Movie Review: Prometheus UPDATE 6-11

Short review:  It sucked.


One star, for the robotic c-section. Nice.


Longer review:

Sigmund's point is well-taken that if the Engineers had "impregnated" the earth with DNA 4 billion years ago then they would have evolved further away from their current phenotype as seen in the movie. Alternatively, if the impregnation happened within the last million years, as evidenced by the vegetative life on earth during the opening scene, then the writer is re-writing evolutionary history.

Okay, I'll forgive all that. The greater point is that the movie sucked in nearly every other way as well. The special effects were prodigious-- the robot c-section was outstanding-- but the plot was tiresome. Unlike other sci-fi films it does not open any new and interesting thought processes. The old Star Trek series' were much more thought-provoking in addressing our existential threats, our collective hopes, our eternal angst, our complex social interactions, etc. 

In Prometheus every character was fatally flawed either by lack of development or unrealistic and unbelievable actions.  Scientists were undisciplined, incompetent and superstitious, which is pretty much a mortal sin for any science fiction movie. If we can't see the scientists as worthwhile then why watch? How could such morons even get to this distant planet in the first place? 

As Deus Ex Malcontent (DXM) notes:

Okay, a trillion-dollar expedition into space with the aim of discovering the origin of man, the most important mission mankind has ever undertaken, and the 17 people hand-picked for it are the dumbest and most unlikable people planet Earth has to offer. Scientists don't behave like scientists. The captain of the ship seems strangely disinterested in his crew's peril. Characters do unbelievably stupid things seemingly without reason and thoroughly against what we know of their personalities through the meager amount of set-up we're given. 

Then I realized the day after seeing the movie that the writer is the same as for TV's Lost. I would not have wasted 2 hours watching this trash if I had known. The plot was the same disjointed, gratuitous and lame garbage. A mess. 

As DXM says: "In reference to all of these questions, I blame and kind of hate [Lost writer] Damon Lindelof. Despite its popularity, Lost was annoying metaphysical tripe that masqueraded as intellectualism -- and Lindelof seems to have brought the same ethos to Prometheus." 

Or maybe Ridley Scott is getting demented to have bought into this crappy script.

I agree with DXM up until the final paragraph of his review when he abstrusely says he is going to see the movie again (!)... just to see it in IMAX.

WTF?!

I saw it in 2D and I'm thankful I didn't pay the extra $3.50 for 3D. Why on earth would anybody want to waste even more hard-earned coin on this trash?

Aside from the c-section scene this thing is unwatchable.


(h/t @GoodDoc01 for the DXM reference)
_______________________________________________________________


UPDATE: 6-11-2012


Cavalorn explores the religious symbolism in Prometheus, which may be correct or it may be over-reading the intent. Topics such as virgin births, creators, resurrection and self-sacrifice are hardly the sole property of Judeo-Christianity, and the project is named after a Greek mythic figure, so perhaps Ridley Scott is attempting some sort of neo-Neoplatonism.... This consideration actually just adds to my annoyance with the film.

The Spielberg Face

Is Dark Knight a political allegory?

Walking out of the latest Batman movie, my politically aware compatriot immediately remarked that he thought the Joker was a representation of Dick Cheney, an agent of chaos battling the rule of order.

I disagreed. In fact, if Dark Knight is a political allegory, then I would argue that Batman himself is supposed to be Dick Cheney, the secretive complex protagonist who grunts in monosyllables, an ersatz hero with a billionaire alter ego who has benefited immensely from the status quo and will go to great lengths in order to preserve it. Who are we to know what the political tendencies of the filmmaker are, if there are any indeed?

Cheney, like Bruce Wayne, and unlike the Joker, has lived within the crucible of the power structure of our culture and has done well financially and politically. Bruce Wayne is a self-assured and connected player within the Gotham society; he owns buildings, escorts dignitaries and influences the opinion of the mucky-mucks. That’s our beloved Dick Cheney.

The Joker is the disconnected agent of chaos, sowing destruction for no other reason than to do it. The better political analogy would be the Joker representing Osama bin laden or perhaps global terrorism itself. While some of us may see a bit more order to the roots of real world terrorism, for the purpose of the movie’s plot, this would suffice. The Joker recruits the dregs of society to do his bidding and act as fodder.

Continuing the analogy, Commissioner Gordon is akin to George W. Bush, the maligned leader who is caught between forces that he cannot control or even understand. Batman, while attempting to serve as the force for good, engages in destructive activities that lead to a host of unintended consequences that endanger the populace. The Commissioner bears the brunt of the mayhem as he wishes to bring the Joker to justice but must also navigate the mixed sentiments surrounding Batman’s violent vigilantism. In the end, Commissioner Gordon is hurt and his family (read: Bush’s legacy) is injured, as he muddles through the out-of-control situation.

