THE MOVIE TRAVELLER
Monsters, Inc. -
Great kids movie, but there are a few inconsistencies. For example, when Boo and Sully open the secret passage to Randall's laboratory, the false pipes on the wall that make up the camoflage for the door are shown as extending out into the opening (particularly when viewed from inside the tunnel). This is impoosible; the door, which opens outward, would not be able to close.
Great kids movie, but there are a few inconsistencies. For example, when Boo and Sully open the secret passage to Randall's laboratory, the false pipes on the wall that make up the camoflage for the door are shown as extending out into the opening (particularly when viewed from inside the tunnel). This is impoosible; the door, which opens outward, would not be able to close.
Saving Private Ryan -
Well, I must be the only person on the planet that doesn't jump on this movie's jock. While it is okay for a period piece, and a laud the attempt to give tribute to those who fought in World War II (like my grandfather), this is not the end-all, be-all of war movies. I just can't get over the problem, as I see it, of the bridge. In reality, the US Army went into the ETO with the greatest engineering service ever fielded. The Allies blew up countless bridges from the air in order to interdict the entire Normandy/Contentin Peninsula area, making supply and reinforcement by the Germans impossible. One of the reasons this was possible was the phenomenal ease with which US forces could throw heavy bridges across rivers. If there was a fear of a German counterattack, wait until first contact, show token resistance, then blow the bridge and retreat. No bridge in that supposed area was that critical to hold intact. The American army could simply throw a temporary bridge across later in a matter of hours when needed. Of course, that completely does away with the need to have the "Battle of the Alamo" and everyone die in a last ditch defense of the bridge.
A great period piece, but some pretty serious corners were cut for artistic license in places. A good movie, but not, in my opinion, in the same class with, for example, Das Boot, or even the other artistic-license filled classed, The Longest Day.
And of course, any movie where Vin Diesel gets killed can't be all bad.
Well, I must be the only person on the planet that doesn't jump on this movie's jock. While it is okay for a period piece, and a laud the attempt to give tribute to those who fought in World War II (like my grandfather), this is not the end-all, be-all of war movies. I just can't get over the problem, as I see it, of the bridge. In reality, the US Army went into the ETO with the greatest engineering service ever fielded. The Allies blew up countless bridges from the air in order to interdict the entire Normandy/Contentin Peninsula area, making supply and reinforcement by the Germans impossible. One of the reasons this was possible was the phenomenal ease with which US forces could throw heavy bridges across rivers. If there was a fear of a German counterattack, wait until first contact, show token resistance, then blow the bridge and retreat. No bridge in that supposed area was that critical to hold intact. The American army could simply throw a temporary bridge across later in a matter of hours when needed. Of course, that completely does away with the need to have the "Battle of the Alamo" and everyone die in a last ditch defense of the bridge.
A great period piece, but some pretty serious corners were cut for artistic license in places. A good movie, but not, in my opinion, in the same class with, for example, Das Boot, or even the other artistic-license filled classed, The Longest Day.
And of course, any movie where Vin Diesel gets killed can't be all bad.
Gettysburg -
All around great movie - I have to say one of the best from a historical accuracy stand point and one of the top two for the Civil War (the other being Glory, even with its flaws - for example, watermelons in Massachusetts in the winter?). The pre-quel to this film, Gods and Generals, released some 10 years later is also a good movie, but does not rise to the polished product of Gettysburg. Leans a little too much on Longstreet's rewriting of history in his memoirs, but presents a generally accurate impression of the battle. There are some minor points of inaccuracy but seem primarily to have been undertaken to make the movie flow better - they do not, however, as in so many other films, funadmentally change history or radically skew the events being depicted. Great dialogue as well. One needs to remember too that one of the primary reasons Lee invaded the north on this occassion was that the Confederacy was so exhausted it could not even feed the Army of Northern Virginia in its current theatre of operations. Lee knew he could live off the land in the North. Not the most auspicious of reasons for any military maneuver.
All around great movie - I have to say one of the best from a historical accuracy stand point and one of the top two for the Civil War (the other being Glory, even with its flaws - for example, watermelons in Massachusetts in the winter?). The pre-quel to this film, Gods and Generals, released some 10 years later is also a good movie, but does not rise to the polished product of Gettysburg. Leans a little too much on Longstreet's rewriting of history in his memoirs, but presents a generally accurate impression of the battle. There are some minor points of inaccuracy but seem primarily to have been undertaken to make the movie flow better - they do not, however, as in so many other films, funadmentally change history or radically skew the events being depicted. Great dialogue as well. One needs to remember too that one of the primary reasons Lee invaded the north on this occassion was that the Confederacy was so exhausted it could not even feed the Army of Northern Virginia in its current theatre of operations. Lee knew he could live off the land in the North. Not the most auspicious of reasons for any military maneuver.
