andylaode
Lifetime Total
10+
IMDb Member
17 years
Reviews
Elf (2003)
So many bad education for so called xmas movie
So many bad education for so called xmas movie. This movie was said to be a xmas movie but I can't see any positive education here. Do you want an example? Okay, here are some examples:
1. Why Buddy can walk from North Pole to the NEW YORK city. It just doesn't make sense. It is so far away and how about the country border? How is he passing that border? And some more, how is he find his way to New York?
2. Buddy has no respect whatsoever to the private and public property. For examples, how can he able to jump from bed to bed inside a shopping mall? Destroying shopping mall property, getting into a fight with Santa. All are bad example and defy logic.
I wasted my time watching this. If you can avoid it, please avoid it.
1. Why Buddy can walk from North Pole to the NEW YORK city. It just doesn't make sense. It is so far away and how about the country border? How is he passing that border? And some more, how is he find his way to New York?
2. Buddy has no respect whatsoever to the private and public property. For examples, how can he able to jump from bed to bed inside a shopping mall? Destroying shopping mall property, getting into a fight with Santa. All are bad example and defy logic.
I wasted my time watching this. If you can avoid it, please avoid it.
Vivarium (2019)
so many plot hole (spoiler alert)
Here how I rate Vivarium (from lowest 0 to highest 10)
From acting: 8. 8 for both Imogen Poots and Jesse Eisenberg
From writing: 7
From Directing: 7
From story logic: 2 (I don't want to give 1 because it will be too low) Total: (8+7+7+2)/4 = 6
The spoiler starts here:
By definition, Vivarium is an enclosure, container, or structure adapted or prepared for keeping animals under seminatural conditions for observation or study or as pets; an aquarium or terrarium. The story of the movie exactly just like the definition of the tittle
THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STORY (according to me): Alien (or whatever it is that abducted Tom and Gemma) can't raise their own offspring and need a human couple to help them to raise their own offspring just like the bird at the beginning of the story. And the bird that raise the baby bird (although the baby bird is not its child and this baby bird actually the one that killed the biological baby bird), can't do anything about it.
The whole point of the movie explained entirely in this scene when a student of Gemma saw dead birds (The one that has been showing at the beginning of the movie). This is their conversation and the meaning of the conversation and the relation with the meaning of the movie itself:
Student: S Gemma: G
S: Who did that to the poor baby birds? => this is we as an audience ask why the story punish both Tom and Gemma G: I don't know. Maybe it was a cuckoo. => this is the Story explaining itself. The explanation is at the end of the movie when Gemma hit the Yonder's Boy S: Why? => this is we as an audience ask the reason of that torture to Tom and Gemma and countless another couple in the story G: Because it needed a nest. => this is the Story explaining itself. S: Why doesn't it just make its own nest? => This is us again, asking the question G: Because that's nature, that's just the way things are. => this is the Story explaining itself. We as an audience can't complain because that's just the way things are S: I don't like the way things are. They're terrible. => This is us again, at the end of the movie, hated the Story so much. So many plot hole (you can read the plot hole at the end of this review) and so many unanswered questions make us feel incomplete when leaving the theater after seeing the movie G: Well... it's only horrible sometimes. => this is the Story UNABLE TO explaining itself. This is why the logic of the movie is so low according to me. The story can't explain it self and only stating the statement that it's only horrible sometimes
Though it's never made explicit in Vivarium's ending, the most obvious interpretation of Yonder and the strange boy that Tom and Gemma are forced to raise is an alien abduction story. The film opens with a shot of a newly hatched cuckoo pushing other baby birds out of the nest. This is a phenomenon in nature known as brood parasitism, in which some birds will lay their eggs in a stranger's nest in order to trick the other bird into raising their young. In Vivarium's opening, the cuckoo eventually becomes so large that when its unwitting adoptive parent returns to feed it, the cuckoo looks like it's about to consume the adult bird's head - foreshadowing the movie's ending.
Vivarium takes the behavior of the cuckoo and reimagines it as an alien or extradimensional species that has invaded Earth and forces humans to raise its offspring by trapping them together in a "nest" (in this case, the house at No. 9 in Yonder). Just as some female cuckoos are able to lay eggs that resemble the eggs of the bird species whose nest they are left in, the boy's species is able to imitate humans closely, but not perfectly. Tom and Gemma notice something is off about Martin as soon as they arrive in the real estate office and observe his strange behavior, and the boy's voice definitely doesn't sound like a normal human child.
