congamabongo

I came to this film, not as a climate change sceptic, but as someone who has next to zero trust in world government or media. I love our dear Earth and believe in the idea of living in harmony with it. Yet sorting out fact from fiction and political agendas can be a minefield. That minefield is pessimistic and filled with doom and gloom. In contrast, I hoped to find something enlightening and uplifting about this film. (I give this film 7/10 for breaking the mold and painting a brighter picutre of our future.) Unfortunately, it dragged. It was repetitive, fluffed out, and oversimplified, and I wanted it to end after about half an hour. I get this too easy style may appeal to some, but not to me, I wanted to some meat, though he suggests eating less of that. Still, I appreciated the positive attitude and the few interesting insights the presenter brought forward.

Each time a point or technology is explained, the film fast forwards from 2019 to 2040 on how that change will impacted us in a positive way. It's often the same thing repeated.

The film starts with a bit of primer of climate change. CO2, ice caps melting, ocean acidy, loss of biodiversity etc, and proceeds to offer solutions with technology available today.

In the 90-minute runtime we are essentially given 4 key ideas / solutions.

The first solution is basically solar panels in a network grid where people can buy and sell amongst themselves. This worked very well in a poorer area in Bangladesh. He suggests implementing it in the West. But the discussion failed to raise questions of solar panel manufacture, silicone supply, power supply on a Western industrial scale etc. No other energy solutions were mentioned.

The second solution was... self-driving cars leased on demand. The idea is that if everyone used this tech, we would have less emissions. Somehow, I guess he believes not owning a car means people needs cars less. His main point here is about how places like L. A. are two thirds roads and car parks, and that with less cars, we can reallocate that wasted space and dedicate it to agricultural land and reforestation.

The third and most interesting solution was Marine Permaculture. It's said that the oceans absorb something like 90% of CO2 emissions leading to warming oceans and increased ocean acidy. We need our oceans to be healthy to survive. Seaweed is the proposed answer. A certain type of brown seaweed can grow up to .5 meters per day and over 50 meters long. It can be used for fertiliser, food, fuel, mopping up massive amounts of CO2 (1000s of tons per square km of seaweed) and restoring ocean equilibrium. He suggests by 2040 we can be back on track. The seas will be happy, oil rigs will be a thing of the past and can be used for tourist diving etc. I don't mind that.

The fourth solution is education and awareness. He suggests that we monitor power usage, plug it into software and make it interactive and emotive for the kids. The film discusses a lack of education for millions of poor women across the globe. It draws the correlation between woman's education and birth rates, suggesting that poorer uneducated woman have an average of 5 children. Education is therefore a natural way to bring down the population and empower woman across the globe. He suggests billboards with environmental messages and the like too.

There is a fifth concept throughout the movie created by an "economist" called doughnut theory. Essentially as the world becomes more ecological and prosperous, people are taken from poverty (centre of doughnut) and brought into prosperity (outside of doughnut). It's a nice idea, but I think the economics need a bit of tweaking to say the least.

This film, backed by a victorious, wholesome, and perhaps a little too inspiring soundtrack, has a good heart. It was refreshing to see some positive attitudes about the future. Tedious as it was, it did leave me believing that there was hope, and that humanity can create a utopia right here on Earth. However, there is certainly room for further and more rigorous analysis than what is presented¬.

I wrote this to counteract some of the hate here. Most of the 4 star reviews are people just unhappy with the ending. They didn't want Dexter to die. Neither did I. It was heart breaking. But the execution was brilliant. If a show can move me like that, then I call it massive success. Just because it hurt, doesn't make it bad. In fact it's what makes it great.

When Dexter died, it felt tragic. This hero / anti-hero himself was a victim. Born into a horrific childhood none of us could comprehend. Destined to suffer, feel anger, and bloodlust in ways beyond his control. He was a creature of instinct. His empathy robbed. But somehow we came to love him, to know him. Through Rita in the early seasons, we found his humanity. For many, her death was arguable where the show lost its original footing. (To me it was the soapy slip into melodrama, relationships, pregnancies etc.) But here, with the return of his son, the bonding with his new family, we see Dexter's humanity again. We believe maybe he could be happy despite his unspeakable childhood. But in the end, he was never to receive that treasure. His urges, and the organic, impeccably written consequences of who he is won out. In the end his dark passenger destroyed everything. There was no happy ending for Dexter. Yes, he was a monster. He killed monsters. He enjoyed it. He killed innocent people to survive. But how much was choice, how much was circumstance?

