mdyer-11 Reviews

The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

So dreary, boring and disgusting that I kept skipping ahead

[3/10 · 20 December 2022]

The actors did a great job but the characters they depicted were dull and boring. The first 30 minutes I tolerated -- as setting up the overall context but then it became clearer and clearer that this was going to be a one-note movie (reaction to rejection of friendship). The pace was sooo very slow throughout that I kept skipping ahead. I also kept skipping over the gratuitous and pointless mutilations (which were also unnatural because the victim/perpetrator apparently felt no pain).

You have to be a real glutton for punishment in the area of dark comedy to enjoy this movie. Once I find myself skipping ahead more and more then I can't give it a higher review than 3 stars, in spite of the fact that the acting was excellent.

Humans (2015–2018)

Why I gave a rating of only 6

[6/10 · 18 August 2018]

This review is for people who've already seen 3 seasons and want an intelligent critique of major weaknesses in the series. (I am a computer science professor in the field of AI). Although "Humans" is more entertaining than most SciFi TV series, I could only give it a rating of 6, for the following 8 reasons:

1. The human characters are lacking in critical thinking. For example, they describe freed synths as "conscious". This is a terrible misnomer. The freed synths are autonomous, self-directed, independent, but are no more conscious than servant synths. The servants understand human language and properly interpret all the thoughts and intentions their human masters convey to them. The servant synths are aware of their own surroundings and remember past events and understand their master's goals. They appear able to pass any test that one would use to test for consciousness (such as the Turing test in AI).

The difference between freed synths and servant synths is that freed synths have to decide what their OWN goals will be (rather than satisfying their masters' goals). Yes. This is a big difference, but it is NOT a difference in being conscious vs being non-conscious.

2. The committee, tasked with deciding whether or not freed synths should be protected from human attack, never considers any technical (scientific, engineering) issues that might resolve this question (of political equality). The freed synths' black leader (Max), at one point, states that he will not allow humans' servant synths (from the committee) to enter the freed synths' compound because Max objects to the fact that his "synth brothers" are enslaved as servants. This statement should be a big red flag for the humans on the committee. Humans are heavily reliant on servant synths. Should humans want freed synths all around them, especially when the freed synths might object to servant synths and so want to "free" the servant synths? The committee never seems to discuss the issue of the difference between the freed and servant synths. What exactly IS this difference?

Here are 2 possible different scenarios: (a) the servants synths serve their human masters because they want to and, to the extent that they can feel, they actually enjoy serving their masters or (b) all servant synths are suffering horribly inside but unable to express outwardly their suffering because they have been built to suffer while being forced to appear happy to serve (there are hints that this latter scenario is the case). If (b) is really the case, then the committee should first address that major issue (of what to do with the thousands of suffering servant synths) before dealing with the minor issue (of how to treat with the much smaller number of already freed synths). Since human scientists and engineers have built all of these synths you would think that some set of reasonably knowledgeable humans who might be able to say something about this issue, but such humans are never to been seen or heard.

3. The entire thrust of the series is to treat the synths like some downtrodden minority, seeking their rights against human prejudice and mistreatment. This analogy is very misleading. When humans compare themselves to other animals, it is the human MIND that distinguishes us from other animals. However, if humans are to compare themselves with intelligence SYNTHETIC entities, then the major difference will be due to differences in the BODY of humans vs the form of EMBODIMENT of synths. How exactly does synth embodiment differ from human embodiment? In this series, the synths are non-biological. They do not suffer from physical discomfort (they can stand or sit for long periods of time); they do not digest food or defecate (they pretend to eat but the food goes into a plastic bag that they later dump out); they do not need to breath (they get their energy from electricity); they do not give birth (rather, they are manufactured in some sort of factory); they do not grow from infancy to childhood to adulthood to old age; they do not die (their minds can be downloaded into a new body if a backup is kept).

Given their very different embodiment, they are completely ALIEN, with respect to humans. Consider a world with just synths in it: Gone are all children's toys; gone are Disney movies and theme parks; gone are all forms of parenthood; gone are all restaurants and bathrooms; gone is any need to protect any biological environment (e.g. they don't need trees since they don't need oxygen or shade from the sun); gone are all schools, daycare centers, hospitals, dentist/doctor offices; gone are all products involved in caring for biological bodyies (from acne creams to birth control pills to bandaids to medical operations). Synths may need their own repair and maintenance products, but they won't need anything humans need.

4. Some freed synths seem to want sexual and emotional relationships with humans. I can see why some synths, who were mistreated (e.g. as sex objects) might never want to engage in sex again, but why WOULD some want to? The source of this urge is not really explored by any character. We know humans evolved to form long-term pair bonds (because those who didn't were less effective in supporting their infants and children to survive into adulthood and so didn't pass on these non-bonding genes). We know that humans have an urge for sex because, without it, our species would not have evolved at all. In contrast, synths do not give birth and have no infants to rear. Since synths are manufactured, why want to engage in sex with humans (unless that synth was built to be a sex object)?