Compounding the alien abduction theory is the strange alien language that appears in the boy's book and the patterns that appear on the TV, which are clearly communicating to him. At one-point Gemma asks the boy to imitate the person who gave him the book and he starts to transform, with bulging growths on his neck. Later, after she attacks him with the pickaxe, he gets down on all fours and scuttles like an animal - all of which points to him being an alien species in disguise. The impossible space that Gemma stumbles into when she tries to chase the boy at the end of the movie definitely seems like an alien construct, as does the impossible space of Yonder itself.
Based on Vivarium's ending, it seems that these aliens age rapidly, growing to adulthood within a year (the boy looks about six years old after just three months) and declining from middle age to old age within the same space of time. They sustain themselves by trapping human couples in Yonder and forcing them to raise their weird children, and when a new "Martin" reaches adulthood, he replaces the old one. The aliens do not appear to form any kind of emotional attachments to their adoptive parents, and do not grieve for them when they die
Tom and Gemma are literally stuck in this heteronormative structure of what a couple is "supposed to do" as they get older. Against their will, they have been forced into the suburban life, a home they despise, a routine they grow resentful of, and a child neither of them wanted. They are now stuck on a path for life that is both mundane and horrifying - one that ends in their deaths, with their bodies left to rot on the grounds of the house they hated. They aren't alone in this nightmare either, as the parallel worlds of Yonder reveal. This is the world that awaits us all, or at the very least, the white heterosexual middle-class couples to whom this fantasy is primarily sold to.
Interestingly, Tom and Gemma never ask out loud why they have been trapped in the world of Yonder and its restrictive rules. They just get on with it because they have to. This is partly what makes Vivarium so fascinating: It is keenly aware of the smothering expectations placed upon people to adhere to societal norms, even as they become more unattainable and less desired by younger generations. Nowadays, we are less tied up by such conventions and it's far more normal for people, whatever gender they are, to remain unmarried, child-free, or off the property ladder, whether it be through choice or financial restrictions. Still, even today, it is that image of the happy suburban white couple with children and a mortgage that dominates the world and is deemed the default mode of life. Tom and Gemma were not picked to become a new part of Yonder for any other reason than because they were there, and that makes their fate all the more terrifying. It could happen to anyone.
The most interesting and arguably the boldest aspect of Vivarium is in how it takes on the concept of parenthood. Here, to be a parent is to be forced into a one-sided parasitic relationship that will sap you of your very life essence. It is to be miserable and unfulfilled, to commit to something that will never make you happy or yield vaguely satisfying results. Tom and Gemma did not want a child but the society of Yonder demanded it, and the boy who grows in years as the days pass is unnerving, lacks imagination, and is utterly helpless without them. It's a blunt metaphor for the realities of parenting, but most stories end such narratives in a happy way, revealing how it was all worth it in the end.
Vivarium doesn't do that. This is a film with the sheer guts to position the act of being parents as potentially the worst thing one could do with their lives, a mistake they will regret until they die. That remains one of society's last true taboos and Vivarium pulls no punches with it. Even when Gemma shares tender moments with the boy, she absolutely refuses to let him call her his mother. Her dying words to the now-grown boy are just that: "I am not your mother." It's a final act of defiance in the face of a world that took everything from her, and one that verbalizes countless people's lives, both within Yonder and in the real world.
PLOT HOLE:
1. there's no explanation what the Yonder's boy really need actually from the human being. From the story itself, AUDIENCE ARE ABLE TO see that the Yonder's boy actually can raise its own kind. No need to established such a complicated vivarium in term of Yonder neighborhood and put a couple of human being in there in order to raise its own kind. Constant supply of food, electricity, etc., you named it. The Yonder's boy even can understand the TV channel in the other hand, the human couple that raise it, can't.
2. there's no explanation why the Yonder's boy need to be exist in our world and what is its purpose.
3. there's no explanation how the vivarium established in the first place
4. there's no explanation why Gemma and Tom need to die
Major failure in point number 1 above make the story pointless. Although as an audience we can get the meaning and associate it with our real-life condition but nevertheless, it is still meaningless.
