Change Your Image
torvum
Reviews
Ghost in the Shell (2017)
The remake misses the mark
Let's start off by saying this: I'm not a fanboy of the original. Although I do like the film, I thought it had its problems.
What Hollywood got right:
The visuals in the movie are gorgeous and for me a lot more "believable" than the original. The original was intensely drab and didn't paint what for me a future world should look like. Sure, it helped establish a mood, but there's other ways to achieve that.
The acting is fairly good, although Scarlet's clunky style of portraying her character was a bit off-putting, to me. By that I mean that she kind of stomps around in the film, almost like a exasperated angsty tomboy. It seemed too out-of-step with her acrobatic and finessed fighting style. She can do flips while running on the wall but makes walking in a straight line feel awkward. Pilou does a really good job with Batou, though. His character seems to be the only element that feels true between the original and the remake.
Certain crucial story elements were rewritten, and although I don't like what they came up with (more on that below), I did like the fact that they decided to remove the unnecessarily complicated foreign-affairs-mystery bit from the original; it was a bit difficult to follow and didn't add anything to the film.
What Hollywood got wrong:
The philosophy.
The central question in the original is: what makes humans, special? If our bodies don't (since everybody's replacing their parts with robotic ones) and our memories don't (since those can be altered and are just units of information just like in a computer system) then it must be our sentience. But what if a computer became sentient? And if it did, would it be entitled to be treated like a human? Then I ask you again: what's so special about humanity? The film ends in a question: can the marriage of computer intelligence and humanity surpass both? These questions are personified by the film's antagonist, which is why it works so well. Both the audience and Major are compelled to come to grips with the meaning of humanity.
Hollywood butchers the philosophy. It instead recasts the film to be about human memories, and it asks the rather banal question: do your memories define you? To which it ironically answers: no, your actions define you. I say "ironically" because actually the entire film speaks to the contrary: Major only starts to work against her programming and Hanka Robotics because of her intuitions which are fueled by her partial memories. It's not until she regains her full memory that she knows her place in the world and how to act ethically. The film's antagonist is flimsy and plays no role except to point Major to her true identity. He doesn't represent any kind of serious challenge for either Major or for the audience, unlike in the original, and consequently the film falls flat on its shallow undeveloped face.
Five Broken Cameras (2011)
a PERSONAL story of a man and his village protesting a wall
This is a film about the personal story of man named Emad and his experience protesting in Bil'in, a small village in the West Bank. Because the film is a personal story, it does not give a wider political context, a lot of history, or an overview of any kind, which is bound to put off some viewers, especially pro-Israeli ones. Personally, I don't fault the movie-maker for that choice. I think the film would have suffered from it.
Because of the lack of context, a politically sharp-eyed, skeptical and unsettled viewer (unsettled on the Israel-Palestine conflict) like myself need to take some of the film with a grain of salt. That being said, some of the footage is undeniable: arresting children in night- time raids, shooting unarmed men dead, etc. Regardless of your position on the struggle, this kind of footage should make you angry.
I think the film is definitely worth watching, not because it's an "unbiased" (whatever that means) view of a political struggle, but precisely because it is biased. The viewer gets to feel what it's like to protest in Bil'in, what it's like to have a family involved in the conflict, to have your friends or family arrested, beaten, or killed. Even if you completely disagree with Palestine's position, I think any human should be able to identify with Emad, his village, and their side of the story. This is the most important point because it draws out the viewers humanity, which is exactly what's needed if this conflict is to be ended peacefully.
Predators (2010)
Nostalgic Reviewers Shouldn't Rate Movies
Let's face it, the original predator wasn't super good - the acting was sub par, the story line wasn't great, and the script was cheesy. In reviewing this movie many other reviewers point the original's brooding sense of tension, it's character development, and the emotional connection it creates between the audience and the film's characters; WHAT? Are you on crack?
Arnold can't inspire an audience to do anything but laugh or high five. Not for a second did I feel pity, fear, or sadness of any kind watching the original. The character development is shallow, understandably, since the movie never spends anytime building up the relationships between characters in any meaningful way. Anyone who writes otherwise is clearly deluded - no movie can stand up to your nostalgic memory of watching the original when you were 15. However, despite these flaws, the original leaves the viewer satisfied, and I think Predators does just about as well as the original.
The few glaring flaws in the movie for me were:
1.) Topher Grace's character failed in his function throughout the movie. He was added in order to provide the audience with a humane contrast to the war-hardened killers of the film and to provide a twist ending. In both of these function the character fails miserably. Instead of providing contrast, he mostly just annoys the viewer and negatively effects your suspense of disbelief. His role at the end is even worse. Forced forced forced. Why would a predator want to hunt a weakling serial killer who works by tricking people? Clearly that doesn't offer any kind of hunting value for a predator. Also, why would he wait for the worst moment to reveal himself as a serial killer? All in all I think the movie would have been better without this character.
2.) The ethical dilemmas explored in the movie were way too forced and failed at provoking any kind of emotional response from the viewer. I could have tolerated a few instances, but the movie was packed full attempts to jerk emotions via moral and ethical devices.
3.) The predators never seem like they're very skillful or particularly intelligent hunters (something which I think all of the movies suffer from to some degree). I'm supposed to believe that this race of creatures is advanced enough for interplanetary travel, while simultaneously swallowing their clearly brutish and simple behaviour and tactics. This disconnect always bothered me; for a race that are supposed to be the most advanced hunters in the galaxy, you'd expect for their tactics to be more interesting.
What I liked:
1.) Adrian Brody is surprisingly good. I was quite skeptical, I admit it. I have to say: he really pulled off his part. He delivers his one- liners beautifully and performs admirably as an action hero. Not once was I hoping Arnold would show up.
2.) The movie is visually gorgeous. Vibrant colours and beautifully textured backdrops provide the movie with an eye-catching context for the action that really helps you enjoy watching.
3.) The very end of the movie. They're still on the planet. They didn't get away. And they're likely to die. For me this was the best ending of any of the Predator films. Satisfying, but not cheesy; happy, but not in an everything-is-wrapped-up kind of way.
All in all it was a fun movie to watch and I don't regret it.