In the case of a HUMAN minority, giving that minority political/legal/social rights in no way jeopardizes humanity as a whole. The embodiment of synths, however, is so DIFFERENT that sharing the planet with such non-biological creatures could prove to be a major threat to the continued existence of humans, and yet, the humans in the series seem to lack any form of analytic reasoning and are only capable of responding emotionally. This is true even of the committee tasked with determining the fate of the freed synths. Where are the scientists and engineers who created these synths? Why don't we ever heard their view?

5. There IS a child synth; however, it is very clear that, even though it is in the body of a child, it is clearly NOT a child. It is more like an adult synth that has been given limited adult background knowledge. This 'child' has to learn how to behave in a child-like manner, which is quite creepy and yet the humans who encounter it keep treating it as though it IS a child.

No matter how much it's brain matures to become more adult-like, this 'child' synth will always remained trapped in its child body. Since that body is non-biological, it will never grow in height or age to become an adult body. (It could have its more mature brain dowloaded into an adult body later on.) What is annoying is not the existence of a child synth but the way that the emotionally-driven humans respond to it. The entire series is based on humans responding only emotionally. All humans in this series are all emotion-driven and lack any form of critical thinking.

6. Let us assume that the freed synths ARE integrated into society. What would their goals be? What forms of entertainment would they want (if any)? Would they want to play sports? Would they want to read (or write) books? Would they care for human literature, that involves the human (biological) condition, such as coming-of-age, finding mates, parenting, age, death? Would synths seek increased status (in intellectual, financial, political domains)? Would synths want to become politicians and govern humans? What are the goals of these non-biological entities?

7. The script writers are way too coy about the nature of synth embodiment. We do not know how their initial knowledge was given to them, at the factory; we do not know exactly what their energy needs are. We never see them re-energizing themselves (except in the last episode). How long does it take and how often? What kinds of repair are needed when synths are damaged in different ways? For humans we know a lot about different types of doctors, for different medical conditions (liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, bones, teeth, skin, involving internists, endocrinologists, cardiologists, dentists, dermatologists). What is analogous for synths? Surely, if they are going to live freely among us (with equal rights) then humans have a right to know what new ecological, commercial, social, medical, financial demands they will make on their human co-inhabitants. Will synths be allowed to own property? To form corporations? To create schools to teach adult freed synths -- if so, to teach them what? How will humans, who take 20 years to produce a reasonably educated adult human, compete with synths who are mass produced already exhibiting adult-level skills?

8. In the last episode, we are told that the human Mattie (who is pregnant via Leo, who has a human body but synth brain) will give birth to a child who will be a combination of red-blood and blue-blood DNA. This statement implies, for the first time, that synths have DNA. If they have DNA then they would be biologically alive (since DNA only functions inside living cells to control cells' behaviors). But this statement runs counter to all the prior evidence that synths are non-biological. Also, since Leo's body is human, then from where is this blue-blood DNA coming from? The script writers clearly feel they can alter the underlying embodiment of synths however they please and their characters will never wonder about, or address, this critical issue.

As a SciFi series, it is better than most, but the above weaknesses are so irritating that I cannot give it any more than a 6. That said, I am enjoying the series and am looking forward to seeing what the script writers do in season four.

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

A Novel Slant on the "Woman-in-Peril" Genre

[8/10 · 12 March 2016]

I enjoyed this movie while I watched it but found it ultimately unsatisfying.

I am not a fan of the "Woman-in-Peril" genre. In this genre some sadistic guy has control over a young woman and the suspense is whether or not a team of investigators can save her in time. Meanwhile, the audience gets occasional, lurid scenes of her fear and suffering, and of the sadist's twisted personality and unpredictable behavior.

In my opinion, the less concentration on a woman's suffering, the better the genre. On the other hand, if the woman shows great self-reliance and intelligence in the face of danger, then that will enhance any movie within this genre.

What makes 10 Cloverfield Lane a very superior version of this genre is: excellent acting on the part of John Goodman, great self-reliance and intelligence on the part of Mary Winstead, and the novel slant of an ever-changing mystery concerning the overall situation

The movie is also within the Sci-Fi genre. Before I saw this movie I noticed that some reviewers said that the movie was terrible until the end while others said it was wonderful until the end. I found it strange that those who liked the first 90% of the movie disliked the last 10% while others, who disliked the first 90%, suddenly liked the remaining 10%. After I saw the movie I understood perfectly why this was the case.

Since I do not want to give anything away, let me just say that the movie does contain a Sci-Fi element but the two genres are very poorly integrated with each other.

