PopeyeBarrnumb

Read the review at the address below. Might contain some mild spoilers, but not really. Has a poll so you can rate the film.

City of Ember | The Movie | Review

http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35854

Synopsis: This movie was okay unless you read the book first and/or care that it is only somewhat loosely (and yet in some ways very closely) based on the book of the same name. But, go see it. It was good enough to watch. I went to the cheap show, just in case, so I wouldn't feel ripped off. And I didn't feel ripped off. I just wish it was as good as it could have been, because that would have been a great movie. Especially if they fixed the ending.

This "film" would never be shown at Cannes. (*Clue Alert*)

This "film" would never be nominated for a Palm D'or, much less be considered, much less win.

This "film" would never be shown in a movie theater. (definitely not wide release, realistically not even limited release, and probably not otherWise)

This film would never receive a GENERAL audience standing ovation after it is shown. (at best that MIGHT occur at a republican fundraiser/event that you either have to pay to attend and/or be vetted to enter)

This "film" is, AT BEST, a half-a$$ed, poorly written and constructed, self-embarrassing, true-propaganda, factless, feckless, whining, crybaby, wanna be that never will be. (objectively -- beyond that, send me an email and I'll tell you what I REALLY think about it)

Nothing more needs to be said than that.

And it's barely worthy of this much attention on my or anyone else's part.

But you should probably rent it (don't buy it), in case you run into some conservative/republican/idiot who is so brainwashed, "could-care-less", unaware, uninformed, misinformed, pseudo-informed, et cetera, that they can't see straight, much less think a real thought, who 'thinks'/believes it is "real" and has actual "facts" and "truth" and "reality" in it, so you can easily beat them down with a few choice words. (hey! -- everybody's gotta have a hobby)

Mostly I'm offering this "review" as a contrary reply to the other (negative) comments ("review").

This isn't the best "documentary" in the world, but it is good. And definitely good enough. It is NOT fiction, and only a certain type of person would call it such, to put it politely.

It has some interesting information in it. It interviews some people with interesting things to say. The ending is a let down, but I think they were hoping to do a sequel. Which I don't think they have done to date. I'm not a huge Bryant Gumbel fan, but even he doesn't destroy this film.

Personally, I'm glad they finally are doing some films about this stuff without the Idiot so-called "skeptics" blabbing their fat mouths with stupid comments and inane commentary and taking up valuable time that can be filled with real information. That gets old REAL quick. Especially the shows that act like they are doing an "objective" report, but are really just mouthpieces for the naysayers to denounce anything and everything without room for true objective skeptical research, analysis and reporting.

That's why I refuse to call myself a "skeptic" anymore, and call most so-called skeptics, "skepters", or "skepTicks", or "skeptFleas", and now refer to myself as a Skeptique. (a la trekkie, trekker, trekist, etc.) That being a true, open-minded, objective, analytical, questioning, intellectual person. As opposed to the unfortunate others. (Randyites, et al.)

It's nice to see some people attempting to do some real science regarding these things. They need to do more, but I doubt that will happen, because most so-called scientists are definitely not of the Skeptique mindset. In fact, most "scientists" I've ever met seem to be pretty close-minded, non-far-seeing, barely creative, logical-if-you're-lucky, and the like. (it's no wonder we still don't have a "cure" for cancer, among other similar situations)

Anyway, watch this film at least twice.

But who cares? I don't. And neither should you.

See it. With a friend. A group even. And tell others about it. Spread the word.

This film/"documentary" should be required viewing in American schools. (and maybe even required viewing, with a test, before you are allowed to vote -- normally I'm not much for voting requirements past citizenship and timely registration, but things are getting more than a little out of control regards voting ability in this country -- I'm also thinking maybe it's time to vote if you want a tax return or "government aid" and such, as well -- and don't even get me started on required two-year government/military service after highschool for "true citizenship" (smile down on me R.A.H.))

Although there were only a couple of items that were news to me, most people (99%+ of Americans) will be shocked with the facts and truths by which they are bombarded while watching "Fahrenheit 9/11". Very little of this information was presented in Prime Time TV News, CNN, Talk Radio, or the local or national newspapers. Seeing it presented from beginning to end in one felled swoop has an effect, too.

I actually feel kind of sorry for people who see this film previously unaware, uninformed, misinformed, pseudo-informed, and the like. Talk about sensory overload. And especially so with this film and its rather heavy handed emotional content, which would just make it "worse".

Although there were plenty of funny parts (I think), they seemed much fewer and farther between in this film, perhaps (?) because of the aforementioned high emotional content, which may, or may not, have been intentional on Moore's part. After awhile, after months of shooting and then editing, it must have been hard to see the forest for the trees, so to speak, or however that saying goes, and you would pretty much have to become increasingly hardened and numb to what we ended up seeing for the first time, somewhat rawly. (is that a word?) Or maybe Moore did it purposely.

If anything, this film is an anti-war film, more than a political/anti-Bush film. Although they do go somewhat hand-in-hand. Not that I'm pro-war, especially this (non-)"war", but I suppose I wasn't expecting the film content to be so much antiwar. Moore slipped that one in on me. Or perhaps it was just the affect that part of the film had on me (and will probably have on others). Of course, it doesn't take much graphic and emotional "war" content to make something of an "impression" on a "normal", decent, caring, empathetic person.

