny, but on the basis that the assertions presented are either false or insignificant to the issue.
A subjective perspective in a documentary is not a problem as long as opinion is inserted where there is room for opinion, and not as in this documentary where the covered perspectives are in harsh contradiction to fact.
When it comes down to fact this documentary have manufactured its own. The writer/producer/director of this documentary (Durkin) excused himself with the following statement, when confronted with the fact that he had used outdated data of questionable validity in his graphs: "The original NASA data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find". When some concerned scientists contacted him about validity of some of the statement in this documentary, Durkin simply told them to go *beep* themselves. He even stated "Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making." If that wasn't enough, contributors to this documentary claim to have been misrepresented, and that false assertions with no scientific validity had been made through their words taken out of context. Any of the key arguments vigorously assured in this documentary, were all rooted in falsehoods that are easily refuted by simply fact checking the basic premise of the argument.
However impressive the animations and visualizations in this documentary, it doesn't help the fact that what they describe is plain untrue. Not on the basis that it shows merely one opinion without even a remote attempt at scrutiny, but on the basis that the assertions presented are either false or insignificant to the issue.
A subjective perspective in a documentary is not a problem as long as opinion is inserted where there is room for opinion, and not as in this documentary where the covered perspectives are in harsh contradiction to fact.
Grotesquely beautiful.
10 March 2007
When I sat down to watch this film, it had gone quite a few years since I've read the book. I didn't expect much as everyone aught to know the book is always better. At least I had not yet experienced a film successfully capturing the feel of a book, when attempting to translate it into an audiovisual format. That was until I saw this film, which has rendered the book with such immense scrutiny I could almost hear the wording even when not spoken. It felt like everything essential was captured, from the sadistic humour that bubbles right under the surface throughout the storyline, to the sense of being drawn towards rooting for the villain.
I'm usually against the use of voice-over narration in film, as in my perception this is often used as a substitute for utilizing the storyteller techniques of the film medium. However in this film I feel confident that the means to negotiating text into images was executed so artfully there was no other way to sufficiently set the tone. There is also a strong storyteller presence in the book which further defends its use in this film.
How successful the film experience was for those who have no previous knowledge of the book, is another issue where unfortunately this film fails to a certain degree. Even though the film goes to great length in being true to detail, much of what makes us who have read the book nod and smile knowingly also makes others who doesn't know the book scratch their heads. Arguably that is reason to watch the film again while paying more attention, though in my experience most people denounce the film before giving it another chance.
While certain parts of the film might be a bit unclear for those who haven't read the book, the film does the complete opposite mistake towards the end. It ends up over explaining what we are witnessing to a degree it is almost a little patronizing, not to mention a bit drawn in regard to storyline progress. Some might hate me for saying this, but I see about 5 minutes towards the climax that could have been snipped out without affecting the credibility of the story, while maintaining the pace of the dramaturgy. Though, that being said, the way the ending is put together is yet again brilliant and suits the book to a tee.
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer is a film definitely worth watching, either if you have or have not read the book. Since you have read this far, I'm sure you are curious what sort of experience this film has to offer. The tag line is focusing way too much on the plot, while it's the atmosphere you will remember. I can not think of a better way to describe this film then - grotesquely beautiful.
I'm usually against the use of voice-over narration in film, as in my perception this is often used as a substitute for utilizing the storyteller techniques of the film medium. However in this film I feel confident that the means to negotiating text into images was executed so artfully there was no other way to sufficiently set the tone. There is also a strong storyteller presence in the book which further defends its use in this film.
How successful the film experience was for those who have no previous knowledge of the book, is another issue where unfortunately this film fails to a certain degree. Even though the film goes to great length in being true to detail, much of what makes us who have read the book nod and smile knowingly also makes others who doesn't know the book scratch their heads. Arguably that is reason to watch the film again while paying more attention, though in my experience most people denounce the film before giving it another chance.
