Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?

[KeepTalking]

Dr Strange 7/10

Origin story that introduces magic to the Marvel cinematic universe. Good, but not great.

The villain was a bit less weak than a normal Marvel film, but unfortunately, everything else felt like a cookie-cutter Marvel film. It doesn't help that Stephen Strange has a story arc that is very similar to the story arc of the movie version of Tony Stark.

It didn't feel cookie cutter at all to me, and I don't get the comparison to Iron Man. Yes, they both had a physical disability as a result of an accident to overcome, but how and why they each overcame it is quite different, just like their respective comic book origins. Either way, Doctor Strange looks amazing. It inevitably gets compared to Inception in that regard, and there is an obvious influence from that movie, but this goes far beyond what was done in Inception. Doctor Strange is also not limited to that one visual trick, there are a lot of psychedelic effects as well. Anyone so inclined would not be disappointed by watching the movie while tripping.

There are some changes from the comics: switching out Tibet for Kathmandu to avoid pissing off the Chinese, the Ancient One being a woman rather than a man, and Baron Mordo starting out as an ally rather than a villain all spring to mind quickly. But it all works out, and I thought it was an awesome movie. My rating:

Doctor Strange - 8.5/10

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I really liked the Dr Strange movie as well. It was entertaining and clever and I really liked how the ending had him winning by outwitting the bad guy instead of just punching him in the face until he fell down (spoiler alert - the hero wins in a superhero movie).

What I especially loved, though, were the special effects. I disagree about it being good to watch while tripping, however. When you're watching psychedelic effects while high, you need to be able to sit back and appreciate the visuals. This is more of an action movie, so the scene moves on too quickly to be able to appreciate a trippy experience.

I thought the best special effect was

Show

When Strange reversed time to undo the damage to Hong Kong and the city was rebuilding itself while the sorcerers battled in the streets

 

[credoconsolans]

Kind of on the fence about this one. While I can, in theory, support conscientious objectors, in reality, WW2 was never a more clear example of bad guys versus good guys in war and the main character Doss STILL couldn't bring himself to fight?

I can understand conscientious objectors in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, any of a myriad of Far East, near East and Middle East wars because of the muddy goals and aims and politics, but WW2?

Yeah, I really can't get behind Doss in this situation since his ability to stand on the high moral ground was being supported by the men who were willing to fight for his freedom to do that but he wasn't.

I dunno. The Western European theatre was a pretty clear-cut conflict of the kind you claim; but it was a tiny part of the whole - in Europe, WWII was Hitler vs Stalin, which is not a choice with a clearly good side to fight for.

Similarly, in the Pacific theatre, Imperial Japan was an ugly regime; but its opponents were largely exploitative colonial powers and/or Maoist communists. I'm not sure that there is a really positive choice there either.

I think Hitler and Tojo needed to lose; but I can also understand why someone might feel that supporting Stalin or Mao, or even the colonial ambitions of Britain and the USA, was not a moral imperative.

This is particularly true given the power of propaganda. It's easy to look back 70 years and see the big picture; but at the time, who knew what was truth, and what was a big lie?

Rumours of Hitler's extermination camps turned out to be true. But in 1914, rumours of Germans systematically raping nuns and eating babies were widely believed, but false. It's a lot easier to pick a side now, with the benefit of hindsight.

As far as I can tell, that's the theater of war Doss was in.

In Japan, China was the country being invaded who asked for help. The Japanese were the would-be colonialists.

The West was fighting Hitler long before Stalin joined the party.

 

[bilby]

I dunno. The Western European theatre was a pretty clear-cut conflict of the kind you claim; but it was a tiny part of the whole - in Europe, WWII was Hitler vs Stalin, which is not a choice with a clearly good side to fight for.

Similarly, in the Pacific theatre, Imperial Japan was an ugly regime; but its opponents were largely exploitative colonial powers and/or Maoist communists. I'm not sure that there is a really positive choice there either.

I think Hitler and Tojo needed to lose; but I can also understand why someone might feel that supporting Stalin or Mao, or even the colonial ambitions of Britain and the USA, was not a moral imperative.

This is particularly true given the power of propaganda. It's easy to look back 70 years and see the big picture; but at the time, who knew what was truth, and what was a big lie?

Rumours of Hitler's extermination camps turned out to be true. But in 1914, rumours of Germans systematically raping nuns and eating babies were widely believed, but false. It's a lot easier to pick a side now, with the benefit of hindsight.

As far as I can tell, that's the theater of war Doss was in.

In Japan, China was the country being invaded who asked for help. The Japanese were the would-be colonialists.

Not quite. The Japanese wanted to replace the British, French, Russians, Germans, Portuguese and Americans as colonialists. Nobody wanted to help China as such; they just didn't want Japan to have her. Or the Philippines (US), Indo-China (France), Indonesia (The Netherlands), Malaysia and Singapore (Britain)...