One thing I hope occurs with some (most) people is a heightened (finally achieved) ability to differentiate between "real violence" and "fictional violence", and understand that there really is a real, palpable (and important) difference. If what is in this film had been fictional storytelling, even with good special effects, it would have been "bad", but not anywhere near as bad as the real violence we see in "F-9/11". If you have ever had the unfortunate experience of hearing someone scream in real fear, or terror, or pain, or sorrow, or see real physical violence and its effects (via war or other), especially in person as opposed to on film/TV/video/radio, then you know there is a vast order in magnitude difference between that reality and fictionalized acting. The latter pales in comparison to the former, so much so that one should finally realize how truly insignificant fictionalized "violence" really is, especially in the scheme of things in the world today (or yesterday, or tomorrow).

Is this film rampant with propaganda? Not any more than what anyone else says or does with their opinions and viewpoints and such. Does it contain untruths or overly skewed or colored facts? I don't think so. And anything that might come close to that is probably not conscious on Moore's part. I think it is fairly obvious to anyone who gives a crap that that is not how he operates (or tries to). Moore seeks The Truth. And comes closer to finding it than most. (most of whom aren't really even trying)

With all of its weaknesses (?), this very watchable and enjoyable and important film/"documentary" will go down in history as a valuable contribution to the neverending "War on Errorism".

One thing I found "interesting", was that Moore felt that he had to point out that people who are "anti-war" (for whatever reason(s)) are not "anti-troops". (as in a "Support Our Troops" rally call) Was that really necessary? Yes. Unfortunately. Based on people's comments over the last several years. Dear g0d people disgust me to no end. Like I always say, "I support our troops so much, I don't want them over there at all." The following paragraph will shed more light on the negative mindset that has caused the requirement of this inclusion in the film.

Most nay-sayers will, as usual, be people who either don't like Moore, and/or his "politics". Which will generally be people most people would label as conservatives ("compassionate" or otherwise), republicans and their ilk. And particularly those certain and specific types of people who seem to revel in using events and (truly skewed/colored) truths and facts subjectively, for their own (usually hidden, or camouflaged) self-serving and self-interested agendas, rather than attempting the now-all-too-rare true, selfless, caring objectivity in a "what's best for everyone" mindset and behavior. "Those" types of people.

All others pay cash. (and taxes)

As far as I can see, pretty much everyone has gotten the "plot twist" of this film wrong, from IMDb commenters to all of the "pro" reviewers. Although my comments/"review" are effectively a spoiler, I think people just might enjoy the film more if you knew this information beforehand. Or just come back here and check to see if you got it right afterward. If you even see this, since I am so far down. Anyway, I'll give you a hint first, and then get into the spoiler. (and "review")

Hint: Keep a VERY close eye on the TRUE relationship between the two main characters: Nick and Jane. What are you missing? (if you are)

And now for the rest of the story. But first, let me say that, although the film is beautifully shot, and very nourish, and the acting is pretty good, considering, the film eventually fails I think because most people will not "get it", and end up irritated and frustrated.

So here's the spoiler: Nick and Jane were blood-related. Stop now and watch the movie if you want to "figure it out for yourself". Otherwise, continue on and follow closely.

The man and woman who were having sex "years ago" and were shot (by a (pregnant) WOMAN, NOT! a man! -- work with me here, people -- at least pay attention), they were related to the current time people as follows. The man who was shot was Nick's father. (notice the resemblance in the police report photos, like Nick does) Who was (obviously?) married to Nick's dieing mother. Nick's father was having an affair with a BLONDE woman who we end up finding out was a Ralston (IF you are really paying attention), possibly the wife of the man who owned the building, or maybe just a rich daughter -- whatever. So, the WOMAN who shot them was Nick's mother, who was pregnant (big belly) with Nick at the time. She went whacko, as was mentioned, and so Nick had to be adopted out, because he lost his mother and his father.

And now for Jane. At the end of the movie, she "freaks out" when she sees the (BLONDE!) woman in the wheelchair. See where I'm going with this? That woman was her mother. Remember, she was adopted, too, and didn't know her parents, either. So, the woman was shot in the head (they kind of made a point of showing the scar), and didn't die. Only Nick's father died. This is also the reason Nick's mother freaked out when Jane went into her hospital room. She either knew who she was, or, was near-dieing confused and thought she was the blonde woman she shot. Again, what-ev-er.

(also, remember Nick's mother freaking out when she found out she was back in the town? -- it sure would have been nice if all of this was more evident, which is why the film really fails)

Now, what I'm thinking is this, and it needs some stretching and "guessing" and both deductive and inductive logic. (this is why I always make a point of stating that film, TV, whatever, should always be watched "intelligently" -- even if it's only watched for entertainment -- you will (and do, regardless) get things out of it that you won't even recognize or understand or know about, until MAYBE later -- although much of it is subconscious -- regardless, it's ALL good -- people who don't watch film and TV and such tend to be almost as bad as people who don't read books -- somewhat (or a lot) shallow; lacking in wisdom; common sense escapes them; not as able to deal with and solve life's problems; and a host of other unfortunate traits -- it is AS BAD as someone who is uneducated or under-educated -- but I digress)

Anyway, I think Nick's father impregnated the blonde Ralston woman, who was Jane's mother, which make Nick and Jane step brother and sister. THAT is the real (final and major) "plot twist" of the film. Did they figure it out, and know, and have sex anyway? I don't know.

As for why Jane's husband was acting the way he was, maybe he knew who Jane really was, and some other stuff, or maybe he was just a jealous husband and land developer on a tight schedule who was having marital problems with his wife. What do you think? I think I got a HELL of a lot closer than anyone else. Anyway, the film is better if you know what I've written about here. No irritation and frustration at the end. I hate when that happens. (sorry this is so long)