Of course, the filmmaker may have had none of this in mind when he penned the screenplay. All comic book characters play with the notion of good versus evil, control versus chaos, and the Bush administration’s “with us or against us” ideology plays into the comic book analogy very well.

I suppose we can see political analogy in much of culture if we were to use our imagination. Was “Jaws” a metaphor for the Nixon administration’s wanton predation upon our civic structure? Maybe “The Exorcist” was meant to be a simile for the Vietnam War or the evil of war inhabiting the being of even the most innocent of our culture.

A couple years ago I read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and I could not help but see the similarities between the monster and George W. Bush, but then my senses were deeply affected at the time by the rapidly degenerating situations of the Iraq war and the economy. Bush, I truly believe, has always meant well by his intent, but he is flawed by infantilism, much like Dr. Frankenstein’s creation. Bush lacks the intellectual prowess, the cerebral horsepower, to navigate complex situations, he is a creation of our modern social structure, and seems truly surprised by the failures that he has encountered-- all ripped from the pages of Shelley's classic.

Of course some literature has been expressly intended as political allegory, as every high school student learns when studying Gulliver’s Travels, Jonathan Swift’s satire on European politics. Other fictional works merely play on eternal truths which can then be applied to many situations, political or personal. Ernest Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea could also be seen in the Bush presidency, and certainly Herman Melville’s Moby Dick.

With any of these possible metaphors, we start to paint a picture of George W. Bush as a pathetic character, a flawed hero who is put into an unwinnable situation, or eschews warnings to the detriment of himself and his charges.

The Dark Knight: Dick Cheney kicking ass and taking names.

The Good Shepherd

How did I miss this movie?! For some reason, despite an Oscar nomination, a great cast and Robert DeNiro as director, The Good Shepherd missed my line up of movies when it was in the theatres. Last week I happened upon it on HBO and became enthralled immediately.

The movie was long, nearly three hours, but was completely captivating due to its excellent acting, interesting plot material and adequate screen writing. When this movie came out it was advertised as a history drama about the start of the Cold War and the CIA. It is much more than that.

In fact, The Good Shepherd follows Matt Damon's character, Edward Wilson, from childhood and through his career in the Foreign Service during World War II and then into his role as counter-intelligence operative during the Cold War. Wilson is loyal to his wife, his son and his country; he murders, tortures and deceives wantonly and without conscience if such actions are in the interest of these charges. The good shepherd indeed. Angelina Jolie, as his wife Margaret, is amazingly believable as a Connecticut daughter of privilege.

The underlying theme of the movie, however, is more fundamental than a simple history pic about spooks and bad guys. This movie is actually the WASP version of The Godfather. Really. Loyalty and family and "doing the right thing" are emphasized above all else, much like Mario Puzo's 1969 novel and subsequent movie starring Marlon Brando about the New York mafia. The good shepherd is no less than a blond-haired blue-eyed capo regime.

The thematic scene in this movie has Joe Pesci making a cameo appearance as an aging mobster, ala Sam Giancana, who was apparently expelled from Cuba after Castro's revolution. He is being recruited by Matt Damon's CIA character Wilson in a plot to overthrow the Castro regime. Appalled that he would be expected to do the CIA's bidding and that Wilson threatened to export him back to Italy, Pesci's character Joseph Palmi says,

Who are you people? We Italians have our families and the Church, the Irish have their homeland, the Jews have their traditions, even the ni&&ers have their music. What do you have?

Edward Wilson, in a stoic, matter of fact way, intones, "Mr. Palmi, we have the United States of America. You people are all visiting."

And that is the entire point of the movie. The governmental, political, military and clandestine infrastructure of this nation was established for the service of the white majority. Historically, all other ethnic and racial groups exist only at the discretion of this establishment.

Much has evolved in the nearly fifty years since that scene supposedly took place, but the fact remains that the mindset of the aristocracy has not changed. Edward Wilson was a member of Yale's Skull and Bones, as were many of his friends and colleagues at CIA-- an apparent reference to our current president and many of the extant political power-brokers.

The Good Shepherd is an excellent movie with an enduring message as well as a cautionary tale. To limit its message as merely a depiction of the early CIA misses the strong underlying themes of entitlement and purpose of the majority race as well as loyalty, family and service. Leave it to DeNiro to direct such a tour de force.