South East Asia was protected by the Western Allies because they saw it as their property - not because they saw it as a set of nations in their own right that needed assistance.

The West was fighting Hitler long before Stalin joined the party.

True; But that fight was started over the question of Poland - and at the end of the day, Soviet Russia wound up in charge of Poland.

The West didn't fight Hitler to save the Jews. Nor even to impose democracy on Germany. They fought because they had treaty obligations to the Poles. From that point of view, it is arguable that the West lost the war in Europe to Stalin, despite being his allies on paper.

For sure, it was not all as obvious and clear cut as you seem to think - there were good reasons, particularly with the (lack of) information available at the time, to argue that war against the Axis was not a clear moral imperative. A reasonable man at the time could justifiably have put the apparent rightness of the western allies cause down to the western allies' propaganda. I would not personally agree with such an analysis, but I have the benefit of hindsight.

 

[credoconsolans]

As far as I can tell, that's the theater of war Doss was in.

In Japan, China was the country being invaded who asked for help. The Japanese were the would-be colonialists.

Not quite. The Japanese wanted to replace the British and Americans as colonialists. Nobody wanted to help China as such; they just didn't want Japan to have her.

Um, the Japanese were seeking the oil and resources offered by China. Up until then, China was not really colonized. Some major Chinese cities were semi-controlled by the West, but the majority of the country wasn't.

The West was fighting Hitler long before Stalin joined the party.

True; But that fight was started over the question of Poland - and at the end of the day, Soviet Russia wound up in charge of Poland.

The US had no say in that and when they found out the dirty dealings between Stalin and UK, the US was not happy. Again, this is not the eastern war theater this kid was in.

The West didn't fight Hitler to save the Jews. Nor even to impose democracy on Germany. They fought because they had treaty obligations to the Poles.

You mean England and France. The US had nothing of the sort. Again, Doss is an American, not European.

From that point of view, it is arguable that the West lost the war in Europe to Stalin, despite being his allies on paper.

Only because the UK capitulated to him.

 

[laughing dog]

Dr Strange 7/10

Origin story that introduces magic to the Marvel cinematic universe. Good, but not great.

The villain was a bit less weak than a normal Marvel film, but unfortunately, everything else felt like a cookie-cutter Marvel film. It doesn't help that Stephen Strange has a story arc that is very similar to the story arc of the movie version of Tony Stark.

It didn't feel cookie cutter at all to me, and I don't get the comparison to Iron Man. Yes, they both had a physical disability as a result of an accident to overcome, but how and why they each overcame it is quite different, just like their respective comic book origins. Either way, Doctor Strange looks amazing. It inevitably gets compared to Inception in that regard, and there is an obvious influence from that movie, but this goes far beyond what was done in Inception. Doctor Strange is also not limited to that one visual trick, there are a lot of psychedelic effects as well. Anyone so inclined would not be disappointed by watching the movie while tripping.

There are some changes from the comics: switching out Tibet for Kathmandu to avoid pissing off the Chinese, the Ancient One being a woman rather than a man, and Baron Mordo starting out as an ally rather than a villain all spring to mind quickly. But it all works out, and I thought it was an awesome movie. My rating:

Doctor Strange - 8.5/10

For a comic book movie, I thought this was rather well-done - decent plot, good acting and great special effects. I'd give it a 8.5/10 as well.

 

[bilby]

Not quite. The Japanese wanted to replace the British and Americans as colonialists. Nobody wanted to help China as such; they just didn't want Japan to have her.

Um, the Japanese were seeking the oil and resources offered by China. Up until then, China was not really colonized. Some major Chinese cities were semi-controlled by the West, but the majority of the country wasn't.

The West was fighting Hitler long before Stalin joined the party.

True; But that fight was started over the question of Poland - and at the end of the day, Soviet Russia wound up in charge of Poland.

The US had no say in that and when they found out the dirty dealings between Stalin and UK, the US was not happy. Again, this is not the eastern war theater this kid was in.

The West didn't fight Hitler to save the Jews. Nor even to impose democracy on Germany. They fought because they had treaty obligations to the Poles.

You mean England and France. The US had nothing of the sort. Again, Doss is an American, not European.

From that point of view, it is arguable that the West lost the war in Europe to Stalin, despite being his allies on paper.

Only because the UK capitulated to him.