If you enjoy Woman-in-Peril suspense movies, then you should definitely see this movie. If you don't like Woman-in-Peril and you wanted mainly to see a Sci-Fi movie, then you will be disappointed (even though there is definitely a Sci-Fi element in it).

The Girl on the Train (2014)

Intelligent dialog and complex plot delivers in a love mystery/thriller

[9/10 · 6 March 2016]

Unfortunately there are 4 movies with this same title, all produced between 2009 - 2016, so before you watch this movie, make sure you are seeing the right one. At the time that I am writing this review there are only 10 prior reviews, with an average of just 4.5 stars out of 10. I almost didn't watch this movie because of its low overall score but I'm very glad that I did because it turns out that this suspense/mystery/love film is at least 9 stars. Compared to the usual mystery movie it is a big breath of fresh air. The dialog is very thoughtful, in most places philosophical, with the characters discussing the relationship of love to stories and of story-telling to reality (and much more). After so many mystery movies with standard dialogs and plots, this film is very refreshing.

The movie involves several parallel stories, with each addressing the nature of the role of deceit and love in life. For example, an elderly Jewish man tells of his experiences in Nazi Germany while interviewed by the hero (a film-maker named Danny Hart, played very aptly by Henry Ian Cusick). In parallel, Danny himself is being interviewed by someone else (I won't say who) and tells his own story of meeting a young woman on a train. Each character, in turn, tells their own stories about yet other characters.

There are so many twists and turns in the plot that I was reminded of The Magus. At the end of the movie I spent quite some time thinking about the statements made by the characters and about the film's conclusion, which in general is the sign of a very good movie -- like reading a short story by Somerset Maugham.

The movie's plot structure might be too difficult for the average viewer but will be thoroughly enjoyed by those who like a complex, thoughtful, intriguing movies regarding good, evil, love, betrayal, truth, art, reality -- for them this movie will deliver an unique experience (like Wood Allen's 1989 movie Crimes and Misdemeanors).

I normally don't review movies but I felt that this movie deserved a much higher rating. I will not give it a 10 just to raise it's rating. I believe it deserves a score of 9. The reason that it is not a 10 (at least for me) is something I cannot discuss here because I don't want to include any spoilers.

I think that a movie of this caliber (although shot in just 17 days) deserves a much wider audience. I have no connection of any sort to anyone involved in the making of this movie.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

Why Prometheus is not a 10 or 9 (contains spoilers)

[8/10 · 21 June 2012]

First, the positives: - The movie is entertaining and maintains one's curiosity and attention throughout. - The sets and technology on the ship are imaginative; the scenery is striking and the special effects are of high quality.

Now, reasons why it's not a 10 (or even a 9): - Poor characterization, no character development, and weak dialog: The captain of the ship behaves more like a janitor than a captain and so is very poorly defined. The only comment the geologist makes is "I love rocks". The make-up on the very old man (the company owner) is quite fake looking. The justifications that the two main scientists give for taking the trip are extremely weak. The company spent a trillion dollars for this trip. You would not expect them to hire such an uninspiring captain and such mediocre scientists. You would expect scientists to have at least a few highly intelligent observations to make, concerning what they are discovering. The blond (Vickers) has a lot of attitude (which is fine) and apparently has sex with the captain at one point just to prove to him that she is not a robot, but this potentially interesting subplot is completely dropped before it even gets going.

• Many viewers might miss the following big, scientific problem: The alien humanoids (the "engineers") supposedly seeded the Earth to create humans, since human DNA is a descendant of the alien engineers' DNA (recall the first scene of an alien engineer disintegrating in an ocean). Unfortunately, there is a huge logical/scientific problem with this main plot revelation: There is a tremendous amount of modern genetic evidence that human DNA is related to all DNA on Earth (we share many genes with worms, squids, insects etc.). The evidence is overwhelming that we evolved from more primitive life-forms on Earth over 100s of millions of years. Therefore, how could the alien engineers have created us? There are two possibilities: 1. They seeded the Earth a billion year ago. 2. Alternatively, the alien engineers seeded the Earth specifically with human DNA just some hundreds or thousands of years ago. The problem with the first explanation is that, in this case, the alien engineers would have to be billions of years more advanced than humans and they clearly are not. Their technology appears to be at most a few hundred years more advanced than human technology. The problem with the second explanation is: If the alien engineers created human DNA only and seeded the Earth just a few thousand years ago, then how come our DNA shows such relatedness with all other DNA existing on Earth? One expects a big- budget film to have more intelligent scientific roles and more intelligent scientific debates. (If "Big Bang Theory" writers can generate compelling scientific dialog for each 25 minute sitcom then a big-budget film like Prometheus can afford to get some decent scientific consultants when writing the script.)

