2019 Another shocking Scott Adkins (poor man's Chuck Norris) actioner which has one 'wot kung fu dat' martial artist lose his memory after his daughter is abducted, who meets up with another 'wot kung fu dat' artist (Andy On) who has lost his wife, also abducted. Turns out the culprits are aliens, who, strangely enough, can also do 'wot kung fu dat' moves. What a laughable crock.
Cry of a Prostitute (1974) 7/10 with Henry Silva and Barbara Bouchet. Someone is smuggling drugs in the bodies of dead children (pretending they're still alive!). Henry's sent to find out who and stop it coz it's not on. Bouchet is an ex prozzy, now married to a gang boss. She's quite annoying and keeps coming on to Henry. So you don't lose too much sleep when he finally gives her a good slappin' . A couple of fairly gruesome scenes ( maybe less so now) of a beheading in a car crash an undoing the stitches on a corpse. Henry is ok and typically stoic. Though I wish that when these mafia types are fighting each other in the hills, that they would wear different coloured team strips. It's murder trying to remember who's shooting who. Music by Sante Marie Romitelli wasn't bad.
Followed by The Bat (1959) 5/10 with Vincent Price and Agnes Morehead. Watchable but not great by any stretch. The two leads were fine and the colour was quite nice.Though my copy was plagued by a large number of mice that kept all over the sets. They were after the large amounts of cheese that was on display.
This documentary focuses on three women involved in ranching in today’s Texas. Mandy was a former runaway from the Northeast, who defied her family’s wishes and moved to Texas to become a cowgirl. After the death of both her parents, she realizes she wants to start a family, despite the lack of support from her partner John. When she unexpectedly discovers she’s pregnant at the age of 37, Mandy must decide whether to stay in her flawed but stable long-term relationship or raise her unborn child on her own.
At 32, Lemoine is the eldest descendant of a sprawling historic ranch. She upset her father when she decided to pay her own way through law school. Now with her own law firm, she is caught between her own professional aspirations and the duty to maintain and carry on her family’s legacy as ranch owners, as her parents reach their 70s.
Twenty-five-year-old Martha’s family helped found the city of Laredo when they moved from Spain in 1801. The Santos clan owned a sprawling ranch, the remnants of which disappeared 15 years ago as the city gradually swallowed it in urban sprawl. Martha has found it almost impossible as a Latina to find a job in ranching without her own land. Nevertheless, she clings to her dream of working in agriculture.
Producer-director Sarah Brennan Kolb spent three years following these women through the ups and downs of their lives, and another two years assembling her film. It’s a wonderful portrait of lives very different from our own, and is particularly poignant in showing the difficulties single women face in a profession where even men struggle.
Hello everyone around here for my big hero 6 it is a good movie I would give it 4.5 out of 5 even though it is a children's movie it is very beautiful where they work the value of friendship, solidarity, companionship and that if you want it also reflects a nice message
This documentary looks at several women serving in the Minneapolis Police Department, including then-chief Janee Harteau. The women, serving at various levels and in different areas of the force, try to reform the male-dominated department and restore trust in the community after a high-profile police shooting forces Harteau to resign. All of this was filmed before this year’s George Floyd incident and the subsequent protests/riots.
The film shows many people in the department trying to change the bureaucracy, and anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy will recognize much of what goes on. It’s pointed out that women cops are rarely charged with physical abuse of suspects. But the department has a hard time recruiting women police officers. It also shows the frustrations that arise within the department when a member of the public is hurt or killed by a policeman and the public reacts the same regardless of whether it was caused by a malicious act by the cop, an honest mistake by the cop, or a justified action by the cop. If only perfection is acceptable, how can a human organization function or survive?
Various members of the community have ideas for reform; one is “No cop should go out on a mental health call.” But when the social worker arrives instead, and the mentally disturbed person pulls out a gun, what then? If enough communities implement a “new model” for policing, we’ll eventually find out. Meanwhile, this film suggests that more women police may be part of the answer to better policing in America.
I just noticed John Smith's reply to my post about Silent Running which I gave 2/10.
I can just imagine Jehannum’s incredulity at the complete lack of bristling over his seemingly insouciant attack on this beloved classic of the sci-fi genre.
Imagine all you like. There was none.
I'm sorry Jehannum finds Silent Running boring. I humbly disagree, but as we say back home in Handsworth, “de gustibus non est disputandum”.
Oh, you're just down the road (or were at one time). What fun. But, back on point, if your quotation is true then why react so strongly to an opinion?
For example, I have no idea what “hopeless” is supposed to mean as a critique of the film – “incompetent”? “Inadequate”? “Crap”? ... Unless he literally means “lack of hope”. But since when is an absence of optimism grounds for trashing a movie? (Dr. Strangelove, anyone?)
"Lack of hope" is exactly what I meant. But I didn't trash the movie; I said I didn't like it and gave some reasons.
A film has to earn its hopelessness. This one didn't. By the way, I loathe Dr Strangelove as a film. And, come to think of it, I hate A Clockwork Orange even more (which you mention later for some reason).
