Change Your Image
redalert99
Reviews
Nobility (2017)
Very disappointing
There are so many things that don't work in this series: 1) the acting is no good 2) it's not funny 3) the story line barely makes sense 4) the campyness doesn't really fit with anything else 5) the washed-out camera work doesn't add anything 6) the Walter Koenig character is flat, disappointing, and basically irrelevant 7) there's no 'sci' in the sci-fi. There's also little to no drama in the fiction.
The exterior ships/combat/space stuff is solid. That was really the only redeeming thing.
Collateral (2004)
What about Heat?
I just read a ton of the messages in these forums and no one is making the really obvious connection to the movie Heat. Not only was it also directed by Michael Mann, but the plot was similar. Vincent is the name of one of the main characters in Heat as well as Collateral. Tom Cruise nearly played the same character that Robert DeNiro did in Heat. He had on an almost identical suit.
Both movies are about 2 men who together form one complete person. In this movie it's even more explicit, as Max literally pretends to be Vincent and copies things that he says. Somehow, cathartically, through learning about Vincent, Max learns how to be himself. The end was an homage to Heat. Several other scenes were as well. This movie barely even makes sense outside of that context. It seems to be part II of a series of "LA crime sagas".
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Film insults its viewer and is hypocritical
I have no problem with documentaries being biased. I think it's inevitable that any presentation of material will always favor certain conclusions. This movie, however, far from being a well-researched, thought-provoking piece, is inane and insulting. Here are three simple examples:
1) After a Senator refuses to "enlist" his son in the Armed Forces, Michael Moore essentially makes the "see-I-told-you-so" argument that the Senators will recruit people relentlessly from Flint, Michigan, but won't sign their own sons and daughters up. This makes no sense for several reasons. First, why would you ever be allowed to sign someone else up for the armed forces? Secondly, the Senator in question SERVED IN THE NAVY. He SIGNED HIMSELF UP.
And he talks about it with Michael Moore and the Marine Corporal accompanying him. So Michael Moore's point is completely lost in that episode.
2) One of the major themes of the movie is that the White House (and especially President Bush) is in bed with the Saudi royal family. He uses this hypothesis to circumstantially explain all kinds of things, without any support for his claim that resembles "evidence". If the Saudi royal family exerts so much influence over US policy, why did it allow the United States to open up its largest potential oil-producing competitor (Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world)? This doesn't make sense. A movie that brings up issues like this without touching even such cursory and obvious points of contention is simplistic and insulting to its viewer. It assumes its viewer knows nothing about the world and will accept whatever speculation the movie offers as truth.
3) The opening of the movie claims that all the major analyses of the Florida election results show Al Gore would have won. This just plain isn't true. There were three major studies done on this issue. One concluded that has the votes been counted accurately (as in a hand-recount), Al Gore would have won. The other two studies concluded that Bush WOULD HAVE WON BY MORE.
Michael Moore taunts his viewers and mocks them. Either because of his own ignorance or his desire to manipulate, he created a movie which manipulates, obscures, and misleads. This is precisely what he accuses the Bush administration of doing. Because I remember history, read the papers, and study these issues, it is blindingly obvious to me how deceptive the movie is and how much it both preys upon people who don't have time to do the research themselves and insults those who do.
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Falls short
This is an interesting movie which brings up two important issues: 1) What about the people of the U.S. makes them so prone to violence? 2) Why do we have a media "culture of fear?"
The movie is well made and definitely tackles tough issues, however, Moore's personal biases are annoying, and the movie is neither a functional editorial nor a eye-opening objective documentary. Just as he gets to the really interesting questions (see above), he stops. He makes certain public figures simplistic scapegoats for the (very real) problems and falls short of making a truly intellectual picture.