While certain parts of the film might be a bit unclear for those who haven't read the book, the film does the complete opposite mistake towards the end. It ends up over explaining what we are witnessing to a degree it is almost a little patronizing, not to mention a bit drawn in regard to storyline progress. Some might hate me for saying this, but I see about 5 minutes towards the climax that could have been snipped out without affecting the credibility of the story, while maintaining the pace of the dramaturgy. Though, that being said, the way the ending is put together is yet again brilliant and suits the book to a tee.
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer is a film definitely worth watching, either if you have or have not read the book. Since you have read this far, I'm sure you are curious what sort of experience this film has to offer. The tag line is focusing way too much on the plot, while it's the atmosphere you will remember. I can not think of a better way to describe this film then - grotesquely beautiful.
National Geographic: Inside 9/11
(2004– )
Well edited, but very lacking in scope..
22 December 2006
I sat down to watch this documentary with an open mind, but after about 20 minutes I realised that this wasn't truly an exploration of the subject in depth. The language was highly coloured with obvious intentions to lead the audience to a conclusion very lacking in nuance. Whenever there were said anything about for example American support of the Afghan rebels, it was highly toned down and reduced to a matter of weapons supply. The complexity of the subject was very badly handled, and the documentary is presenting a very one sided Eurocentric pro American view. For example the documentary does not explore the motivation behind the horrendous act of terrorism on 9/11, but are more intent on labelling the Muslims as the problem. The reasoning is reduced to a share wish to commit harm on anything none Muslim without any other rational then the religion itself. This is very much in tune with the rather simplistic notion the Bush administration propound on the subject, of this being about them hating western freedom rather then a revolt against western involvement in Muslim nations.
One also does get a very limited understanding of the Muslim world, which easily can lead the audience to think Muslim equals terrorist. That imams around the world announced fatwa against terrorist activity wasn't even discussed, leaving us to believe the problem is the Muslim religion rather then extremist factions who uses the religion to fuel intolerance towards everything western. These factions consider this religious warfare, but it is not thereby said that all Muslims subscribe to this idea. That there might be a spreading distrust to the west among Muslims does not imply that large portions of the Muslim population are denunciatory to commit terrorist acts in the name of Allah. By conveniently choosing to limit the scope of the subject to a simple evil vs. good, the documentary ends up as more of a proponent of a rather oversimplified perception then a source for enlightenment. I can easily see this documentary fuelling hatred towards Muslims rather then providing greater knowledge about how and why 9/11 happened.
If you wish to believe that 9/11 happened just because of evil people, who committed evil deed merely because they are evil by nature, then this documentary will be a pleasant watch for you. Though, if you want a more in depth understanding of how these extreme ideologies leading to terrorism works, this documentary will be a rather frustrating watch. I can understand how slogan driven American neoconservatives might love this film, but it is by far a well researched piece and one might easily suspect it for strategically ignoring anything that might reflect badly on America. I got the impression the documentary was attempting to establish the Muslim world as the new Soviet threat to American liberty, and thereby being more of a piece of political propaganda then a source of enlightenment.
The only reason I give the documentary 3 stars is because it is well edited and structured despite the lack in content and scope.
One also does get a very limited understanding of the Muslim world, which easily can lead the audience to think Muslim equals terrorist. That imams around the world announced fatwa against terrorist activity wasn't even discussed, leaving us to believe the problem is the Muslim religion rather then extremist factions who uses the religion to fuel intolerance towards everything western. These factions consider this religious warfare, but it is not thereby said that all Muslims subscribe to this idea. That there might be a spreading distrust to the west among Muslims does not imply that large portions of the Muslim population are denunciatory to commit terrorist acts in the name of Allah. By conveniently choosing to limit the scope of the subject to a simple evil vs. good, the documentary ends up as more of a proponent of a rather oversimplified perception then a source for enlightenment. I can easily see this documentary fuelling hatred towards Muslims rather then providing greater knowledge about how and why 9/11 happened.
If you wish to believe that 9/11 happened just because of evil people, who committed evil deed merely because they are evil by nature, then this documentary will be a pleasant watch for you. Though, if you want a more in depth understanding of how these extreme ideologies leading to terrorism works, this documentary will be a rather frustrating watch. I can understand how slogan driven American neoconservatives might love this film, but it is by far a well researched piece and one might easily suspect it for strategically ignoring anything that might reflect badly on America. I got the impression the documentary was attempting to establish the Muslim world as the new Soviet threat to American liberty, and thereby being more of a piece of political propaganda then a source of enlightenment.
