Quet-zal
may 2023 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos2
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas91
Clasificación de Quet-zal
It's a pretty good anti-capitalist cyberpunk film. The main problem is that it offers virtually nothing new. It's a cross between "Blade Runner" and "Ghost in the Shell," echoes Asimov's robotic works, and many other works.
The film brilliantly portrays digital racism (that's how I describe the contempt for robots in futuristic works, and our contempt for AI in our real world) and the desire to replace some slaves with others. For profit, of course. There are some innovative solutions, such as interesting forms of exploitation of the poor (brain farms), but overall, watching it, we get the overwhelming feeling that we've all seen this before. Perhaps it would have been better to make this a short film. Or, conversely, to extend the subplots and make it a series.
I give the film six stars because it addresses important issues, of which we already have a foretaste with AI today. But don't expect anything you haven't already seen.
The film brilliantly portrays digital racism (that's how I describe the contempt for robots in futuristic works, and our contempt for AI in our real world) and the desire to replace some slaves with others. For profit, of course. There are some innovative solutions, such as interesting forms of exploitation of the poor (brain farms), but overall, watching it, we get the overwhelming feeling that we've all seen this before. Perhaps it would have been better to make this a short film. Or, conversely, to extend the subplots and make it a series.
I give the film six stars because it addresses important issues, of which we already have a foretaste with AI today. But don't expect anything you haven't already seen.
This is an excellent anti-capitalist film that portrays the tragedy of a small community.
The series is based on a true story of the pollution of a small town. We observe the tragedy of mothers giving birth to disabled children and, of course, the initial denial of this fact by both the authorities and the residents. Until the matter becomes so large that it's impossible to ignore the bull in the china shop.
The atmosphere of a provincial town is very well captured. The atmosphere of those responsible covering up their tracks, the burning of files, and the commissioning of "scientific" reports for a thesis are also well-rendered. The set design and characterization are excellent.
The acting of the trio of Jodie Whittaker, Aimee Lou Wood, and Rory Kinnear is excellent.
It seems that the series could have been a bit longer, as the story was a bit simplified. For example, in the second episode, we jump ahead a few years, and Susan says in one sentence that she spent the last few years fighting for compensation for her son but received nothing. It's just one sentence-it could have been shown in an additional episode. Nevertheless, it's still an excellent, socially engaged film about what happens and can happen to all of us, regardless of the country we live in.
The series is based on a true story of the pollution of a small town. We observe the tragedy of mothers giving birth to disabled children and, of course, the initial denial of this fact by both the authorities and the residents. Until the matter becomes so large that it's impossible to ignore the bull in the china shop.
The atmosphere of a provincial town is very well captured. The atmosphere of those responsible covering up their tracks, the burning of files, and the commissioning of "scientific" reports for a thesis are also well-rendered. The set design and characterization are excellent.
The acting of the trio of Jodie Whittaker, Aimee Lou Wood, and Rory Kinnear is excellent.
It seems that the series could have been a bit longer, as the story was a bit simplified. For example, in the second episode, we jump ahead a few years, and Susan says in one sentence that she spent the last few years fighting for compensation for her son but received nothing. It's just one sentence-it could have been shown in an additional episode. Nevertheless, it's still an excellent, socially engaged film about what happens and can happen to all of us, regardless of the country we live in.
The series presents the story of the Stanford Experiment. It's divided into three episodes. The first presents the most well-known version of events, the second focuses on criticism of the methodology, the experiment, and the presenter himself. The third episode allows everyone to express themselves freely and present their own version, including Professor Zimbardo.
The series' appeal depends largely on how little you know about the Stanford Experiment. If you don't know much, the series can be a bit chaotic. For example, Professor Zimbardo isn't named until halfway through the first episode, so if you weren't familiar with him, you might wonder who he is. The series will be much better for intermediate learners. It includes many details that aren't widely known, so you can expand your knowledge if you already knew something before watching the film. The interviews with the participants and the experimenter are very informative.
The program allows them to express themselves completely freely, and what some of them say is truly shocking. It's not about what happened during the experiment, but how all these people came to terms with the experience. For example, one of the "prisoners" says he faked it to be released, one of the "guards" says he only pretended to be evil to subvert the system, and the experiment's creator has absolutely nothing to reproach himself for and considers any criticism groundless. All of this is somewhat reminiscent of a popular song in my country by soccer fans who, after losing a match, celebrate that nothing happened and will win in four years.
It's also worth noting the bitter reflection on the media and scientists (though this is more my observation than the film's message). Although the Stanford experiment was-to put it mildly-very controversial, and its official results-to put it mildly-not very reliable, no one questioned it for over 30 years, and Professor Zimbardo was an undisputed authority and public figure. Although today the Stanford experiment is heavily criticized and its results are less and less recognized, it did happen in 1970. The fact that so many years had to pass unfortunately does not reflect well on either the media or other researchers.
The series' appeal depends largely on how little you know about the Stanford Experiment. If you don't know much, the series can be a bit chaotic. For example, Professor Zimbardo isn't named until halfway through the first episode, so if you weren't familiar with him, you might wonder who he is. The series will be much better for intermediate learners. It includes many details that aren't widely known, so you can expand your knowledge if you already knew something before watching the film. The interviews with the participants and the experimenter are very informative.
The program allows them to express themselves completely freely, and what some of them say is truly shocking. It's not about what happened during the experiment, but how all these people came to terms with the experience. For example, one of the "prisoners" says he faked it to be released, one of the "guards" says he only pretended to be evil to subvert the system, and the experiment's creator has absolutely nothing to reproach himself for and considers any criticism groundless. All of this is somewhat reminiscent of a popular song in my country by soccer fans who, after losing a match, celebrate that nothing happened and will win in four years.
It's also worth noting the bitter reflection on the media and scientists (though this is more my observation than the film's message). Although the Stanford experiment was-to put it mildly-very controversial, and its official results-to put it mildly-not very reliable, no one questioned it for over 30 years, and Professor Zimbardo was an undisputed authority and public figure. Although today the Stanford experiment is heavily criticized and its results are less and less recognized, it did happen in 1970. The fact that so many years had to pass unfortunately does not reflect well on either the media or other researchers.