Brainstorm

So far, I've had trouble getting into virtual reality. Don't get me wrong, it's kind of cool, but as a substitute for the real thing, it disappoints. Perhaps the technology has significantly advanced in the last 15 years, I haven't checked it out for a long time. But way back when I was highly critical, criticism accepted, I could have have been more open.

I do like watching nature documentaries as a substitute for the real thing, since there are so many places around the world I'll never get to see. I know it's not the same thing, they're not meant to be holistically immersive, but since it's unlikely that I'll ever visit Indonesia or Vietnam 😢, I appreciate being able to watch related wildlife programming.

Brainstorm is some cool old-school sci-fi (1983) that takes an imaginary look at virtual reality, wherein which ingenious scientists actually create realistic virtual experiences.

At first, the genius is rewarded with scientific applause and technological accolades, but soon disreputable agencies seek to weaponize its potential.

It's classic innovative idealistic scientists confronting the corruption of their work, with Christopher Walken erupting in fury near the beginning of his outstanding career.

Fortunately, it predates internet hypotheses so it's still possible to hide the work. It's like they're trying to take out SkyNet before it has the ability to shift and mutate.

If you're fascinated by old school special effects or varying degrees of authentic realism, effects that were made without the total reliance on computers, effects relying on the creative manipulation of the dynamic production qualities of the time, and an erudite knowledge of electronics, Brainstorm's concluding moments are fun to watch, scientific artistry chaotically applied.

Directed by Douglas Trumball, who worked on the special effects for Blade Runner, 2001, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (it still has cool effects), it's nice to see a tech wiz at the helm, don't recall ever hearing of a similar transition.

I still feel like virtual reality is cheating when it comes to interpersonal experience, I still like talking to people and don't mind getting burned regularly for being honest.

Sometimes I'll ask a question that I know the answer to because I can't think of anything else to say, and then I'll be ridiculed for having asked the question, sigh, it's always the same old story.

Brainstorm isn't Inception but still makes a cool historical impact.

A pioneering look at this type of story.

When special effects were really starting to take off. 

Viking

Hypotheses deemed reasonable fluidly facilitate relational replication, as a team is readily assembled which closely matches one sent to Mars.

As the astronauts were being chosen they had to pass a psychological test, during which they could freely respond to a variety of random potentially standardized questions.

Due to the length of the voyage, mission control thought it might be prudent, to duplicate their isolated conditions and place hearty surrogates within similar circumstances.

These volunteers have to take the same psych-evaluations and should their responses match those from a trooper, they'll be given the chance to function as their facsimile on a secluded base back home.

Hence, as drama and challenge coherently test the bona fide in space, their echoes residing on Earth produce the same social situations and generate theories.

Should their Earthen bound drama produce results considered highly applicable, the astronauts themselves can follow their advice and adapt their strategies in focused concordance. 

But what should happen if things become boring or resolute tensions claustrophobically arise?

And are they the only active team, currently reimagining solar schematics?

Imagine NASA with a hundredth the budget still valiantly spearheading courageous initiatives, and as they attempt to recruit concrete fascination, wind up with aggrieved personality (so 21st century).

Thus the mission occasionally lacks prominence in the hearts and minds of the locked-down duplicates, and rather than concentrating on the historical import, nitpicking irregularities steadfastly taunt them (😌).

In terms of a dry lackadaisical critique of bureaucratic function and hands-on theory, Stéphane Lafleur's tremendous Viking industriously lampoons think tanks and committees. 

The results of their disputatious endeavours as preponderantly quizzical as they are performative, needless to say issues endemically complicate throughout the bewildered parallel missions.

Of course space travel and space bureaucracy spiritedly functioning on a shoe string budget, may encounter resonant difficulties as binding conclusions hatch and spawn.

As for the comedic expenditure, the genuine inanity etherealizes throughout, with a structured lack of determinate goals sincerely generating realistic implosion.

Much more clever than relying on a monster to suddenly instigate space shenanigans. 

Keeping the mission in mind.

Great companion for Babysitter.

Shadow (Ying)

Two dynasties rule a torrential realm yet one has sunk into subservience.

Its nobles protest their King's diplomatic digressions and seek to battle once more those who rationed their defeat.

But their commander has suffered a fearsome blow, and though he can no longer lead, his disciple remains fierce and willing.