Truman show (starred Jim Carrey) is an example of vivarium but it is elegantly explaining the plot. The story (Truman Show) reveal itself and audience feel completed when leaving the theater after seeing the movie; whereas impossible to get the same feeling after watch this so-called Vivarium.
Just my 2 cents. Andy.
From acting: 8. 8 for both Imogen Poots and Jesse Eisenberg
From writing: 7
From Directing: 7
From story logic: 2 (I don't want to give 1 because it will be too low) Total: (8+7+7+2)/4 = 6
The spoiler starts here:
By definition, Vivarium is an enclosure, container, or structure adapted or prepared for keeping animals under seminatural conditions for observation or study or as pets; an aquarium or terrarium. The story of the movie exactly just like the definition of the tittle
THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STORY (according to me): Alien (or whatever it is that abducted Tom and Gemma) can't raise their own offspring and need a human couple to help them to raise their own offspring just like the bird at the beginning of the story. And the bird that raise the baby bird (although the baby bird is not its child and this baby bird actually the one that killed the biological baby bird), can't do anything about it.
The whole point of the movie explained entirely in this scene when a student of Gemma saw dead birds (The one that has been showing at the beginning of the movie). This is their conversation and the meaning of the conversation and the relation with the meaning of the movie itself:
Student: S Gemma: G
S: Who did that to the poor baby birds? => this is we as an audience ask why the story punish both Tom and Gemma G: I don't know. Maybe it was a cuckoo. => this is the Story explaining itself. The explanation is at the end of the movie when Gemma hit the Yonder's Boy S: Why? => this is we as an audience ask the reason of that torture to Tom and Gemma and countless another couple in the story G: Because it needed a nest. => this is the Story explaining itself. S: Why doesn't it just make its own nest? => This is us again, asking the question G: Because that's nature, that's just the way things are. => this is the Story explaining itself. We as an audience can't complain because that's just the way things are S: I don't like the way things are. They're terrible. => This is us again, at the end of the movie, hated the Story so much. So many plot hole (you can read the plot hole at the end of this review) and so many unanswered questions make us feel incomplete when leaving the theater after seeing the movie G: Well... it's only horrible sometimes. => this is the Story UNABLE TO explaining itself. This is why the logic of the movie is so low according to me. The story can't explain it self and only stating the statement that it's only horrible sometimes
Though it's never made explicit in Vivarium's ending, the most obvious interpretation of Yonder and the strange boy that Tom and Gemma are forced to raise is an alien abduction story. The film opens with a shot of a newly hatched cuckoo pushing other baby birds out of the nest. This is a phenomenon in nature known as brood parasitism, in which some birds will lay their eggs in a stranger's nest in order to trick the other bird into raising their young. In Vivarium's opening, the cuckoo eventually becomes so large that when its unwitting adoptive parent returns to feed it, the cuckoo looks like it's about to consume the adult bird's head - foreshadowing the movie's ending.
Vivarium takes the behavior of the cuckoo and reimagines it as an alien or extradimensional species that has invaded Earth and forces humans to raise its offspring by trapping them together in a "nest" (in this case, the house at No. 9 in Yonder). Just as some female cuckoos are able to lay eggs that resemble the eggs of the bird species whose nest they are left in, the boy's species is able to imitate humans closely, but not perfectly. Tom and Gemma notice something is off about Martin as soon as they arrive in the real estate office and observe his strange behavior, and the boy's voice definitely doesn't sound like a normal human child.
Compounding the alien abduction theory is the strange alien language that appears in the boy's book and the patterns that appear on the TV, which are clearly communicating to him. At one-point Gemma asks the boy to imitate the person who gave him the book and he starts to transform, with bulging growths on his neck. Later, after she attacks him with the pickaxe, he gets down on all fours and scuttles like an animal - all of which points to him being an alien species in disguise. The impossible space that Gemma stumbles into when she tries to chase the boy at the end of the movie definitely seems like an alien construct, as does the impossible space of Yonder itself.