Studio advertising and movie trailers did not do adequate service promoting this flick. If I had known the fundamental motif, I would have willingly shelled out $8 to watch in the theatre.

   title="Wordle: Good Shepherd">   src="http://wordle.net/thumb/Good_Shepherd"
   style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd"
   >

Depp and Burton make a Masterpiece

Tim Burton’s latest film, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, the morality play of revenge set in 19^th century London, may represent a new genre of film. It contains the dark cartoonish stylings that Burton is known for, but Todd is a musical, described as a black operetta.

Accomplished actors make the film. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are outstanding actors-- as well as singers it turns out. Burton wanted actors who could sing instead of the converse and the play-turned-movie responds well to the elements of style, acting and music. The New York Times correctly calls it “a masterpiece.”

The Los Angeles Times reviewer praises the screenplay and the Stephen Sondheim soundtrack for its fidelity to the stage version. While an R-rated musical may not have broad enough appeal to be a financial success, Sweeney Todd is an excellent film. It’s different from most movies I’ve seen and perhaps the most entertaining in years.

Michael Moore's SiCKO

A couple things in reference to Moore's latest smirky docuflick where he picks a fight with the health care industry. The system is broken, Moore contends, because too many people are denied access, and even those that have access are victims of an unwieldy profit-driven bureaucracy that is in constant antagonism with our best interests.

I find Michael Moore entertaining although frequently over the top. He does seem to tap into the "next big thing", whether it's school violence, the Bush debacle or, now, health care access and cost. If history is any judge, this movie will usher in a riveting consciousness for nationalized health... and maybe it's time.

SiCKO makes salient points, many of which I find compelling, but the movie definitely has its faults. Moore correctly points out that Canadians may wait in line for non-urgent services, but the queue is long only because all their citizens are in it. Here in the US we have less waiting time for MRI's and surgery partly because 20% of those within our borders are not plugged into the system and are thus not getting any non-urgent care.

One issue I had with Moore's movie was his use of young American expatriots living in France to get their opinion of a comparison of the health care systems in France and the US. Their stories of the French medical care were overwhelmingly positive (of course), but the care they received was predominantly for pregnancies and pediatric care, which by and large are positive experiences. Conversely, the US consumers of health care interviewed by Moore had progressive debilitating diseases, and such patients are often dissatisfied with their health care and its efficacy. He compares apples and oranges.

I did agree with his portrayal of the US system as an unwieldy bureaucracy which is nearly impossible to navigate. Having had some personal experience as a patient and family member of a patient, I can honestly say the bills from hospitals, doctors, labs and diagnostic centers make no sense and I thanked heaven every day that I had a comprehensive plan that only asked for my deductible.

Now I'll go on my rant:

Critics of Moore point out that his figure of 45 million Americans without health insurance is misleading. The proper breakdown shows that many of the uninsured are either illegal aliens, so they are not “Americans”, or are uninsured by choice with many making middle-class salaries.

"We hear a lot these days about 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance.
...According to the US Census Bureau, 17 million of those without health insurance live in households having over $50,000 in annual income. That's 38% of the uninsured in America.(2)
In fact, 9 million - 20% of the uninsured - reside in households pulling down more than $75K a year. (3)
...And then there are the young invincibles. Over 18 million of the uninsured are people between the ages of 18 and 34. (4) They spend more than four times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out as they do for out-of-pocket spending on health care.(5) They represent 40% of the uninsured in America.
...14 million people without health insurance are eligible for government health care programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP but choose not to enroll. (7) They represent %31 - nearly one third - of the uninsured in America.
...The U.S. has 12 million illegal immigrants who don't buy health insurance but still get health care.
...So, how many are truly uninsured? Around eight million. Just 18% of the 45 million that we hear about so often."

So what? The fact remains, at any given time 45 million people in this country do not have insurance. It doesn't matter why they don't have insurance, the fact is that they are not paying premiums and if they get sick they will be a burden on the system. The system is required to absorb all comers-- we do not turn away critically ill people-- and as such all people should be compelled to pay into the system. The “invincibles” and the wealthy poker players need to be taxed in order to pay for the care of the infirm.