The only reason I give the documentary 3 stars is because it is well edited and structured despite the lack in content and scope.
Bend It Like Beckham
(2002)
An interesting and amusing approach to cultural conflict.
27 September 2005
When I sat down to watch this film I actually expected quite a bit, as the plot takes on quite complex issues. Using football as launching pad for the complication also was an interesting approach. Still unfortunately, despite its bravery of dealing with controversial issues as culture clashes between Muslim and western culture, adding generation conflicts and prejudice towards gays/lesbians, it lets you down towards the resolution with a rather simplistic relief to all the suspense built up throughout the film. This leads me to the impression that the makers took on a little too big a task for themselves to tackle, attempting to be more profound then they managed to deal with.
However, this does not mean that the film is directly bad, as it's rendering of the conflicts where quite believable and also amusing. The film succeeds in being engaging and entertaining in this matter, but as mentioned above the writers seem to have spun themselves a little too deep. This has led to some quite unrealistic character behaviour towards the end to confront the surging conflicts. By this dropping the ball at a time where the makers could really have shown brilliance taking the film to another level of appreciation.
Even if the film does at no point really attempt to be a profound piece of drama, the setting has so much potential in the plot it becomes a disappointment when "the ball drops". This way the film moves from being a good and reflected comedy to a standard cliché that becomes ridiculous in its happy-ending. Nothing is left out in the Hollywood like ending. So even if the story is engaging and one can stomach the large amount of montages, one can't help but roll eyes towards the resolution. Personally I was close to shouting "finish already!!" at the screen.
There were some decent acting in the film, and the two young female central characters had some good moments. So did their parents and other bi-characters. However the handsome Irish coach was an embarrassing piece of acting, that lets the film down quite a bit in terms of realism. He didn't even appear very likable, but rather self involved despite his good deeds, which makes the impending conflict between the girls seem a little strained.
I give the film a 4, as it was an engaging story and they sought out a nice perspective to approach the subject from. The script and cast had many good believable characters, giving the audience a chance to recognise either themselves or others. Had the let-downs not been this disappointing, I'd easily give the film a 7 or 8. If you enjoyed this film, I'd recommend the film "East is East", which I think is an as good, if not better rendering of cultural conflict, as well as being amusing and engaging.
However, this does not mean that the film is directly bad, as it's rendering of the conflicts where quite believable and also amusing. The film succeeds in being engaging and entertaining in this matter, but as mentioned above the writers seem to have spun themselves a little too deep. This has led to some quite unrealistic character behaviour towards the end to confront the surging conflicts. By this dropping the ball at a time where the makers could really have shown brilliance taking the film to another level of appreciation.
Even if the film does at no point really attempt to be a profound piece of drama, the setting has so much potential in the plot it becomes a disappointment when "the ball drops". This way the film moves from being a good and reflected comedy to a standard cliché that becomes ridiculous in its happy-ending. Nothing is left out in the Hollywood like ending. So even if the story is engaging and one can stomach the large amount of montages, one can't help but roll eyes towards the resolution. Personally I was close to shouting "finish already!!" at the screen.
There were some decent acting in the film, and the two young female central characters had some good moments. So did their parents and other bi-characters. However the handsome Irish coach was an embarrassing piece of acting, that lets the film down quite a bit in terms of realism. He didn't even appear very likable, but rather self involved despite his good deeds, which makes the impending conflict between the girls seem a little strained.
I give the film a 4, as it was an engaging story and they sought out a nice perspective to approach the subject from. The script and cast had many good believable characters, giving the audience a chance to recognise either themselves or others. Had the let-downs not been this disappointing, I'd easily give the film a 7 or 8. If you enjoyed this film, I'd recommend the film "East is East", which I think is an as good, if not better rendering of cultural conflict, as well as being amusing and engaging.
Darkness
(2002)
What a shame!