Based on Vivarium's ending, it seems that these aliens age rapidly, growing to adulthood within a year (the boy looks about six years old after just three months) and declining from middle age to old age within the same space of time. They sustain themselves by trapping human couples in Yonder and forcing them to raise their weird children, and when a new "Martin" reaches adulthood, he replaces the old one. The aliens do not appear to form any kind of emotional attachments to their adoptive parents, and do not grieve for them when they die
Tom and Gemma are literally stuck in this heteronormative structure of what a couple is "supposed to do" as they get older. Against their will, they have been forced into the suburban life, a home they despise, a routine they grow resentful of, and a child neither of them wanted. They are now stuck on a path for life that is both mundane and horrifying - one that ends in their deaths, with their bodies left to rot on the grounds of the house they hated. They aren't alone in this nightmare either, as the parallel worlds of Yonder reveal. This is the world that awaits us all, or at the very least, the white heterosexual middle-class couples to whom this fantasy is primarily sold to.
Interestingly, Tom and Gemma never ask out loud why they have been trapped in the world of Yonder and its restrictive rules. They just get on with it because they have to. This is partly what makes Vivarium so fascinating: It is keenly aware of the smothering expectations placed upon people to adhere to societal norms, even as they become more unattainable and less desired by younger generations. Nowadays, we are less tied up by such conventions and it's far more normal for people, whatever gender they are, to remain unmarried, child-free, or off the property ladder, whether it be through choice or financial restrictions. Still, even today, it is that image of the happy suburban white couple with children and a mortgage that dominates the world and is deemed the default mode of life. Tom and Gemma were not picked to become a new part of Yonder for any other reason than because they were there, and that makes their fate all the more terrifying. It could happen to anyone.
The most interesting and arguably the boldest aspect of Vivarium is in how it takes on the concept of parenthood. Here, to be a parent is to be forced into a one-sided parasitic relationship that will sap you of your very life essence. It is to be miserable and unfulfilled, to commit to something that will never make you happy or yield vaguely satisfying results. Tom and Gemma did not want a child but the society of Yonder demanded it, and the boy who grows in years as the days pass is unnerving, lacks imagination, and is utterly helpless without them. It's a blunt metaphor for the realities of parenting, but most stories end such narratives in a happy way, revealing how it was all worth it in the end.
Vivarium doesn't do that. This is a film with the sheer guts to position the act of being parents as potentially the worst thing one could do with their lives, a mistake they will regret until they die. That remains one of society's last true taboos and Vivarium pulls no punches with it. Even when Gemma shares tender moments with the boy, she absolutely refuses to let him call her his mother. Her dying words to the now-grown boy are just that: "I am not your mother." It's a final act of defiance in the face of a world that took everything from her, and one that verbalizes countless people's lives, both within Yonder and in the real world.
PLOT HOLE:
1. there's no explanation what the Yonder's boy really need actually from the human being. From the story itself, AUDIENCE ARE ABLE TO see that the Yonder's boy actually can raise its own kind. No need to established such a complicated vivarium in term of Yonder neighborhood and put a couple of human being in there in order to raise its own kind. Constant supply of food, electricity, etc., you named it. The Yonder's boy even can understand the TV channel in the other hand, the human couple that raise it, can't.
2. there's no explanation why the Yonder's boy need to be exist in our world and what is its purpose.
3. there's no explanation how the vivarium established in the first place
4. there's no explanation why Gemma and Tom need to die
Major failure in point number 1 above make the story pointless. Although as an audience we can get the meaning and associate it with our real-life condition but nevertheless, it is still meaningless.
Truman show (starred Jim Carrey) is an example of vivarium but it is elegantly explaining the plot. The story (Truman Show) reveal itself and audience feel completed when leaving the theater after seeing the movie; whereas impossible to get the same feeling after watch this so-called Vivarium.
Just my 2 cents. Andy.
Rambo: Last Blood (2019)
i dont understand the low rating
You need to remember that this is an action movie. there will be drama, there will be a bit thriller or something but in the end what you are going to watch is a hero kicking ass. yes, you will see how he get beaten up by the bad guy. but hey, that is typical rambo movies. what else you expect?
overall this movie answer most the question raise during the development of the story. i reckon sylvester write the script also. he is a good movie writer. rocky is his masterpiece.
you will see some minor flaw in the movie just like for example in minutes 5:50 maria gave coffee to rambo, but due to heavy conversation, rambo didn't even sip his coffee. what a waste.
minor flaw also happen in another occasion. but that will never make this a bad movie.
thanks
overall this movie answer most the question raise during the development of the story. i reckon sylvester write the script also. he is a good movie writer. rocky is his masterpiece.