Regardless, he was bound by tragedy and loss. He attracted death and suffering to those he around him, those he cared about. And for that, he was alone. He could not escape it. He was a tormented soul. And when he died, it made me cry.

Thank you to the writers for putting the love, blood, thought and dedication into this final series. It was a perfect execution. Gripping, engaging, moving. Well done.

I wrote this to counteract some of the hate here. Most of the 4 star reviews are people just unhappy with the ending. They didn't want Dexter to die. Neither did I. It was heart breaking. But the execution was brilliant. If a show can move me like that, then I call it massive success. Just because it hurt, doesn't make it bad. In fact it's what makes it great.

When Dexter died, it felt tragic. This hero / anti-hero himself was a victim. Born into a horrific childhood none of us could comprehend. Destined to suffer, feel anger, and blood-lust in ways beyond his control. He was a creature of instinct. His empathy robbed. But somehow we came to love him, to know him. Through Rita in the early seasons, we found his humanity. For many, her death was arguable where the show lost its original footing. (To me it was the soapy slip into melodrama, relationships, pregnancies etc.) But here, with the return of his son, the bonding with his new family, we see Dexter's humanity again. We believe maybe he could be happy despite his unspeakable childhood. But in the end, he was never to receive that treasure. His urges, and the organic, impeccably written consequences of who he is won out. In the end his dark passenger destroyed everything. There was no happy ending for Dexter. Yes, he was a monster. He killed monsters. He enjoyed it. He killed innocent people to survive. But how much was choice, how much was circumstance?

Regardless, he was bound by tragedy and loss. He attracted death and suffering to those he around him, those he cared about. And for that, he was alone. He could not escape it. He was a tormented soul. And when he died, it made me cry.

Thank you to the writers for putting the love, blood, thought and dedication into this final series. It was a perfect execution. Gripping, engaging, moving. Well done.

As a traveler of sorts myself, I can say that I found this to be is a surprisingly well balanced documentary. The veteran psychonaught is unlikely to find anything here but a pleasant familiarity.

These kinds of drugs have enormous potential to help humanity. In fact, it's something we probably desperately need in these crazy times to help us connect to ourselves, our divinity and to each other.

However, the cautionary tales are essential, and responsible use is always encouraged. Personally I agree with String's advice on having an intention, and also Sting's decision to travel with the American Indian Shamans, as some these are substances are sacred medicines, or chemical variants of them. But not everyone has that opportunity.

I think the documentary would have been better if at least a little attention had been given to potentially tragic cases like Syd Barret, to give a completely fair analysis. But we don't really know what went on in his head. Maybe he was flying through space for eternity, maybe he was in heaven. We will never know. But on Earth he died a vegetable.

A positive spin is given at the end to the possibility of open study of these medicines by the Western methodology. This is good, but still miles behind the wisdom of traditional elders, who throughout the continents, have honed thousands of years of accumulated wisdom and safe guards. Western scientists may just grow a little if they pursue the study, as they will be forced to realise the yin and yang of that which can be measured and that which cannot.

The best recommendation I could give for safe travel is, if available, find a good Shaman and allow them to guide the journey. Unfortunately there are many charlatans out there. As such, personal recommendations are a sensible idea.

Be respectful, trust the heart, and love yourself and each another. Peace.

I liked it. I found it highly entertaining and agree that it contained a metaphor within. However there are gaping flaws in depiction that "evil capitalism" has been exposed, which many reviewer's seem to express, and to which, I'll try to convey a contrary viewpoint.

I liked that the film, for the most part, respected the viewer's intelligence enough to try not to spell out or push its message too hard, and instead focused on creating drama from the world itself, while allowing that drama to speak on its own terms. But there were unfortunate moments where the writers couldn't help themselves.

There's a moment when the lead character, in his apparent naivety, calls for equal distribution of the food. His gruff and experienced cell mate says "What are you? A Socialist?" This line was awkwardly shoehorned in. In the specific context, where desperate prisoners are stacked 333 floors high on top of one another, and are forced to survive on the left overs of those above, until there is nothing left to do but cannibalize one another - we can see that the goal of the old cell mate is clearly savage survival at any cost. To think that he is acting on some kind of higher cognitive principle of economic systems is ridiculous. Yet, like I said the writers couldn't help themselves.