Perhaps it’s an oblique allusion to Star Wars IV?
Never in a million years.
As far as “faux-onerous” is concerned, one could waste hours in spurious equivocation of what this term is supposed to signify vis-à-vis Silent Running. Since Jehannum didn’t try to qualify it, I’ll keep my own understanding to myself and simply express my disagreement over its use to slate Trumbull’s effortlessly brilliant movie.
It means false profundity. You sometimes get the sense that a piece of art is attempting some deep message beyond its means. You sometimes also get that feeling from the style of language that a person uses.
Regarding “unscientific”, of all the things you’re going to pan a science fiction film for being, “unscientific” is the most poorly considered. The “fiction” component of “science fiction” is universally used by sci-fi/fantasy filmmakers as a justification for scientific nonsense. Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, you name it: let’s damn them all for indulging in illogical flights of scientific fancy.
I don't see how Lord of the Rings helps your case. It's not science fiction. Nor is it set in our reality. Silent Running is presumably supposed to be. In any case, there are two kinds of unscientific: unscientific for dramatic purposes and unscientific from ignorance. Guess which one I dislike.
“Renesha” (Brittany S. Hall) has a live-in boyfriend, “Evan” (Will Brill), but is not averse to having a night out with the girls, particularly best friend “Amber” (Gail Bean). One evening, the two are convinced to have some Champagne and sample some marijuana candy with two “entrepreneurs” who have just sold their company for big bucks. A woozy Renesha ends up in bed with one of the guys and has a hazy recollection of having sex with him.
Recounting the events to Evan the next day, he convinces her that she has been sexually assaulted, and against her mild protests insists that she have a rape kit done. Thus begins an odyssey across the city of Houston, from one medical center to another, in search of such a kit. But places with kits have no one trained to administer them, and a list of places that can administer them is inaccurate. The better part of a day is spent in getting the procedure performed, while Renesha just wants to forget it and go home.
Writer-director Shatara Michelle Ford said in an interview that she made the film in order to illustrate how difficult it is for black women to be heard, and for them to get justice. But it’s unclear from the film how Renesha‘s experience would have differed for a white woman. And if her boyfriend had listened to her request to just forget it and go home, it’s hard to see how any justice would have come from that. So, while the film illustrates problems in the sexual assault justice system--at least in some areas of the country--it comes up short in pinning down problems that especially affect black women in society.
A very troubled production marred an otherwise lightweight comedy crime-heist in which the odd twist is almost obvious but pleasing, nonetheless. Jewel thief Burt Reynolds does his best to be Cary Grant and is very pleasing to watch, David Niven is a little too old for his role as the Chief Inspector but does add class and Lesley-Anne Down is excellent as the go-between but whose role is somewhat unclear ...
... just what was the point of the CI involving her in his scheme? This was probably clearer before re-writes changed the ending.
A nice supporting cast of British/European actors meant the star was the odd-one-out but the script allowed him to play on this.
The crime is too basic to warrant the film's screen time but this is aptly filled by the romantic play between Reynolds and Down. Some nice scenery (the Netherlands, especially), some very poor back-projection (the car chase in the first half of the film) and plenty of witty dialogue.
Nelson Riddle's adaption of music composed and/or performed by Duke Ellington is very good and welcome, albeit the use of Caravan (a favourite of mine) does grate a little during the heist scenes.
It's a film which should have been so much better but the cast raise the production above what could have been tedious run-of-the-mill fare. Mitch
I think part of what Silent Running is about is who really went 'renegade.' I think Trumbull did a really good job, all things considered. Freeman just wants to get away from the vandal planet trashers. He even concocts an elaborate ruse to shake off his fellow earthers. I just love the way Dern acts out that moment of absolute incredulity when it turns out they didn't give up hope searching for him after the deliberate 'accident' he stages to separate the Valley Forge from the rest of the fleet proves to have been in vain.
That's when he knows he's a dead man. The stupid ******s don't know when to take 'no' for an answer.
This documentary profiles 5 residents of the housing projects in Richmond Virginia:
a 40-year-old ex-con trying to turn his life around by becoming a barber,
a teenager in a youth academy seeking a college scholarship and a position on a university’s cycling team,
an unwed mother who had her first child at 15 and is now trying to raise three children by working double shifts,
a low-level street dealer who is trying to support his family by turning his hustling skills into a steady video-making and DJ-ing business, and
an elderly woman who has been in the projects all her life and seen them change from a community of people who looked out for one another to one rife with drugs and violence. Still, she is hopeful about the people that are struggling in the projects.
The difference in this film is that, while the specters of gangs, drugs, and violence are ever-present, and periodically talked about, none of it is ever explicitly shown. The film focuses on the positive stories of people who have persevered against the odds, ridden the ups and downs, and bettered their circumstances in life. It helps that the film shows its location and its people exclusively in the bright light of day rather than at night, when most of the violence takes place.
At the end of the film you’ve really gotten to know these people, are pulling for them, and are uplifted yourself when they succeed. The film doesn’t attempt to delve into the root causes of the poverty that afflicts the residents of the projects, nor are any potential solutions explored. But as an illustration of the lives of people unlike yourself, and as a demonstration of the human spirit and desire to rise above, the film could scarcely be better.