Sure many folks choose to deny themselves health coverage, but that does not mean they will not get health care, it just means that they will either struggle to pay for it if needed, or they will default on the bill to the doctors and hospitals. Or, they will be lucky and never pay premiums and never get sick. All of these scenarios are counter-productive. Yes, we should all have free will to make choice in our lives, and the free market should be left to decide our fates. If someone wants to plays roulette with his finances and eschew health insurance, let him. The problem with this reasoning is that the hospitals and doctors do not have the reciprocal freedom to refuse treatment. Not a minute goes by that a middle class uninsured citizen doesn't enter an ER with a potentially life-threatening condition. Nobody denies them treatment. If a specialist is needed, one is assigned and the patient is attended. This is the law. Some specialists may be reluctant to come in on a dreary night to manage someone who they know will never pay the bill, but they come because they are compelled to come and they are compelled to take their turn covering the ER for such patients in order to maintain their hospital privileges. The charter of every acute care hospital mandates that they have specialists available to care for “unassigned” (read: uninsured) patients who need their care, so the hospitals by necessity transfer that mandate onto their specialist staff.. That means some physician will be called in to evaluate and manage this patient, using their hard-earned expertise, taking the risk of a bad outcome, fretting over proper care and perhaps staying up all night only to go into the office for a full day the following morning. And will the doctor get paid? Who knows? Perhaps. But they certainly won't get paid in any kind of timely manner. That's not a way to run a health care system. And I won't even go into the value of health maintenance and the reluctance of uninsured to seek preventive care. How many of those ER visits would have been unnecessary if the person had a regular physician? 38% of the uninsured population chooses not to pay health insurance premiums, and that's okay? We're talking about the middle-class who conceivably should know better, and that's okay?. Furthermore, any insurance program relies on healthy participants paying into the system thereby paying for the care needed for the sick participants. If only sick people have insurance, the system fails.

The second point is that fourteen million people are eligible for Medicaid but choose not to sign up. Again, those people are choosing to not provide an avenue to pay the providers of health care in the event it is needed. The ones who suffer are the providers who are compelled to care for the patients and can only hope that some paperwork is filled out in a timely manner so payment is forthcoming. The patients also suffer the consequences of denying themselves and their children preventive care. If someone is eligible for Medicaid, there's a reason. They are either unemployed by choice, unemployable or too young to have a job. Many of these folks do not have the wherewithal to seek help until it is needed, so to imply that they have access to care and their laziness is the main deterrent to such care is arrogant and counter-productive. The fact is they do not have insurance and that is all that is needed to know. I'll give a case study (named changed):

Carly is an 18 y/o female with a history of juvenile onset diabetes. Her family is dirt-poor, she was raised by a single mother, she just received her GED (government equivalency diploma) and her job pays $8.75 per hour. Fortunately, Carly has no kids (yet). She was told she was eligible for Medicaid, but since she has an income she must pay the first $800 of her health expenses. Before she was 18 her S-Chip Medicaid paid the entire amount. This means that all her diabetes tests strips, glucose monitor and insulin are paid out of pocket. If she has anything left over, she may pay for birth control. Maybe. Or she may decide to go to the beach. Who knows? When I saw her she did not have her Medicaid card, but I examined her and gave her birth control pill samples and told her that Planned Parenthood could provide birth control at a sliding scale cost. Who knows if she went. There are 34 ob/gyns in this town, but only a handful accept Medicaid as payment. Here are my questions:

Why do I have better health care coverage than Carly? Do I really deserve it more than she does? Why does Carly have to shop around to find a doctor to see her and then shop around to get her medicines and supplies at a reasonable cost? I don't. I just call any doctor in town, tell them which insurance I have and they welcome me into their practice. I take my prescription to any pharmacy and get it filled.

Let's assume that Carly really is just a lazy bum who fully understands the intricacies of the health care system, but just plain does not care about her responsibilities. Even though this is unlikely, let's make that assumption. Is it in society's best interest to put hurdles up for this young woman to get health care and birth control? From a pure self-interest standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense to lavish care on this person in order to keep her as healthy as possible and-- almost as important-- not pregnant?

In a perfect world, the perfect Carlies would all be self-reliant stalwarts who overcome their poor circumstances, pull themselves up by their boot-straps, finish college and go on to support their aging mothers and siblings. Unfortunately, the Carlies we all see everyday live in the real world. They don't understand Ayn Rand, Milton Freidman and the supposed free market (but then, who really does?) The real Carlies need their community to embrace them and look out for them. The real Carlies need their doctors and nurses who take care of them to be remunerated the same as the doctors and nurses who are taking care of me. I would argue that those providers caring for the indigent should be paid more. I know this may sound weird, but think about it for a second. Nobody would benefit more than Carly from an interaction with the health care system, and society would benefit immensely by keeping Carly healthy and unpregnant, so why not provide incentive for health care providers to seek these people out and welcome them into their practices? Why not pay Medicaid providers the same to care for Carly as for me? Or, how about this for a novel idea: Why not pay doctors and nurses more to care for Carly? Heresy.

The final group of people who have no insurance are the illegal immigrants, and hell, they don't deserve it, so screw 'em. The free market maniacs imply that this is a no-brainer. They're illegal, for chrissakes, you cannot actually expect that society-- taxpayers-- are responsible to pay their health insurance. NO way! We didn't invite these freeloaders in, and now we have to pay when they have the audacity to get sick? Come on, stop it now.