The Matrix -
I must be more familiar with great science fiction than most people because I was never very impressed by the entire Matrix saga. While the movie may have introduced some of concepts to a much larger audience than conventional fiction, and thereby seemed fresh and novel (helped along by huge special effects budgets), the core concepts explored in the movies are not very original and I, at least, found the movies to be very predictable. That said, one of the greatest stumbling blocks for me is at the very threshold of the films, and the very core of its story: why the machines would need to bother with setting up this elaborate "humans in a bottle" massive mulitplayer game. At one point Morpheus makes a completely idiotic statement that the machines harvest heat and eletricity from the humans, and use that, along with fusion power, to survive. I don't know about you, but if the machines are using a fusion power technology remotely related to anything we can understand right now, the output of those fusion plants would dwarf any kind of human-generated power. There just would not be a need for the whole elaborate set up (though it is of course essential for the plot). All the power, material, bandwidth, network capacity, and effort to maintain this "trick" would be unnecessary (in fact, I think a powerful argument could be made that the whole thing would be a net energy consumer, not a producer). Not to mention the effort and expense of the endless (and apparently inefficient) wars against the escaped humans and those born outside it. I'm not the only one to have a problem with this, and some have even tried to find a solution (presumably out of love for the movie?) And what about this question: if they just need them for power, why not just pith them completely, or run an endless series of exercise loops through their neural pathways? Almost seems the machines are being a little emotional about it all....
While there could be motives that remain hidden or "beyond human comprehension" for the machines to want to keep the matrix running, and the energy production thing was just a cover story to hide that, I still think it is just lazy writing. The authors were in such a hurry to get to the cool special effects that they glossed over something supremely basic, but yet absolutely essential to the foundation of the world they're asking us to believe in. It's so incredibly fundamental in nature that I can only conclude it was laziness, or maybe something forced on them by the studio ("all this convoluted explanation of why the machines want to keep these people plugged in to the matrix is too complicated; look at our audience demographics - use a battery analogy instead - at least most of them have electricity at home"). I can never suspend my disbelief and even what entertainment value the films might have had is greatly degraded for me.
Of course, it could all be a front for this.
I must be more familiar with great science fiction than most people because I was never very impressed by the entire Matrix saga. While the movie may have introduced some of concepts to a much larger audience than conventional fiction, and thereby seemed fresh and novel (helped along by huge special effects budgets), the core concepts explored in the movies are not very original and I, at least, found the movies to be very predictable. That said, one of the greatest stumbling blocks for me is at the very threshold of the films, and the very core of its story: why the machines would need to bother with setting up this elaborate "humans in a bottle" massive mulitplayer game. At one point Morpheus makes a completely idiotic statement that the machines harvest heat and eletricity from the humans, and use that, along with fusion power, to survive. I don't know about you, but if the machines are using a fusion power technology remotely related to anything we can understand right now, the output of those fusion plants would dwarf any kind of human-generated power. There just would not be a need for the whole elaborate set up (though it is of course essential for the plot). All the power, material, bandwidth, network capacity, and effort to maintain this "trick" would be unnecessary (in fact, I think a powerful argument could be made that the whole thing would be a net energy consumer, not a producer). Not to mention the effort and expense of the endless (and apparently inefficient) wars against the escaped humans and those born outside it. I'm not the only one to have a problem with this, and some have even tried to find a solution (presumably out of love for the movie?) And what about this question: if they just need them for power, why not just pith them completely, or run an endless series of exercise loops through their neural pathways? Almost seems the machines are being a little emotional about it all....
While there could be motives that remain hidden or "beyond human comprehension" for the machines to want to keep the matrix running, and the energy production thing was just a cover story to hide that, I still think it is just lazy writing. The authors were in such a hurry to get to the cool special effects that they glossed over something supremely basic, but yet absolutely essential to the foundation of the world they're asking us to believe in. It's so incredibly fundamental in nature that I can only conclude it was laziness, or maybe something forced on them by the studio ("all this convoluted explanation of why the machines want to keep these people plugged in to the matrix is too complicated; look at our audience demographics - use a battery analogy instead - at least most of them have electricity at home"). I can never suspend my disbelief and even what entertainment value the films might have had is greatly degraded for me.
Of course, it could all be a front for this.