A surrogate, a double, a shadow, a brother, found lost in the streets one day years ago, was taken in to become his shelter, should battle prove wanton and reckless.

This shadow effectively deceives far and wide, until he is ready to formidably challenge.

Aided instinctively by a proud weary court, he prepares for the fated day, his patrons having expediently conjured defence through the feminine, as has never been utilized or anticipated before.

Lithe dissonance expounding alarm.

Discreet novel exposure.

Bewitching in convex complement.

Yimou Zhang's Shadow (Ying) presents compelling tragedy.

Modest settings and stately composure give way to shocking excess, as strategic plans denote tactile wonder, and outcomes tax spry febrile throes.

It's like a play, multiple characters nuanced and referenced, august consequences sheathing reward, stark confines generating precepts, latent desire tempting envy.

If you think it lacks distinction or pressure or complaint or pulsation early on, invoke patience as it masterfully proceeds, a narrative rich in subtle intrigue, intricately concealing age old passion.

Bursting forth with beautiful song.

Spiralling in wavelike arrays.

Like a flexed symphonic whirlwind, it classically encircles sworn objectives, alighting loyalty, quest, and betrayal, as it presumes dynastic resonance.

Assurance is by no means decreed and trust consumes arrogant remonstrance.

Impossibility is wildly taunted, depression adroitly commandeered.

As if it never did stop raining.

And there was no other thought to consider.

Outstanding film.

Echoes of Kurosawa.

The Dark Tower

A monstrous evil, scurrilously preying on the gifts of the innocent, intent on unleashing a frenzy of chaos upon worlds existing within worlds, rigorously assaulting their towering quintessence, transporting between realms with exuberant malicious discontent to capture a child and exploit his powers thereby inaugurating bedlam's unconstrained malevolence, after he desperately escapes his minion's demonic clutches, landing in a western world thereafter wherein which hope still communally emancipates.

Like a University professor who tyrannically bends the wills of his or her grad students to her or his own, or a teacher conjured by a shrieking nightmarish Pink Floyd soundscape, the Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey) feverishly seeks young Jake (Tom Taylor), who fortunately manages to obtain aid through opposition (Idris Elba).

In the fantastic dominion of Mid-World.

By the light of a despondent Sun.

As crudely cavalier nauseous malcontents continue to flourish in Trump's grossly irresponsible political construct, The Dark Tower disseminates multilateral luminescence, illuminating paths upon which to sublimely tread, during the villainous nocturnal onslaught, and the promulgation of sheer stupidity.

While artists are abandoned within, violence is recreationally devoured, leaders remain isolated and drifting, and attacks wildly increase in ferocity, an undaunted team slowly assembles, afterwards casting utopian firmaments anew.

Not the best fantasy film I've seen this Summer (I'm wondering if that's why Spaghetti Week at the Magestic [or something like that] is advertised near the end [lol]), but still a cool entertaining traditional yet creative sci-fi western, even if I'm unsure how I would have reacted to it if I were 15, I certainly find it relevant enough these days to imagine that I would have loved it.

The magical power of rhetorical/literary/political/interdimensional/. . . metaphor gracefully comments and forecasts, providing young and aged minds alike with plenty of rationales to reify, while still bluntly emphasizing the truth of scientific fact.

Focusing on the good of the many.

As contrasted with unilateral obsessions.

Spider-Man: Homecoming

The bourgeoisie surreptitiously asserts itself in Marvel's new Spider-Man: Homecoming, as competing potential father figures sternly challenge wild teenage convictions.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) offers fame and fortune.

He nurtures young Peter (Tom Holland) with august olympian tragedy, but isn't there to provide sought after guidance when the perplexities of crime fighting overwhelm as bewilderingly as they undermine.

His approach is school-of-hard-knocksy and Mr. Parker is none too amused.

Thus, he sees Mr. Stark's world and that of the Avengers as too ornate, too disassociated from that of the common person, and even though he wholeheartedly seeks to become an Avenger, like Henry Carpenter, he prefers to keep his feet on the ground, since he's unable to balance avenging rewards with communal sacrifices.

Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton) on the other hand presents a successful self-made entrepreneurial gritty streetwise contrast to the illustrious Ironman.

He doesn't hobnob with politicians and plutocrats and geniuses and royalty.