But hear me out on this. Illegals are here for a reason, and it isn't because they can live more lavishly in the barrios of LA or Chicago, comfortably sipping cervesas while watching the Cubs game on a plasma TV. No. Illegals are here for one thing and one thing only: to work. And for the most part they are underpaid and overworked and live in relative obscurity hoping to avoid the always looming potential deportation while their employers take payroll taxes out of their paycheck for benefits the illegal worker will never realize, or pay them in cash so as to avoid payroll taxes altogether. Every way you slice it, illegals earn their keep, in spades. What happens when a worker gets sick, say has appendicitis, and needs medical care? Well, they don't have insurance, they are afraid of deportation, and they only get paid if they go out into the field every day. Their employer may have a hunch that they are illegal, but heck, the paperwork looks legit and there's a profit margin to maintain here at the blueberry farm. If they get sick, well, they'll know what to do. We all know what they'll do when that appendix flares up: the worker will delay. They will delay because they are afraid and they are vulnerable. Even the most vibrant free marketer would agree that this person does not deserve to die, but nobody knows how to solve this dilemma. I know what not to do: don't put up a hurdle that will disincentivise this person from getting help. What if we had a system that would provide for all comers within our borders because we know that if they are on our soil there's a good chance they are contributing to our economic well-being? How 'bout that premise? Let's not assume these people are all free-loaders, because for the most part, they are not. Sure some engage in criminal activity, but most studies show it's at a much lower rate than natural born citizens. Illegals, for the most part, are the best bargain this economy has: they work hard, ask for nothing and keep quiet. Sure, once our compesano's appendix is yanked and thrown into the waste bucket, he's going back to Honduras or Belize or wherever, but at least he's alive to sneak back another day to pick cabbage or almonds or blueberries for our bountiful tables. Let's hope he makes it back ... we should only be so lucky.

And I won't even go into the weird rationale of expecting US physicians and hospitals to care for illegals while the federal government fails to adequately patrol our borders and looks the other way when business owners knowingly hire illegals and then don't provide insurance to pay for them.

Michael Moore is a showman who can spin a yarn and get your emotions bubbling. But he wouldn't be successful if there was not at least a kernel of truth in what he says. Bowling for Columbine showcased the gun culture that permeates our society; Moore didn't make it up. Fahrenheit 911 put a title to the cynical fearmongering by our administration which has led to an unraveling of our foreign and domestic policies and the American public has now realized six years too late. Likewise, SiCKO gives us a peak at the underbelly of our fatally flawed health care system. The US may have some of the best physicians, nurses, hospitals and technology to help patients, but the bureaucratic and business infrastructure, the system, fails to deliver the product in a fair and economical manner. That's the item for the next blog entry...

Rocky Balboa

The iconic underdog is back, but more accurately, he never left. Nobody alive today does not relate to Rocky somewhere deep in their soul. If you feel that Rocky is not part of you, then you are not tapping into your feeling center.

Critics will point out that the acting is coarse, the storyline is strained, the scenes are contrived and the dialogue is hazardous (“You're a fighter, Rocky, so... fight.”) The gloomy cold cityscapes of Philadelphia and the gloomy sweaty gym scenes are preambled with forty-five minutes of Rocky gloomily pining at Adrian's grave and gloomily bemoaning his poor relationship with his estranged son.

Rocky Balboa's miasmatic gloom serves as the motif of everyman's reticent suffering. The struggles of our imperfect relationships, our waning motivation, our losses, our physical aging. All beings suffer, and Rocky shows us how.

The worst thing to do would be to cogitate too much about Rocky Balboa-- it's a gut movie, a feeling movie. Intellect is great when trying to solve foreign policy crises, but for the 100 minutes of watching Rocky, turn off the brain and let the heart (or as Rocky would say, “the basement”) take wing. Be a gut player. It's the right time to do it.

The nuts and bolts of the movie are as sinewy as Stallone's ageless biceps: Rocky's wistful devotion to his deceased wife, his concern for his son and family, and the compassion he shows to strangers and former rivals as well as an unkempt stray dog. These gritty themes are necessary to see and feel once in a while.

Rocky traverses the valley of fear and survives the dark night of a ten round battle against the heavyweight champion. “I feel better than I thought,” the bloodied Rocky says at one point during the fight. In the end, the broken and bruised Rocky is again redeemed, the perpetual archetype of salvation.

Polishing Rocky Balboa, the man or the movie, would certainly be ruinous. The infrastructure is pure unvarnished granite, and it's beauty never gets old.