you will see some minor flaw in the movie just like for example in minutes 5:50 maria gave coffee to rambo, but due to heavy conversation, rambo didn't even sip his coffee. what a waste.
minor flaw also happen in another occasion. but that will never make this a bad movie.
thanks
Charlie's Angels (2019)
I don't understand the low rating
This movie is fun to watch. All the question that come up are answered one by one when the story reveal itself. I have having fun seeing beautiful angels uphold law and justice. This movie is not require serious thought. You only need to sit back, watch and enjoy. It was fun
In Darkness (2018)
that is the consequences to treat us like idiot
This movies is so bad, it treat us, the audience, like an idiot. the ending is really really bad. nothing in the story make sense at all. nothing. watch it yourself and proof me otherwise.
Chronicle (2012)
why didn't it film the old way
The movie is good. it is just that taking the film all the time from camera holding by the character or cctv footage is so lame. it restrict the filmography
Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
it brings back my memories
As a kid raised to watch MTV, this movie really brings back my happiness during my childhood memories. why? it is because now the happiness I felt last time when I was listening to Queen video clip is fully explained. I can see the journey of Queen to stardom.
I can't say it in words the happiness I felt when the moviemaker accurately reproduces the Live Aid concert. I am the witness to this nicely done job from the moviemaker. So artistically done. Good job. Fantastic scene
Never gave high rating to a movie before except for Batman by Christopher Nolan. But this movie even beat Batman in my heart. Thanks movie maker
I can't say it in words the happiness I felt when the moviemaker accurately reproduces the Live Aid concert. I am the witness to this nicely done job from the moviemaker. So artistically done. Good job. Fantastic scene
Never gave high rating to a movie before except for Batman by Christopher Nolan. But this movie even beat Batman in my heart. Thanks movie maker
Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
it is a boring movie
To be honest, i expect more from this movie, but i never get it anyway
the opening of the movie is promising but as the movie roll out for about 10 mins, you will start to feel boring. the movie start to feel boring start when Rachel and Nick meet Araminta and Colin in Hawker centre.
i don't know what kind of story i expect when the movie reach 1 hour running: pointless bachelor party, mindless conversation, etc etc
stay away from this movie unless you don't have anymore to watch. the rating obviously overrated.
the opening of the movie is promising but as the movie roll out for about 10 mins, you will start to feel boring. the movie start to feel boring start when Rachel and Nick meet Araminta and Colin in Hawker centre.
i don't know what kind of story i expect when the movie reach 1 hour running: pointless bachelor party, mindless conversation, etc etc
stay away from this movie unless you don't have anymore to watch. the rating obviously overrated.
Fahrenheit 451 (2018)
Good Movie
I do not understand for who are here giving very low rating to this movie. what is it that this movie doesn't have? nothing. this movie has everything
1. it has plot that need to be resolved at the end of the movie 2. the main character facing his internal and external conflict and in the end find his peace 3. although in the external it looks like the antagonist is win over the protagonist but in the overall plot, the protagonist is winning. the ending might be sad, but it's a fulfilling ending.
if people going to compare the book over the movie, it is not fair. this movie is create based on character from the book, it is not there as a copy of the book. no it is not.
and just like any other movie that i have been review, good movie is the one that give you feeling good, this movie indeed give me a good feeling.
1. it has plot that need to be resolved at the end of the movie 2. the main character facing his internal and external conflict and in the end find his peace 3. although in the external it looks like the antagonist is win over the protagonist but in the overall plot, the protagonist is winning. the ending might be sad, but it's a fulfilling ending.
if people going to compare the book over the movie, it is not fair. this movie is create based on character from the book, it is not there as a copy of the book. no it is not.
and just like any other movie that i have been review, good movie is the one that give you feeling good, this movie indeed give me a good feeling.
Looper (2012)
Confusing movie
Here how I rate looper (from lowest 0 to highest 10)
From acting: 8
From writing and directing: 5
From story logic: 2 (I don't want to give 1 because it will be too low) Total : (8+5+2)/3 = 5
The acting is very good. Joe and Old Joe are very well played. Both BW and JGL are very good actor. The dialog and the acting are believable. Two thumbs for them.
Writing and directing done by the same person. And it was a good directing and also good writing. The dialogs are strong, the acting is strong, but the character development is not very good. We watch no major development either in BW or JGL. And think about it, how can younger version seems to have different character with older version? Maybe 30 years of difference will change people character. Maybe.
