Oblivion: Tech 49

Universal Pictures

Beyond the stylish production, Oblivion features solitude, artificial intelligence, and among other things, amatory clones. Jack Harper (Cruise) is stationed on a depopulated planet earth, with very little human interaction, repairing drones, while  yearning for the pleasures of home. Was the film aiming to make a point about solitude?  No. If it was, that point was not perceptible. Rather, the main character endured solitude as a condition elemental to the story, and the plot, in which intelligent drones, blasting with effulgent lasers were on the prowl. 

Replete in the film is the idea of advanced robotic intelligence being the nemesis of humanity, serving as a basis to suggest, more likely the film was exploring the notion of artificial intelligence surpassing human intelligence, commonly referred to as the   technological singularity. 

 Not only does artificial intelligence surpass human intelligence, it is adroit enough to create humans, but does  this mean artificial intelligence has the right to control  humans, since it created them? But is it practical or prudent, to perceive  artificially intelligent beings as  eligible for having rights ? In contrast, would they "care" about human rights? Essentially, the film suggests, they would not care about human rights, although they have designed humans without removing their capacity to experience feelings such as the ones customarily identified with love. 

And from this arises the question, would the feelings commonly

Universal Pictures

associated with love be recognized as less significant if they were to occur amongst clones in real life? Such a question may possibly emerge from the perception, clones are artificial, in contrast human beings are authentic, coming into existence through  parturition;  therefore, clones are not as important because they are artificial in their humanity.    


Although the plot was slow to develop, Oblivion was an entertaining film, with a good story, accentuated by visually impressive scenes, and a fractured narrative, satisfactorily explaining it all. With a production budget of  $120 million, more action would have been nice. Not bad. I'll give it a 79. Stay tuned. Movieporium.blogspot.com. 

    

   

Daniel Plainview : A Brief Character Analysis

Paramount Vantage

The indelible, the infamous, the shrewd, and morally obtuse Daniel Plainview, adjectives describing a character  remembered for usury, and his disdain for people. But  why did Plainview dislike people so much?  In associating with people he saw nothing worth liking. Perhaps  the reason why he saw nothing worth liking, was an  understanding of his own penchant for manipulating others. Plainview may have been projecting is own detestable qualities onto the people he encountered. Knowing the distrustful acts he was capable of,  he became vigilant and suspecting of others. Interestingly, if Plainview has this view of people, being a human being, it's a wonder, how he feels about himself ? Does he see himself as trustworthy, or someone not worth liking? 

 Aside from any introspective capacity, Plainview's dislike for people, was possibly born from his perspicacity,  integral in making observations about human nature, in concluding that people are pure crap. That being the case, Plainview felt no compunction, and also felt justified in using "these people" to get what he wants, especially in recognizing Eli Sunday as a charlatan.

Although Plainview despises people, he recognizes communicating with people, and understanding how they think is functional in achieving his goals, which is well noted in his public relations skills,  in describing himself as a "family man", and purporting to be a simple person, in saying, " I believe in plain speaking ", as if  he is a member of the common folk.   

Notwithstanding his inclination for usury, Plainview is not so monstrous that he is incapable of showing compassion, evidenced by his confrontation with Abel Sunday about hitting his daughter for not praying.  While Plainview is prone to usury, and manipulation, he is not fond of being subject to it. When a stranger who pretended to be his brother Henry, took advantage of his compassion, Plainview's reaction, There Will Be Blood indeed. To Plainview's credit, this betrayal was a painful confirmation that people are indeed not worth liking.   

One question  surrounding Plainview's moral character, is whether or not he cared about his son? If  he did, one has to reconcile  Plainview's propensity for manipulation  with the supposed love he had for H.W Plainview. If he did not, one has to acknowledge that human emotions are complex, and even if  H.W was just an asset that he used to buy land, this does not necessitate he did not develop a genuine paternal love for H.W.  Again, Plainview's conception of human nature is justified when this "bastard from a basket", betrayed him, and became his competitor by starting his own company.  
   



       

    

Killing Them Softly: Cogan

Annapurna Pictures

Making an economic and political point, "Killing Them Softly" is a focus on the desperation, and harshness  of the underground economy. Drug-use, hopelessness, killing, gambling, and prostitution,  are quite ordinary in the lives of these not so ordinary characters who feel no compunction about profiting from crime. What is lucid, is that, there must be trust and order, to secure and maintain criminal profits, and if  this trust and order is violated, the violators will be subject to the brutal penal system of this underground economy.  