24 December 2004
The film certainly had potential, but somewhere along the lines it just ended up borrowing too much from other horror classics. The basic ideas in the film is all good; the occult symbols, three old ladies that indeed looks scary, seven dead kids in a ritual circle, the house built like a temple and disguised as a family house and the darkness coming alive. But somewhere the creativity must have ran short, because most of the other aspects is far too familiar; a dad going mad and acting like a threat to the family, ghost kids standing in hallways and rooms and disappearing as soon as the characters turn to look, weird phone calls from somebody saying "We're watching you", handprints of strange kids around the house, somebody on the outside knowing more then he dears to tell and ends up as a target for "the evil" when he tries to help out, the "bad guy" telling all in a monologue when "the moment has arrived" (I always wonder what the motivation for that is).
We end up predicting everything that is going to happen, just because of this shameless borrowing. The only thing I didn't predict was the irrational action by one of the central characters. The sister in the family suddenly wants to stay alone in the house she had learned so much scary about to do something "important". This seems just too strange a behavior for a character that seems rational enough in the rest of the film. One can't help but think that the writer just had to do this to reveal some important aspects to the jigsaw puzzle, though this does not excuse it. But hang on - the only thing revealed was the symbol that easily could have been planted somewhere earlier, to avoid this irrationality of one of the central characters. This is simply weak scriptwriting, nothing else.
I really liked the way everything got warped when the "dimensions" collided and the darkness took over towards the end of the film. Reminded me of Silent Hill(the game). Personally I think the film would have been much more interesting if the darkness took over much earlier, and most of the film acted out in this warped dimension. Though, that would kind of be "Silent Hill - the movie".
I can't help but feel the scriptwriter should have taken this idea and put it on the shelf for a couple of months, before continuing to write when new fresh ideas started forming. Now it seems like it has been hurried, and pressure was put on the scriptwriter to finish, ending up with lots of not so unique ideas being (re)used. This could easily have become a new chilling horror classic, but it was not given the chance to mature properly before it was executed. It doesn't help to have good actors, perfect mice an scene, decent screenplay and editing and a good soundtrack, when the script is so weak. What a shame indeed.
We end up predicting everything that is going to happen, just because of this shameless borrowing. The only thing I didn't predict was the irrational action by one of the central characters. The sister in the family suddenly wants to stay alone in the house she had learned so much scary about to do something "important". This seems just too strange a behavior for a character that seems rational enough in the rest of the film. One can't help but think that the writer just had to do this to reveal some important aspects to the jigsaw puzzle, though this does not excuse it. But hang on - the only thing revealed was the symbol that easily could have been planted somewhere earlier, to avoid this irrationality of one of the central characters. This is simply weak scriptwriting, nothing else.
I really liked the way everything got warped when the "dimensions" collided and the darkness took over towards the end of the film. Reminded me of Silent Hill(the game). Personally I think the film would have been much more interesting if the darkness took over much earlier, and most of the film acted out in this warped dimension. Though, that would kind of be "Silent Hill - the movie".
I can't help but feel the scriptwriter should have taken this idea and put it on the shelf for a couple of months, before continuing to write when new fresh ideas started forming. Now it seems like it has been hurried, and pressure was put on the scriptwriter to finish, ending up with lots of not so unique ideas being (re)used. This could easily have become a new chilling horror classic, but it was not given the chance to mature properly before it was executed. It doesn't help to have good actors, perfect mice an scene, decent screenplay and editing and a good soundtrack, when the script is so weak. What a shame indeed.
An important documentary, raising issues with the American media questioned by media analysts for years.
17 December 2004
I remember the first time I was confronted with Fox News, and their "news" content. At the time I was studying media in England and had read quite a bit about Rupert Murdoch's impact on global media, and how he was believed to have been boasting Thatcher and Thatcherism in the UK tabloid press when she was prime minister. As well as part of my studies we had been covering the subject of objectivity in news, and how this in actual fact is an impossibility considering that any process of selection will result in some degree of subjectivity. This does not necessarily mean the news journalists will be lying to promote their own opinions, but the process of selecting what to put emphasis on will easily result in supporting one ideology over another. As coming media journalists we were made aware of the subjectivity involved in everything down to the selection of which images to show and which not to when in the editing suites. Credible news journalists will necessarily have to be their own watchdogs, and be aware of his/her own perspective and thereby able to stop him/herself if portraying something inaccurately to boast the impact of the news story.