The major fallback was in the story logic. The story line is okay but how to get there is confusing.
Now let's talk about story logic. In this story, nobody explains the logic of the time travel. If somebody send back to the past what will happen to his experience
Let me put this way
Every killing should be private right? The organization in the future send future body to be executed in the past. The executioner just shoots the body, kills him/her, then burn the body, claim the silver/gold along the way. Job done. Right?
Now let me ask you a question. How can people at the same time with the executioner can tell whether or not the executioner has kills his target? How can Abe (Jeff Daniels) knows when Seth (Paul Dano) unable to close his own loop? Close loop is a term define in this movie as an action done by crime bosses who eventually need to end a looper's contract, and also eliminate any traces of their working relationship, so they send his older version back to be killed by his younger self, referred to as "closing the loop", which each looper must do himself. They're paid in gold for this, to live the rest of their lives in comfort.
The question still remain, how can Abe, that was sent back in time to manage the loopers, can quickly knows whether a looper has able to kills his target? It doesn't make sense. The movie never explains this at all Let me put again another case which is also unexplained. Let say person A is a looper that execute people, his timeline is T1, up to "present day" in the story. The older self, in the future experienced his timeline as T1+T1' (the original T1 is come from person A up to the "present day" in the story, then another T1' is come from person A from "present day" up to "future day" in the story). Let say, crime boss sends back the person A from "future day" to "present day" to be executed by his younger self.
The "present day" A only experience T1 in his life time, and in the other hand, the older A "already" experience T1 and also additional T1'.
If older A still have complete arm, and then suddenly A cut his arm in front of older A, logically it will not affect older A. Older A originally never experienced arm cut off, right? He is sent back through time with complete arm and just witness that his younger self cut his own arm. But the thing is, inside this story, once A doing something, it will immediately appear on older A. it doesn't make sense since older A is already there without experiencing what A is about to experience. If the writer wants to convince the audience that this is how the "story world" works, then the writer need to lay down foundation first.
The logic is never explained. Of course, it will be difficult to explain since time machine is a complex concept and story with such a complex concept must have strong fundamental theory in it. I mean the writer need to lay out the "physics" of the "story world" first so we can take anything even as absurd as human can fly. The writer need to lay out some fundamental first before the audience can be happy to accept it.
Since the logic was never explained that is why the writer can kills the "present day" A so that the "future day" A will be vanished in the thin air
From acting: 8
From writing and directing: 5
From story logic: 2 (I don't want to give 1 because it will be too low) Total : (8+5+2)/3 = 5
The acting is very good. Joe and Old Joe are very well played. Both BW and JGL are very good actor. The dialog and the acting are believable. Two thumbs for them.
Writing and directing done by the same person. And it was a good directing and also good writing. The dialogs are strong, the acting is strong, but the character development is not very good. We watch no major development either in BW or JGL. And think about it, how can younger version seems to have different character with older version? Maybe 30 years of difference will change people character. Maybe.
The major fallback was in the story logic. The story line is okay but how to get there is confusing.
Now let's talk about story logic. In this story, nobody explains the logic of the time travel. If somebody send back to the past what will happen to his experience
Let me put this way
Every killing should be private right? The organization in the future send future body to be executed in the past. The executioner just shoots the body, kills him/her, then burn the body, claim the silver/gold along the way. Job done. Right?
Now let me ask you a question. How can people at the same time with the executioner can tell whether or not the executioner has kills his target? How can Abe (Jeff Daniels) knows when Seth (Paul Dano) unable to close his own loop? Close loop is a term define in this movie as an action done by crime bosses who eventually need to end a looper's contract, and also eliminate any traces of their working relationship, so they send his older version back to be killed by his younger self, referred to as "closing the loop", which each looper must do himself. They're paid in gold for this, to live the rest of their lives in comfort.
The question still remain, how can Abe, that was sent back in time to manage the loopers, can quickly knows whether a looper has able to kills his target? It doesn't make sense. The movie never explains this at all Let me put again another case which is also unexplained. Let say person A is a looper that execute people, his timeline is T1, up to "present day" in the story. The older self, in the future experienced his timeline as T1+T1' (the original T1 is come from person A up to the "present day" in the story, then another T1' is come from person A from "present day" up to "future day" in the story). Let say, crime boss sends back the person A from "future day" to "present day" to be executed by his younger self.