Night Crossing (1982) 8/10 Ninja Assassin (2009) 8/10 Rambo Last Blood (2019) 8/10 The Patriot (2000) 6/10 John Wick 7/10 John Wick 2 7/10 John Wick 3 9/10 Red Dawn (1984) 10/10
I wish Night Crossing would get a remaster with better audio. The dvd is ancient.
You may have heard or read the news story awhile back about the discovery that various face recognition software programs misidentify people of color much more frequently than they do white faces. This documentary introduces us to Joy Buolamwini, who was the young MIT grad student who made that discovery, and her subsequent campaign to force the tech companies to change the algorithms, and to force the government to take a hand in how these algorithms are confirmed to be accurate and to regulate their use.
Along the way, the film looks at big tech’s algorithms in general and how problematic they are becoming. We make a stop in China, which has most of its urban population in facial recognition databases and forces them to scan their faces to access public transportation and enter public buildings, to pay for items at stores, and even to buy things from vending machines. The program ties people to their social media postings, their purchases, and their public actions and gives every person a “social credit” score that reflects how well they support the government and comply with “good social order.” No one except those at the highest levels of power know how the scores are tabulated. And since the scoring system is just coming on line, no one knows what the consequences of a low score will be. But we listen to one young Chinese woman explain how she can use a person’s social score to decide whom to befriend, so that she won’t waste time getting to know someone who may be undesirable.
We look at England, where people are under constant public surveillance from 6 million cameras, and where London police park facial recognition trucks along public streets, stopping people whose computer-generated profiles suggest they are suspicious. The “matches” provided by the system are wrong a significant percentage of the time.
In the U.S., these algorithms are currently in greater use by the private sector than by the government--determining who is hired and fired; who is granted or denied credit; and how much you pay for insurance, a home loan, or for a product on Amazon. In a test of an algorithm currently in use by personnel departments, in one case, every woman who applied for a job was rejected because the algorithm assigned less weight to graduates from women’s colleges or participants in women’s sports. In another case, 28 current members of Congress were identified by facial recognition technology as being criminals or terrorists. Eleven of the 28 were people of color.
According to those who are investigating the techniques, these errors come about because white men gave the programs the ability to teach themselves, and the programs carry forward the unconscious biases of white men. Often, the programs’ creators do not know how the programs arrive at the conclusions that they do after they are fed the massive amounts of data that they are provided. It’s all a impenetrable black box, even to the programmers. In one experiment, Facebook programmers released a program into its universe that was designed to “learn” from Facebook postings. Within a day, the program was spreading conspiracy theories, praising Hitler, spouting racial epithets, and denying the Holocaust.
In another experiment, Facebook distributed a one-time notice over its platform on Election Day 2016. Two versions were randomly sent to individuals. One version simply urged people to vote. Another carried the exact same message, but, at the bottom, put faces of the recipient’s Facebook friends with a notation saying “I voted.” Facebook later matched the recipients of these messages to state government voter records. The result: 300,000 more people that received the message with the friends’ faces voted than those that received the one without the faces. Given that Trump won the election by 100,000 votes spread over four states, this one message from Facebook could possibly have affected the outcome of the Presidential election. And this was a random experiment. Suppose Facebook decided to deliberately swing the election by sending different messages to Republicans and Democrats, in order to achieve the outcome that Facebook desired.
If you are not currently paranoid about the uses and misuses of high-tech algorithms that affect our lives, you will be after watching this film. Highly recommended.
“Aleksi” (Tihana Lazovic) is an aimless 28-year-old Croatian, who has just returned to her parents’ home on the Adriatic coast. Her family runs a fairly successful vineyard, which has allowed her to pursue her studies/passion in photography elsewhere in Europe. She is half-heartedly applying for an internship (in what, we are never told) in Berlin, which her mother (Neda Arneric) notes would be her third unpaid internship without a job. Her father (Aljoša Vuckovic) would like her to remain at home and take over the family business, but Aleksi sees no promise of fun or romance in that.
Instead, she wiles the summer away with fitful affairs with two men: “Christian” (Jason Mann), an American she met on the trip home who is now vacationing nearby, and “Goran” (Goran Markovic), a local pop singer with his own band. She is also attracted to an experienced older man, “Toni” (Sebastian Cavazza), the separated husband of a family friend.
Aleksi flits between these three men as the mood and opportunity strike her, while they become increasingly frustrated at her capriciousness. Aleksi gradually discovers that having the freedom to do what you want can be a burden when you don’t know what it is you want to do.
Writer-director Barbara Vekaric has created a superficial, but engaging character, who also ultimately becomes frustrating for the audience. Still, I think there’s a little of Aleksi in everyone. We’d all, at times, like to be able to be as irresponsible and offhand as she is, even if it does come with a little angst.
Although Croatia has a century-long history of filmmaking, Vekaric’s picture, her first feature, is one of the few recent films from that country that have broken out of the domestic market into the wider world. I look forward to her future work.