He's an intelligent hands-on formerly honest businessperson who was forced into a life of crime by insensitive shortsighted unapologetic bureaucratic greed.

Choosing to keep his house and to save the jobs of the workers he employs, he adapts to his unfortunate circumstances and finds ways to controversially endure.

He's still a criminal though, and Peter's right to attempt to stop him from selling highly advanced weapons to bank robbers and thugs (he could have found other applications for his salvage), but when Peter sees the effects his actions have on his friends at school, he can't help but wonder if he's made the right decision.

He's caught between silver spoons and heavy metal, uncertain as to where he fits in, naturally gravitating towards Mr. Stark, who is a good person and can't be accused of being self-obsessed after the ballplaying actions he takes in Captain America: Civil War, but Pete still can't help but wonder if there's a dark side to his illuminated heroics, a dark side that leaves people like Toomes and his family stricken, as he prepares for another year of high school.

In hearty bourgeois style.

I doubt critics who lambasted the bourgeoisie for decades thoroughly contemplated a Western world where there was no bourgeoisie and a serious lack of honest professions for intelligent hard-working University grads.

Not me. J'aime mes emplois.

I may have done that too.

Before entering the real world.

The internet does provide ample opportunity to set up a business though.

Or your own newspaper.

It makes sense that traditional news outlets would vilify self-made electronically based independent journalism for trying to broadcast news online because they can realistically put them out of business, a threat major news sources didn't have 15 years ago.

Monopoly contested.

If they won't hire you, and you want to be a reporter, just keep reporting online while utilizing commensurate principles of honesty and integrity.

If they call your news fake afterwards, you'll know you've been noticed.

If you are just making stuff up out of thin air and not adding a humorous element that makes it obviously seem ludicrous, then major news sources are justified in labelling your outputs fake.

Oh man, too heavy.

Spider-Man: Homecoming is an entertaining thought provoking comedic yet solemn examination of contemporary American society crafted from hardy adolescently focused momentum.

Parker's struggles to fit in, to get Mr. Stark to listen, to prove himself avengefully, to impress the girl he likes (Laura Harrier as Liz), etcetera, aptly reflect the struggles of so many youthful reps, who likely also possess incomparable super powers.

Peter's friends and family, along with his teachers and adversaries, and Toomes and his squad, persuasively expand the Marvel universe's exceptionally diverse cast into cool and quizzical alternative realms, complete with the potential for amorous arch-villainy, possibly in a sequel that builds on Peter's conflicted yet contending earnest yet withdrawn middle-class symbolism.

With that theme in mind, the next Spider-Man film could rival Captain America: Civil War in terms of groundbreaking action-based sociopolitical commentary, streams crossed and minds melding, to keep things fresh and pyrotechnically strewn.

Perhaps Peter will be strong enough to hold the boat together in subsequent films?

That's what the middle-class does when it doesn't overstretch itself.

Steady as she goes.

Classic 20th Century Canada.

Le Havre

Loved Aki Kaurismäki's Le Havre.

The story follows the bohemian shoe shining Marcel Marx (André Wilms) as he manages his affairs and takes a refugee for whom the police are searching into his care (Blondin Miguel as Idrissa). Idrissa hopes to be reunited with his mother in London but circumstances suggest he'll be shipped back to Gabon. But Marcel, who can't even find enough cash to pay for his daily bread, rallies his friends to come to his aid. Forming an innovative impoverished indelible team, they create a potential working solution and boldly put their plan into action.

As the law rapidly closes in.

There's little pretence in this film as Kaurismäki's long patient shots of his cast showcase their hardened stoic demeanours. It's not trying to glamourize living off the beaten track or accentuate hardship. Rather, it modestly celebrates the crafty designs of a clever group of feisty individuals as they creatively stretch their limited resources in order to generate an emancipated opportunity.

Through the power of unification.

Detective Monet's (Jean-Pierre Darroussin) no slouch and has been ordered to make discovering Idrissa's whereabouts a top priority.

Marcel's wife Arletty (Kati Outinen) falls ill leaving everyone worried as he starts to take care of himself.

If you're searching for heartwarming, cheerful, humble escapes from the dominant discourses that consistently dehumanize underprivileged subjects, Le Havre should be high up on your list. The vitality constituting this wayward band of resilient ontologists temperately coordinates an immaculate sense of freedom.