This single slip dissipates the lack of subtly, and it becomes clear that we are getting preached at about evil capitalism - Even though the rest of the movie is quite well done.

On the flip side, it's far more likely that The Administration corresponds to Government, of which Socialist are advocating more of, and supporting the institution of Government to gain absolute control of the economy. This, rather than an imperfect Capitalist system, which in its dirtiest form, encourages bad actors to purchase access to the Government monopolies on healthcare, education, land, money and warfare, from which they can then gain special privileges and advantages over those 99% who do try to play by the rules.

The other gripe I have of this film, if it is to be taken as a metaphor, is that it shows everybody within the 'platform' system to be an entirely helpless victim, which in the film, they basically are. The actions of our leading characters show that it is still possible to fight, somehow, even if it seems in vein. But that was admirably left to the viewer to assess the actions, choices and effectiveness of that strategy.

In our real society, we're not quite that helpless. Victim mentality is one of the primary reasons people are dissatisfied with their lives and the system. When in contrast, people are far more capable and powerful than they allow themselves to believe. The ruling class depend on people succumbing to that defeated mentality. We can and must take control of our own lives if society is to overcome the "Administration" calling the shots for us, while we depend on them and their cronies throwing us their left over chewed up bones. The idea of comfort, security and blissful ignorance are all the things offered in exchange for our individual freedoms. And we will continue to be victims unless we step up and decide we are not.

It's much harder to argue the above point, if the Platform scenario were the literal prison in which we live, but thankfully it's not.

In the story, the protagonist is trying to get the Administration to see prisoners differently, in order that they can make changes for the better. Is it a good idea to try and appeal to the same administration that set up this whole sadistic, dystopian prison in the first place? Of course not. But perhaps their goal is different.

8/10 for visceral impact and originality.

I'll try and keep this shortish. For reference I think there are at least 3 films of 2019 that were better than parasite including 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood', 'The Irishman', and 'The Joker'.

If you're not the kind to often seek out great original content than I can imagine why you might think this movie is really some kind of unique, fresh gem. But there are too many plot conveniences and unrealistic character behaviors to really class this as "The greatest film of the decade". Not by a mile.

Having said that I found the movie had several interesting threads and themes going on, some of which resolved, and some which were probably the most interesting went nowhere. ie the young 'rich' kids role, among other things. That was slightly disappointing.

I think the so called 'class divide' commentary was there, but not to the extent that everyone raves. It showed more that there is not such a simple black and white difference between the two, which I appreciate. But I think the 'class divide' actually provided more a part of the organic scenery than a driving force of the film.

Overall, I'm glad I saw it, but I would have rather just watched it at home, than paid to see it in gold class. Does that make me a bad person!?

I love X-men and used to to watch the cartoon as a kid, including the phoenix saga. This movie was really cool. Lots of dialogue and some inventive action scenes as always from Magneto and the others. What surprises me about the savage reviews this movie is getting, is that compared to the love some of the other Marvel movies receive, from Venom to Spiderman and Black Panther, which I see as shallow but entertaining enough (with some terrible moments in each), this movie had way more depth, grit and meaning. This is an inspired film and of course it's not perfect, but I left the cinema feeling really impressed and a little nostalgic. Also on a side note: there is much Gnostic influence in this film for those who know what they're looking for.

This review, hopefully adding a unique insight, is about slipping quality of Game of Thrones, from the flawless 1st to 4th seasons. To the excellent 5th-6th, where source material was thinning and signs were showing of uncertainty. To the 7th and 8th seasons, where there has been an obvious drop in the quality of the show.

Essentially the prime, and mostly obvious reason for the fall of this show is that the creators have been forced to deviate away from the source material, due to that fact that there wasn't anymore. The quality that has taken Martin years to painstakingly forge, now has to be created by a team of Hollywood heads who have had formulas pumped into their brains as to how to write an engaging show. In their defense, the show runners are trying to create a standard of writing in the space of a year that is not possible.