Well if you want to focus on the Americans when talking of 'The West', then "The West was fighting Hitler long before Stalin joined the party", is no longer true. America didn't start fighting Hitler until AFTER the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

 

[Sarpedon]

I disagree that no one wanted to 'help' China. The Rape of Nanking brought out a huge public outcry in America, and directly led to the sanctions that Japan would use as their causus belli. While America was viewed as a colonizer of China, our methods were not the same as the europeans, who frankly divided up China into spheres of influence and more or less exploited them region by region. The US had a different policy, using our forces to protect our commercial interests, but otherwise not attempting to directly control any Chinese territory. While we clashed with the Nationalist government on a few occasions, we were generally in favor of a stable government that would allow our businesses to do their thing. You could call this colonialism, but frankly I don't think it is proper to compare the United States to the european colonial 'Empires.' Our policy in China was as often at odds with that of the europeans as it was in harmony. We gave the Philippines self government of our own free will, while the British had to have their arm twisted right the fuck off to give the same to India.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I disagree that no one wanted to 'help' China. The Rape of Nanking brought out a huge public outcry in America, and directly led to the sanctions that Japan would use as their causus belli. While America was viewed as a colonizer of China, our methods were not the same as the europeans, who frankly divided up China into spheres of influence and more or less exploited them region by region. The US had a different policy, using our forces to protect our commercial interests, but otherwise not attempting to directly control any Chinese territory. While we clashed with the Nationalist government on a few occasions, we were generally in favor of a stable government that would allow our businesses to do their thing. You could call this colonialism, but frankly I don't think it is proper to compare the United States to the european colonial 'Empires.' Our policy in China was as often at odds with that of the europeans as it was in harmony. We gave the Philippines self government of our own free will, while the British had to have their arm twisted right the fuck off to give the same to India.

Lol. USA wasn't an imperial power in the 19'th century because they couldn't. USA was weak. Racism and imperalism was really fashionable. Yes, also in USA. Want examples? Take a peak at what American companies did in Hawaii or Cuba.

You just described how European imperialism always worked for every country. It was always about protecting trade and commercial interests. European imperialism was all about making money, and nothing else. Specifically it was about opening foreign markets to cheap industrial products. Which, all too often, they didn't really need.

You're quoting revisionist American history who have spent so much time prettying up that turd. USA's image as a little scrappy nation of mavericks kept going strong well into the 1930'ies. This image persisted well beyond USA actually becoming an extremely rich and powerful nation. Which they cashed in on and pretended to be on the side of the weaker nations "sticking it to the man". But they were just the same as everybody else.

And after the fall of Nazi Germany revisionist western history went into overdrive, all over the west.

The western empires collapsed because it was costing more than it was worth. That is the only reason. Once a market was open to foreign trade, having an (western trade) empire is pointless. So that happened.

The western "conquering" of China and it's divvying up happened because the Manchu emperors were the worst political leaders imaginable. China was up to that point one of the two richest nations of the world (and had been for 9500+ years). How they managed to fuck that up is simply down to their own incompetence. Good riddance. The Western imperial powers weren't any worse political leaders than the Chinese emperors. That is the saddest part about all this. They really sucked.

 

[Sarpedon]

Even if I grant you the idea that US imperialism was no different than the european (which I don't: while I would never claim that US motives were altruistic, the methods were clearly quite different, and for the most part involved fostering a friendly local government, rather than outright possessing another territory. Exceptions such as Hawaii exist, but that was clearly a case of it being an essential strategic asset for a Pacific power, who's own government was simply too weak to prop up. If the USA hadn't taken it, someone else would have, the only question being if that would have been the British, Russian, or Japanese Empires.), you cannot deny there was a well of sympathy for China in light of its treatment by the Japanese that was genuine and unfeigned. The presence of racism in the USA does not exclude the idea of sympathy. The Japanese Empire was a threat to our strategic interests, so helping China was beneficial. That doesn't mean that the sympathy wasn't genuine.

I also dispute that the USA in the 19th century was too weak. After the Civil War, the USA was the most powerful nation in the world. Had the people been in favor of imperial projects, we easily could have conquered Mexico and Canada, and anything else in our hemisphere we wanted. France and Britain could have combined their fleets and sent them over, and our monitors would have smashed them. Our armies were bigger than theirs and our means of production greater. We disbanded our armies and scrapped our navy because we were not interested in further war and conquest. It is true that thirty years later, that appetite was whetted again, ready for the war with Spain, but the idea that we couldn't have built an empire in the 19th Century is entirely fatuous.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

First Russia is meddling in our election and now China is derailing the Movie Review thread. I'm changing my vote to Trump to get foreign influence out of my country!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

First Russia is meddling in our election and now China is derailing the Movie Review thread. I'm changing my vote to Trump to get foreign influence out of my country!

Don't worry, you live in a swing state. Putin already changed your vote for you.