Arthur

Not sure what to make of Jason Winer's Arthur. Apart from a commercial they ran on the Comedy Network for a couple of weeks, I'm completely unfamiliar with Russell Brand so this was my first encounter with his work. He's made a bold career move in Arthur, overtly suggesting that he is the inheritor of Dudley Moore's legacy, a move that must be followed up by an exceptional performance to be even remotely legitimized. I haven't seen many Dudley Moore films but I remember he was revered enough to be positively and negatively criticized in the mainstream media for a lengthy period while I was growing up, meaning that he likely has supportive and passionate fans remaining. Will they see Brand's reworking of Arthur as an homage to a great comedian by an up and coming artist who respects his entourage, or as an assault on a solidified characterization already firmly canonized within specific pop cultural histories/theorizations?

They're probably not concerned with either of these possibilities as they have better things to do.

But I don't, so I'm mentioning them in an indirect salute to the phenomenon of potential.

I thought Arthur lacked depth and the story simply recycled basic romantic class conscious true love narratives to produce another feel good romantic-comedy without innovating within corresponding traditions. Difficult subjects like arranged marriage, social barriers, child rearing, and corporate management are introduced and brought to the forefront, but Arthur's happy-go-lucky carefree nature euphemizes the constructive discourses delegated by their presence. At the same time, Brand's portrayal of Arthur is enlivening and revitalizing, cheerfully demanding that attention be paid. He's obviously multi-talented and the depth he instills in Arthur's character is striking. Helen Mirren is not to be bested, however, and she delivers a multi-talented characterization of her own, exemplified by the way in which she states the word "chimpanzee." The writers also provide her character with one of the most sublime of pastimes/interests which was sincerely appreciated by this commentator.

I suppose films whose performers subvert the greater cultural evaluations their director is trying to make by destabilizing them by displaying their talents function as prominent symbols of capitalist individuality. And Arthur is the product of successful capitalists who have amassed an enormous fortune, so, Arthur's form is working hand in hand with its content on one level anyways.

Bears.

Surrogates

Jonathan Mostow's Surrogates reminds me of James Cameron's The Terminator insofar as they are both science-fiction films which express a paranoid attitude regarding post-modern technological developments. In The Terminator, we're exposed to a world where machines rule and the natural path has been thoroughly eroded (note that as it has become increasingly obvious that we are necessarily linked to technological advancements, the Terminator series has adjusted and in Terminator Salvation we meet a humanistic machine/human hybrid). In Surrogates, we're exposed to a world where the majority of people have purchased beautiful remotely-controlled androids (surrogates) to live out their lives for them; or, a world where people live out their lives on the internet after creating multiple ideal identities. Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) has a surrogate but longs to have person to person conversations with his wife (Rosamund Pike as Maggie Greer) who criticizes him consequently. Eventually, Dr. Lionel Canter (James Cromwell) (creator of the surrogates) seeks revenge after his son is murdered by a weapon which destroys surrogates but also bypasses their safety mechanisms and kills their operators. He's also rather upset after having been pushed out of VSI, the company he founded to market, develop, and promote the surrogate lifestyle. He finds a way to use the weapon to destroy every surrogate and their operators, and, after the worst antagonist/protagonist encounter I've ever seen, attempts to do so. Fortunately, Tom Greer is there to prevent the weapon from annihilating humanity, but, eager for a conversation with his wife, he still uses it to destroy all the surrogates, taking us back to a simpler time (i.e., before the internet) (the John Carpenter ending). Thus, the distraught individual makes a personal choice that collectively disrupts the foundations of his culture, a culture that had practically eliminated violence, crime, racism, and so on. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be nostalgic for that way of life and had a tough time digesting the ending. The internet presents a lot of opportunities and an abundance of information and I'd rather partake in its virtual reality than any of its preceding fantasies. I suppose Surrogates is saying that things are moving to quickly and we should slow down and reevaluate the ways in which the internet is permeating every social/cultural/political/economic/ . . . sphere, and the ways in which it is changing traditional methods of human interaction. This makes sense: I don't want to go camping with a laptop. But socializing on the internet isn't some grand disruption of the traditional order of things that threatens the ways in which we interact with one another. In fact, it broadens the social domain and provides us with another means through which we can communicate on a progressive social scale, while still continuing to have face to face conversations.