But the primary problem not that, it is that these producers of the show have set and ending schedule. They have had to write out a way that this show will end. This means that plot points will have to be carefully mapped out and that character behaviour and motive will have to align with how the producers plan to end the show. This is the biggest mistake they have made. On the other hand George R. R. Martin has constantly driven the story through the character's behaviour and motive. The characters were so real and so believable and so deep because they were not locked into a narrative. The story was so engaging, because, like the people driving it, it was unpredictable. People are so complex, we never know how they are going to react or behave. We look at all of the pressures and circumstances that Martins characters were under, and we see why they made the decisions that they made. The story was shaped this way. It had a beautiful organic nature about it. Once Martin's source material was exhausted, the writers not only had to substitute their own limited imaginations over that of a genius, but they had to do it in a very short time. More importantly they made the mistake of wedging characters into plot points. Character motives and actions now secondary. Their depth, and potential influence on the story now brushed away with insincere dialogue and actions in order to fit their long establish role into the the plot box that has now been predetermined for them. That is where the wheels came off this masterpiece, sadly. Simply, put, the plot was put before the characters. The rushed finale of the show was unavoidable given that the books weren't finished and actors age. On a positive note, the show on it's own merit is still good, I still like it, albeit with an ever present disappointment in what could have been. The sets and costumes are as magnificent as ever. But if I'm right the potential for a quality GOT prequel is very high, there is hope!

I've noticed every review on this TV show seems like a 10 star cut and paste gush of disappointment and pleading for the show to redeemed after it's initial cancellation. If it's not that, then it's reviews of 1 star disappointment by fans of the original DC comics because of the show's deviations.

So in balance, I'll try and write something hopefully insightful for the non extreme viewer.

I was raised in a Christian family, but am not Christian. I have also studied Gnostic beliefs, but am not Gnostic. In some of the Gnostic sects, Lucifer is considered to be a great savior. He is the intellect, the light bringer, the Sun / Son. This show is a bit of a mixture of the Christian version of Lucifer of the evil guy, and the glowing Gnostic version of Lucifer. This is in part demonstrated by the night club that our hero Lucifer Morningstar - which means Venus / Sun / Sirius depending on who you talk to - runs a nightclub here on Earth, called Lux - Latin for light.

The story goes that Lucifer is bored of hell and has come to Earth in human form looking for something different. He is still immortal and has several powers. He encounters a female cop who is unusually immune to his charms. This intrigues Lucifer, but it is also slowly teased out over the course of the show that in her presence Lucifer's other powers are affected.

The show is divided into 2 main parts

One is the main story arc, which delves into the mythology of the characters. It includes Lucifer's brother who is an Arch angel, Lucifer's "Dad", Yaweh and his Mum as well as other hell and heaven themes. The other is a basic cops and robbers story. Think Law and Order meets Supernatural.

The later I find very unoriginal and very tedious. Lucifer helps this female cop solve crimes, he uses his power of extracting people's desires and truths to help solve the crime. There is a painful and predictable series of "got the bad guy" "oh no it's a different guy" and so on, and then the convenient confession at the end of it all.

The mythology is far more interesting, unfortunately you only get a few drips in each episode and it feels like your wading through the mundane for what is an unworthy pay off. For me, interesting as the mythology parts are, they are not worth the rest of the cops and robbers rigmarole.

In a positive, I have to hand it to Tom Ellis. There are some excellent lines and some witty writing, and Ellis delivers his performance brilliantly. He seems to be having wicked fun in his role. His character however, seems a little nice to me and perhaps not worthy of the lord of hell. But this is perhaps the point of the show and Lucifer's evolution. I find the other characters a little disappointing as well. Especially since some of them are literally dealing with the creators of the universe! I expected more. The human cop is a little dull, although I like that she doesn't take crap from Lucifer, which is probably an essential balance the show needs. However, when Lucifer demonstrates demonic powers. She is mostly is either in denial, or lightly pensive, with a very slow dripping undertone that she is beginning to believe Lucifer is actually Lucifer. In all fairness, the realistic thing would be to deny someone claiming to be the Devil, but still, I find her character pretty dull - even though this is the woman who is supposedly unraveling the Lord of Hell.

People said S2 is twice as good as S1 I've watched up to the first couple of episodes of Season 2

Overall it's okay, I may continue to watch it, if I've got nothing better to do.