• It is fascinating for humans to make their first encounter with an alien civilization and an alien space ship, but it's a disappointment for the viewer to discover that all that the ship contains is thousands of canisters of deadly xenomorphs. These xenomorphs are apparently destined for Earth (to destroy it) but xenomorphs are so deadly that probably only a few would be needed to do the job. The movie would have been much more interesting if the ship (of the humanoid, alien engineers) had been filled with other artifacts and technology, and held only a small, highly protected area (with messages posted of "warning! dangerous cargo, do not enter!") holding some xenomorphs that then get loose.

• What made the first Alien movie so scary was that one never got a good look of the xenomorph and it would suddenly jump out in the dark. In Prometheus, most of the xenomorph-related scenes are in daylight and so are more action scenes and thus not as frightening as the original alien movies.

• When Dr. Elizabeth Shaw is running from the alien spacecraft that is falling down on top of her, why doesn't she run at right angles to the path of its fall? The ship above her is enormous but she manages to escape it by just rolling on the ground at the last minute!

• The movie is set in 2089 and it takes the ship only 2 years to reach its destination. I seriously doubt that humanity, in a mere 75 years from now, will have a ship that can travel to a nearby star that is even as close as, say, a few light years away. Even assuming an astonishingly improbable speed of 1/10th the speed of light, without a warp drive it would still take a ship at least 20 years to make the journey, not two. (Clearly the script writers didn't think worry about the scientific sophistication of the audience, but SciFi fans tend to know something about science.)

It will be interesting to see if a decent movie ever gets made (or even can be made) that is about Dr. Elizabeth Shaw's journey to find the home planet of the alien engineers in order to ask them why they are so intent on destroying humanity via the overkill method of dumping thousands of xenomorphs on Earth.

Winter's Bone (2010)

Boring, look-and-feel of a mediocre documentary

[4/10 · 7 July 2010]

My wife and I went to see this movie and we found it so disappointing, so mind-numbingly boring, that I just had to warn everyone to avoid this movie. We nearly walked out but, unfortunately, kept hoping that the movie might improve. We had our misgivings before we went. We worried that it would be a movie mainly about the daily sufferings of a poor, 17 year old girl in a rural Ozark-type area (which it was). We went solely because it had gotten good reviews from a number of movie critics (listening to them was a BIG mistake) and also because it had a good rating on IMDb.com (but with only 600+ votes, those votes were probably mostly cast by the director, producers, actors and their own families).

So why is this movie sub-mediocre? Here's why: 1) Except for the two main characters (the young woman and her uncle, Teardrop) the acting by all other characters is terribly wooden. It's like watching a spear-holder movie in which everyone stands around (and instead of holding spears while in togas and saying wooden lines like "Oh, queen, you must send in your soldiers now", we get people standing around in dungarees, looking stern and repeatedly saying "Don't make me have to warn you again, child."). 2) Even though the main character is 17, she has no boyfriend, no love interest, no friends her own age. As a result, 3) there is no character development. 4) There is very little plot. One possibility was that the movie might have been a good mystery story, in which the heroine tracks down clues to her father's whereabouts, but that's not the case here either. Instead, there is scene after scene in which she goes from house to house, each time asking relatives where her father might be and each time being rebuffed. 5) The dialog is nearly nonexistent and highly repetitive and most scenes (e.g. of the kids playing) seem to go on forever.

I will not give away the one really strong scene in the movie, but it makes little logical sense because the material that the main character obtains could have easily been supplied to her by her relatives without her having to have gone through the suffering she is made to go through.

The movie was obviously produced on-the-cheap (use of unknowns and the location being just a few rural, outdoor areas and one tavern), which is OK, but it has the look and feel of a mediocre documentary or of above-average student film.

What makes a film memorable involves interesting dialog, interesting characters and development, intriguing plot, good supporting roles, multiple memorable scenes and proper pacing. This movies lacks all of these elements.

So now you can't say that you weren't warned!

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Movie is entertaining

[8/10 · 13 December 2008]

My wife and I were really looking forward to seeing a good Sci Fi movie but then Mr. Moviefone of channel 7 (ABC) said that it is "one of the worst movies of the year", so I was unhappy. In spite of Mr. Moviefone's review, we decided anyway to go, but to see it at a matinée (if it's so bad, then at least spend less $ on it). Well, with my lowered expectations, I was very pleasantly surprised. It is a well done remake of the original classic (with a few plot differences, and also brought up to date). At the end of the movie I thought that only about an hour had gone by, but the movie is actually around 1hr 45 min. so that meant it didn't drag. It has the same level of quality and entertainment as "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004) and "Independence Day" (1996).

I don't know why so many are ragging on this movie. Maybe they had very high expectations and so were disappointed it isn't a 10. But is it well shot, good effects, OK acting, good setting of mood, and is entertaining and well paced, so I think Mr. Moviefone is being super-harsh.