The "present day" A only experience T1 in his life time, and in the other hand, the older A "already" experience T1 and also additional T1'.
If older A still have complete arm, and then suddenly A cut his arm in front of older A, logically it will not affect older A. Older A originally never experienced arm cut off, right? He is sent back through time with complete arm and just witness that his younger self cut his own arm. But the thing is, inside this story, once A doing something, it will immediately appear on older A. it doesn't make sense since older A is already there without experiencing what A is about to experience. If the writer wants to convince the audience that this is how the "story world" works, then the writer need to lay down foundation first.
The logic is never explained. Of course, it will be difficult to explain since time machine is a complex concept and story with such a complex concept must have strong fundamental theory in it. I mean the writer need to lay out the "physics" of the "story world" first so we can take anything even as absurd as human can fly. The writer need to lay out some fundamental first before the audience can be happy to accept it.
Since the logic was never explained that is why the writer can kills the "present day" A so that the "future day" A will be vanished in the thin air
Permanent (2017)
Fantastic gem about hair
How do I put this? This movie is a beautiful movie about hair. The hair that belong to the main character and character surround her are the main problem for this movie. The Main Character (a lovely Kira McLean as Aurelie Dickson) changes her essential nature while attempting to solve the problem about her hair. yes, you are not misread it, the main problem in this movie is actually about Aurelie's hair. funny right? Watch it and laugh with me.
We have Aurelie's hair problem, Aurelie's father hair problem, Aurelie's friend hair problem, etc etc.
The setting, the plot and the dramatic event around the main character has there to convince her that she doesn't need to concern too much about her hair. it is looks good anyway. And once she accepted that and feels good about herself then the main problem for the movie is solved. She changed herself from hating herself to loving herself: accepting her hair just the way it is.
The appearance of Rainn Wilson as Jim Dickson is fabulous and Kaleigh Jo Keller is great as Aurelie's impact character and Nena Daniels as Lydia served as Aurelie's sidekick.
I love it. The movie brilliantly solved the problem and message was cleverly conveyed to me as an audience. And some more, as any other movies that I review, it doesn't matter how much budget spent to create a movie, it doesn't matter how complicated the plot or how simple the plot is, the good movie is the movie that always makes you feels good when the ending credit appear. It is always that and it is always will be.
We have Aurelie's hair problem, Aurelie's father hair problem, Aurelie's friend hair problem, etc etc.
The setting, the plot and the dramatic event around the main character has there to convince her that she doesn't need to concern too much about her hair. it is looks good anyway. And once she accepted that and feels good about herself then the main problem for the movie is solved. She changed herself from hating herself to loving herself: accepting her hair just the way it is.
The appearance of Rainn Wilson as Jim Dickson is fabulous and Kaleigh Jo Keller is great as Aurelie's impact character and Nena Daniels as Lydia served as Aurelie's sidekick.
I love it. The movie brilliantly solved the problem and message was cleverly conveyed to me as an audience. And some more, as any other movies that I review, it doesn't matter how much budget spent to create a movie, it doesn't matter how complicated the plot or how simple the plot is, the good movie is the movie that always makes you feels good when the ending credit appear. It is always that and it is always will be.
Aloha (2015)
It feels good
Apart from negative review and comments, I would like to give positive review and comment about this movie. Yes, plot need to be re-do, yes, dialog need to be reworked, but the thing is, overall this movie is entertaining.
Good movie, is the movie that gives you a pleasure, a "feels-good" feeling at the end of the movie. Whether is rom-com, horror, thriller, drama or whatever, and aloha give me that, especially at the end of the movie when Carson Welch get arrested after a long conversation between Gilcrest and General Dixon and Fingers, and also give me a big smile while Brian Gilcrest kissed Allison Ng and that the hat is still there. I can't believe Ng still keep the hat.
Good movie, is the movie that gives you a pleasure, a "feels-good" feeling at the end of the movie. Whether is rom-com, horror, thriller, drama or whatever, and aloha give me that, especially at the end of the movie when Carson Welch get arrested after a long conversation between Gilcrest and General Dixon and Fingers, and also give me a big smile while Brian Gilcrest kissed Allison Ng and that the hat is still there. I can't believe Ng still keep the hat.