The first time I had a look at Fox News was soon after the 9/11 attacks. The terrible events of this day was very much featured in all the world media, and I was following the coverage from various media institutions studying the way they all approached the subject. It was very interesting to see how every channel reported the news in a slightly different way depending on the supposed ideology of the target audience. I even found variations according to time of day and day of the week. Naturally I was curious how the American media was covering this as well.
When confronted with Bill O'Reilly for the first time, I was simply wondering if this would be the last day of work for this guy, as he was throwing all of the responsibility one has as a news broadcaster out the window. Within only an hour of watching Fox News I had numerous notes on big "no no's" being performed right in front of me. If there was only one glitch, I would have been less shocked, being confident that the person responsible would be called into the producer's office for a serious talk. However, the charade just continued on and on, and I was shaking my head in despair wondering if ANYONE would actually take this as news. None on this network seemed to even attempt not to blurt out subjective comments, and covering all aspects of the conflicts seemed to be something none of these "journalists" was even considering.
Even though all news I had been following had variations, Fox News stood out as the absolute extreme by far. I guess most of Europe and especially those who have gone into the subject studying media, has known about this for quite some time already. Therefore I believe Outfoxed is a very important film for America, shedding light on some very questionable developments in the commercial media over there. This is a documentary, which means it's arguing a point opposed to what news media is supposed to do. It builds on facts that have been apparent for years, so the argument put forwards does have a strong root in reality, however harsh the critique might be perceived.
One does almost get a feeling this is too bad to be true when watching Outfoxed, but as any media knower will point out American media and also Hollywood (producing films like Rambo) has for a long time been questioned in terms of attempting to lead their audience's opinion and obscure the perception of reality. I believe watching documentaries like Outfoxed results in big sighs of relief around the world, as it finally seems also America is realizing and focusing on these issues. Thumbs up to those who dared to make this documentary, and a pat on the back to those who has watched it and realizing the seriousness of the issues raised.
The first time I had a look at Fox News was soon after the 9/11 attacks. The terrible events of this day was very much featured in all the world media, and I was following the coverage from various media institutions studying the way they all approached the subject. It was very interesting to see how every channel reported the news in a slightly different way depending on the supposed ideology of the target audience. I even found variations according to time of day and day of the week. Naturally I was curious how the American media was covering this as well.
When confronted with Bill O'Reilly for the first time, I was simply wondering if this would be the last day of work for this guy, as he was throwing all of the responsibility one has as a news broadcaster out the window. Within only an hour of watching Fox News I had numerous notes on big "no no's" being performed right in front of me. If there was only one glitch, I would have been less shocked, being confident that the person responsible would be called into the producer's office for a serious talk. However, the charade just continued on and on, and I was shaking my head in despair wondering if ANYONE would actually take this as news. None on this network seemed to even attempt not to blurt out subjective comments, and covering all aspects of the conflicts seemed to be something none of these "journalists" was even considering.
Even though all news I had been following had variations, Fox News stood out as the absolute extreme by far. I guess most of Europe and especially those who have gone into the subject studying media, has known about this for quite some time already. Therefore I believe Outfoxed is a very important film for America, shedding light on some very questionable developments in the commercial media over there. This is a documentary, which means it's arguing a point opposed to what news media is supposed to do. It builds on facts that have been apparent for years, so the argument put forwards does have a strong root in reality, however harsh the critique might be perceived.
One does almost get a feeling this is too bad to be true when watching Outfoxed, but as any media knower will point out American media and also Hollywood (producing films like Rambo) has for a long time been questioned in terms of attempting to lead their audience's opinion and obscure the perception of reality. I believe watching documentaries like Outfoxed results in big sighs of relief around the world, as it finally seems also America is realizing and focusing on these issues. Thumbs up to those who dared to make this documentary, and a pat on the back to those who has watched it and realizing the seriousness of the issues raised.
Tell Your Friends