Even with an understanding of this  harsh, break your kneecap, penal system, two of the main characters, endeavor to live the good life by robbing a high stakes poker game, consequently upsetting the underground economic order, and infuriating the magnates of this economy. To seek illegitimate justice, they summon Cogan. 

Tactical, self-directed, amiable but ruthless, Cogan is the enforcer who will reset the order. His approach is concise, and measured. Cogan is a businessman, and with the intermittent  background oratory of Bush and Obama commenting on the poor state of the economy, the economic and political point in the fim is summed up in one phrase, "America is a business. Now fucking pay me."    

    

The Amazing Spiderman: Webb vs. Raimi

Marvel Entertainment

The Amazing Spiderman. Will it be Raimi or Webb? After watching the recent release, and re-watching the release from 10 years ago, both films are satisfactory with differences that did not significantly  sway one version as being better than the other. 

Details such as Peter smashing the alarm alarm, and the computers keys being stuck to his fingers, made the scenes where Peter was discovering his new powers more amusing. Raimi's version did not feature such details, but satisfactory nevertheless .   

Webb's version was based on Peter's high school years which featured Gwen instead Mary Jane, and Raimi's film portrayed Flash as a bully who was conquered by the web-slinger's acrobatics, while Webb's version portrayed Flash as a bully who is empathic in expressing sincere condolences to Peter about uncle Ben's death. Before this expression of empathy,  Peter humiliated Flash not through acrobatic fighting but through a basketball standoff. Effective. Amusing. But far from menacing. 

Both villains were awesome. My bias for Willem Dafoe as an actor has made me favor the Green Goblin, but The Lizard, no doubt was pretty cool, but Green Goblin fought out skill rather than rage. He was more of a tactical opponent as a fighter. Green Goblin used psychological manipulation, especially noted in the penultimate scene in Raimi's version. 

As a whole even with these differences, both  films constituted as great entertainment. However, Spiderman's identity is revealed way too often, in both films, especially for Raimi's trilogy.  Revealing the identity of a superhero violates the mystique of what makes many superheroes so appealing. On a final note, the first kiss showing Spiderman hanging upside-down was more memorable.  


     

The Dictator: Pointy Not Round

Paramount Pictures

Official Site: www.republicofwadiya.com
Director(s): Larry Charles
Writer(s):  Sacha Baron Cohen, Alec Berg
Producer(s):  Sacha Baron Cohen, Alec Berg
Starring:  Sacha Baron Cohen, Anna Faris, Ben Kingsley, John C. Reilly, B.J. Novak. Rated-R. 

Can a ruthless dictator fall in love with a vegan human rights activist? An unlikely couple indeed.  Aladeen ( Cohen) did not travel to New York to fall in love, but who could resist a cute vegan who cares about everything from animals to a dictator's masturbatory habits. I  don't think  Cohen was trying to say dictators have feelings too, but inadvertently  he sort of made that point. Aladeen noticed how much passion Zoey ( Faris) had. He could not stop talking about  her even when he was planning to regain his position as dictator of Wadiya. Living  as a commoner,  Aladeen noticed certain things about himself.  He realized he was actually a nice guy beneath the inclination to kill everyone who had different views.

Paramount Pictures

Satirical as can be, Cohen employs his trademark crude humor to make a statement about dictatorships while entertaining the masses. Irreverence with a purpose as usual. There is also commentary on democracy, but not just any democracy; democracy defined by corporate policy, noted in a scene where Tamir(Kingsley) cut a backdoor deal with several major oil companies for millions. The film eludes to problems with the U.S prison population, and bank bailouts amongst other issues. Definitely.Cohen wrote a comedy with substance.

Paramount Pictures

Was The Dictator funny ? Kind of. It was not hilarious. But it was deeply amusing. May be it's because I have grown accustomed to Cohen's comedic style, and the effects from the days of Borat, and Bruno have worn off, and I have become desensitized to the shocking antics. Still  the things this guy gets away with, like kicking a kid on screen, and rubbing sperm on a woman's face. Only Cohen. It was not great. It was not disappointing. It was simply entertaining. Metacritic.com rated the film 58/100 for mixed reviews. Rottentonatoes.com rated the film 112 fresh tomatoes to 80 rotten ones. I'll rate it a 75.