 

[bilby]

Even if I grant you the idea that US imperialism was no different than the european (which I don't: while I would never claim that US motives were altruistic, the methods were clearly quite different, and for the most part involved fostering a friendly local government, rather than outright possessing another territory. Exceptions such as Hawaii exist, but that was clearly a case of it being an essential strategic asset for a Pacific power, who's own government was simply too weak to prop up. If the USA hadn't taken it, someone else would have, the only question being if that would have been the British, Russian, or Japanese Empires.), you cannot deny there was a well of sympathy for China in light of its treatment by the Japanese that was genuine and unfeigned. The presence of racism in the USA does not exclude the idea of sympathy. The Japanese Empire was a threat to our strategic interests, so helping China was beneficial. That doesn't mean that the sympathy wasn't genuine.

I also dispute that the USA in the 19th century was too weak. After the Civil War, the USA was the most powerful nation in the world. Had the people been in favor of imperial projects, we easily could have conquered Mexico and Canada, and anything else in our hemisphere we wanted. France and Britain could have combined their fleets and sent them over, and our monitors would have smashed them. Our armies were bigger than theirs and our means of production greater. We disbanded our armies and scrapped our navy because we were not interested in further war and conquest. It is true that thirty years later, that appetite was whetted again, ready for the war with Spain, but the idea that we couldn't have built an empire in the 19th Century is entirely fatuous.

Yeah, the US were so concerned with protecting China that they waited more than four years after the full-on invasion (and more than a decade after the first skirmishes), until the Japanese bombed a US naval base in the USA, before getting involved. And they were so deeply concerned prior to December 1941 that the attack on Pearl Harbour came as a total surprise.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh boo hoo. Why doesn't the USA instantaneously get involved with every war in the world? Crippling economic sanctions are crippling economic sanctions. And the military aid. etc etc.

The fact is that the USA was involved in the war against both the axis powers more than year before Pearl Harbor. That Pearl Harbor came as a surprise is not because we didn't expect war, but because we stupidly underestimated their ability to launch such an attack.

Yes, everything is the USA's fault. Blame us for everything. China's government is weak and incompetent. Blame the USA for patrolling the Yangtze and fighting pirates! Japan launched a genocidal war, but the US dropped atomic bombs, Japan is the victim! The Europeans do nothing while Germany consolidates its position in Central Europe, but Why Didn't the USA intervene?

 

[Sarpedon]

Please continue with the movie thread: America is in fact racist and I won't be arguing otherwise for a while.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Birth of a Nation 10/10

This is a 1915 film where they speculate on how the 2016 presidential election would go. Uncanny how much they got right. I added points for the skilled blackface make-up. It's as if they actually used real life black people as actors. Amazing.

Over three hours of silver screen magic, all on Youtube. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3kmVgQHIEY

 

[Underseer]

Oh boo hoo. Why doesn't the USA instantaneously get involved with every war in the world? Crippling economic sanctions are crippling economic sanctions. And the military aid. etc etc.

The fact is that the USA was involved in the war against both the axis powers more than year before Pearl Harbor. That Pearl Harbor came as a surprise is not because we didn't expect war, but because we stupidly underestimated their ability to launch such an attack.

Yes, everything is the USA's fault. Blame us for everything. China's government is weak and incompetent. Blame the USA for patrolling the Yangtze and fighting pirates! Japan launched a genocidal war, but the US dropped atomic bombs, Japan is the victim! The Europeans do nothing while Germany consolidates its position in Central Europe, but Why Didn't the USA intervene?

Oh no! People criticize America when America does bad thing? That's so unfair! That's so unfair!! That's not how the world is supposed to work! I'm from the party of personal responsibility, so I should never be criticized when I do something wrong! Wah! Waaaaaaaah!

Your little tantrum is little more than white fragility applied to international politics (nations instead of races). Really. Stop being to fucking sensitive.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh so I'm a repbulican now because I don't like seeing the USA blamed for things other countries do? OK. It is in fact unfair to blame things on people who didn't cause the trouble. We entirely deserve the blame for Iraq. We do not deserve the blame for other things we were dragged into intervention by the incompetence and aggression of foreign powers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh so I'm a repbulican now because I don't like seeing the USA blamed for things other countries do? OK. It is in fact unfair to blame things on people who didn't cause the trouble. We entirely deserve the blame for Iraq. We do not deserve the blame for other things we were dragged into intervention by the incompetence and aggression of foreign powers.

Movie thread!!!!

 

[Ford]

The Big Short

This is the second installment of a trilogy.

The first was Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room

A movie about how a few people with obscene amounts of money and no moral compass whatsoever manage to screw over millions of people with not so much money.

The "magic of the free market" is just that. A magic trick. And as we all know (but don't seem to care), magic isn't real. The person who is performing magic is deliberately deceiving you, and you go along and are entertained.

8/10

I can't wait for the third installment which covers the next completely avoidable collapse of a major company and/or the entire economy. Because that film is absolutely going to get made.