imdb2-556-923983
Joined Oct 2009
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews15
imdb2-556-923983's rating
The question on my mind after seeing The Shock Doctrine was whether ends justify means. Quite possibly, this is the question Klein wanted to be asked, because much of her case regards the distasteful means taken in order to further free market economics, tactics which the very proponents of these dogmas may feel they want to disassociate themselves with. However, my question was about Klein's/Winterbottom's own tactics.
The film uses all methods that we've grown used to from modern politics: cherry-picked facts, "proofs" by emotionally-charged metaphors, hinted claims of guilt by association, sound-bite slogans that are repeated incessantly, and, of course, scare tactics. Sad to say, I've come to expect these things from political candidates that need to make their points in a 30-second TV appearance. I've even come to expect them in rating-seeking news programs. But have we stooped so low that these tactics are now par-for-the-course in documentaries, where a film-maker has 90 minutes of canvas to make a clear, compelling, and well-argued case? I happen to agree with Klein's stance that extreme capitalism is dangerous, and I think what we are seeing in both Europe and China in recent years (e.g. the collapse of Chinese nation-wide education and health policies) are just further proofs of the narrative Klein forwards. However, I don't see that there is a well-argued case here that would convince someone claiming that any change, good or bad, rarely happens in a peaceful way, or that the ultimate outcome of privatization is better than the alternative. In fact, only a handful of minutes of this film are devoted to the question of what the final outcome of extreme capitalism looks like, historically, and these minutes are full of unsubstantiated claims thrown into the air in what is exactly the tactic Klein warns against: shock a person for just over an hour, and suddenly that person becomes much more open to suggestion, at which point you can sprinkle some of your favorite dogmas on him.
So, perhaps this film does a good job with all those who are willing to be convinced by visceral arguments, the likes of which have, unfortunately, come to dominate the public discourse, but I rather promote those who educate people to think. Scaring people to make the choices you think are right... well, that's what this film is all about. Isn't it?
The film uses all methods that we've grown used to from modern politics: cherry-picked facts, "proofs" by emotionally-charged metaphors, hinted claims of guilt by association, sound-bite slogans that are repeated incessantly, and, of course, scare tactics. Sad to say, I've come to expect these things from political candidates that need to make their points in a 30-second TV appearance. I've even come to expect them in rating-seeking news programs. But have we stooped so low that these tactics are now par-for-the-course in documentaries, where a film-maker has 90 minutes of canvas to make a clear, compelling, and well-argued case? I happen to agree with Klein's stance that extreme capitalism is dangerous, and I think what we are seeing in both Europe and China in recent years (e.g. the collapse of Chinese nation-wide education and health policies) are just further proofs of the narrative Klein forwards. However, I don't see that there is a well-argued case here that would convince someone claiming that any change, good or bad, rarely happens in a peaceful way, or that the ultimate outcome of privatization is better than the alternative. In fact, only a handful of minutes of this film are devoted to the question of what the final outcome of extreme capitalism looks like, historically, and these minutes are full of unsubstantiated claims thrown into the air in what is exactly the tactic Klein warns against: shock a person for just over an hour, and suddenly that person becomes much more open to suggestion, at which point you can sprinkle some of your favorite dogmas on him.
So, perhaps this film does a good job with all those who are willing to be convinced by visceral arguments, the likes of which have, unfortunately, come to dominate the public discourse, but I rather promote those who educate people to think. Scaring people to make the choices you think are right... well, that's what this film is all about. Isn't it?
I'm not a fan of mindless action flicks, which this is. Characters portrayed as though they were made of steel and rubber make me cringe. Art-major-physics I find annoying. I went to see this movie because of Simon Pegg, and he delivers 100%.
I also had a good time.
The movie is not going to become a classic, but it's well made. All boxes are ticked: 4 exotic locations, including ample opportunity for some pretty high drops. One immediately-recognizable landmark destroyed graphically. Cruise to star, Patton as eye candy, Pegg for the British humor. Nods to previous installments in the series. High-tech gadgets that seem ultra-futuristic but still plausible. etc..
The simple fact is that the old-guard of action-movie makers has gotten tired over the years, and these are the people who stepped up to replace them and are currently holding the fort: Brad Bird directed this movie as though The Incredibles was a dress-rehearsal for it; J.J. Abrams gave it that Star Trek feel and brought in the writers of "Alias" and "Life on Mars" for the extra shine.
It's not going to be a favorite of mine. I will likely forget all about it a week from now. But during the movie's 2 1/4 hours, it felt like watching a James Bond movie for the first time. And I don't mean a new Daniel Craig movie. I mean, that feeling I got when Connery was Connery, Moore was Moore and Bond was Bond.
Oh, and super-cool gadgets were super-cool gadgets.
If you're keen on checking your brains out at the door and having an escapist 2+ hours of good time, this one is a good choice for you.
If, on the other hand, you like an original story, believable three-dimensional characters with some development arc, a back-story, emotional integrity, or anything that remotely resembles any of the above: do yourself a favor and choose curtain #2, instead.
I also had a good time.
The movie is not going to become a classic, but it's well made. All boxes are ticked: 4 exotic locations, including ample opportunity for some pretty high drops. One immediately-recognizable landmark destroyed graphically. Cruise to star, Patton as eye candy, Pegg for the British humor. Nods to previous installments in the series. High-tech gadgets that seem ultra-futuristic but still plausible. etc..
The simple fact is that the old-guard of action-movie makers has gotten tired over the years, and these are the people who stepped up to replace them and are currently holding the fort: Brad Bird directed this movie as though The Incredibles was a dress-rehearsal for it; J.J. Abrams gave it that Star Trek feel and brought in the writers of "Alias" and "Life on Mars" for the extra shine.
It's not going to be a favorite of mine. I will likely forget all about it a week from now. But during the movie's 2 1/4 hours, it felt like watching a James Bond movie for the first time. And I don't mean a new Daniel Craig movie. I mean, that feeling I got when Connery was Connery, Moore was Moore and Bond was Bond.
Oh, and super-cool gadgets were super-cool gadgets.
If you're keen on checking your brains out at the door and having an escapist 2+ hours of good time, this one is a good choice for you.
If, on the other hand, you like an original story, believable three-dimensional characters with some development arc, a back-story, emotional integrity, or anything that remotely resembles any of the above: do yourself a favor and choose curtain #2, instead.