Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +3

[Spring in Fialta]

Molly's Game - not too sure why I watched that - 3/10

I will always consider Aaron Sorkin having a successful career a spit in the face of good taste and a major victory for the philistines.

 

[kihei]

I will always consider Aaron Sorkin having a succesful career a spit in the face of good taste and a major victory for the philistines.

 

[Mantis]

Orgazmo (1997) - IMDb

10/10

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

The Pee Wee 3D: The Winter That Changed My Life (2012)

Janeau, a star hockey player, has just moved to Mont Saint Hilaire with his father after his mother’s sudden death.

Janeau learned everything he knew about hockey from his mother, and has lost his passion for the game with the loss of his mom.

Juneau reluctantly agrees to play again when he meets Julie, the star goalie for the Lynx, the local junior team.

Of course, many other Lynx players aren’t as enthusiastic with Juneau’s arrival, especially their captain...

This leads to jealousy and betrayal between teammates...

Naturally there are some shades of the Mighty Ducks here, but with much better hockey action.

Overall this was an enjoyable movie for any hockey enthusiast, which I assume most of us around these parts are.

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

Booksmart: 7.5/10

 

[kihei]

Clemency (2019) Directed by Chinonye Chukwu 6A

Bernadine (Alfre Woodard) is warden of a high-security prison that has a death row.While she herself is not an executioner, she is the one that oversees and organizes the "procedures," the accepted euphemism for taking a life. Her marriage is falling apart; she is beginning to drink too much; and she is about ready for a nervous breakdown. But her sense of duty and straight-arrow values makes her trudge on--playing every situation by the book to keep things as impersonal as possible. Then an execution goes badly awry, that's one thing. Another thing is the next guy on the list may be innocent, and suddenly all the fine rationales that Bernadine has created began to crumble. Clemency is a powerful film, extremely well acted by all concerned. There isn't actually a lot of forward momentum in the film--we start with an execution and an increasingly forlorn warden and we end with an execution and a forlorn warden--so the journey from "A" to "B" isn't much of a ride. So what do we get from this movie? I got a greater sense of what I already believe: that for non-psychopaths and non-sociopaths, killing other humans, whatever the legal or military justification, has deeply serious psychological consequences for those who have accepted responsibility for taking lives in the name of the State. I knew that going in, though. Clemency has some peculiarities it doesn't quite work out, as well. It is rather odd to watch a death row movie shot mostly from the perspective of the warden, not the prisoner. And there is the dicey question, would the warden have been as believable if portrayed by a man? I've always had the impression, perhaps erroneous but I doubt it, that death row wardens don't do a lot of soul searching on this issue. I think what the movie is trying to say is worth hearing, but I doubt anyone in any position to do anything about the situation is really listening or gives a flying f***.

 

[Kshahdoo]

Indie Finnish movie based on Strugatsky brothers' Roadside Picnic... That book, you know, about the zone and stalkers.

8/10, I'd say. Very low budget, but still pretty decent.

 

[Prarievarg]

Big Fish (2003): 7/10

 

[sr edler]

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) by Terry Gilliam – 0/10

Completely unwatchable shit.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Star Wars #9 - With all that money, how can they not hire someone to write proper dialogues? 4/10

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) by Terry Gilliam – 0/10

Completely unwatchable ****.

The colors and main performances are cool but yeah... better off reading the book.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The colors and main performances are cool but yeah... better off reading the book.

I genuinely like the first 30-40 minutes of it, but man it wears its welcome out fast.

 

[kihei]

Color Out of Space (2029) Directed by Arthur Stanley 5A

The early line on Color Out of Space was that it is some sort of mind-blowing experience, but I was surprised by how conventional the movie is. Yes, the "monster"/"creature"/"entity" thingy is off the beaten path, but everything else happens exactly the way it always seems to happen to a family in a lonely house out in the woods when something goes bump in the night. So despite a fresh approach to a monster, one which should have been way more psychedelic than it is, the predictable "monster" versus nuclear family dynamic is set up as per usual. However, it plays out differently than in most earlier takes on the same basic tale (start with War of the Worlds and add them up). For instance, patriarchy in the form of a father figure or the military doesn't save the day and return order to the world the way it once did in these things. Rather our Daddy-figure here (Nick Cage} is pretty much a useless schmuck, not the kind of dude you want to depend upon in a crisis; certainly not someone capable of taking charge of anything. His nuclear family--read: white, conservative, patriarchal, heterosexual--has a very bad outing and obviously can't cut it anymore. That's an interesting subtext with its share of implications, And the movie is competently though predictably directed. So there are worse ways to spend a winter evening though nothing much springs to mind at the moment about what those alternative ways might be--milking alpacas, perhaps. To the audience's delight, Nick gets to go crazy in a couple of scenes. Poor guy, he has become a dancing monkey--all that talent but all people want to see him do is his nutcase routine. If it was up to me, I would tell him not to do that shtick anymore. Lay it to rest as it has become too much of a self-parody for comfort.

Note: the theory I am alluding to above belongs to the late Robin Wood, a very imaginative film critic, who helped to alter the way film is perceived. His theory in a nutshell was that in science fiction movies there is significantly more going on than might meet the eye. That such movies are really about threats to the status quo--read nuclear family--and the task of the story is to restore order, defeat the threat and return things to white, middle-class, heterosexual normality. The "monster" usually represents whatever threat to patriarchy that the power structure fears at the time: nuclear annihilation, the rise of feminism, environmental disaster, whatever you got brewing socially in the era when the movie is made. I don't buy all of Wood's theory, but it makes for some interesting insights along the way.

 

[Osprey]

Note: the theory I am alluding to above belongs to the late Robin Wood, a very imaginative film critic, who helped to alter the way film is perceived. His theory in a nutshell was that in science fiction movies there is significantly more going on than might meet the eye. That such movies are really about threats to the status quo--read nuclear family--and the task of the story is to restore order, defeat the threat and return things to white, middle-class, heterosexual normality. The "monster" usually represents whatever threat to patriarchy that the power structure fears at the time: nuclear annihilation, the rise of feminism, environmental disaster, whatever you got brewing socially in the era when the movie is made. I don't buy all of Wood's theory, but it makes for some interesting insights along the way.

Perhaps a monster is just a monster and it tends to threaten the status quo simply because viewers tend to relate to the status quo. For example, more stories are going to feature a mom, a dad and a couple of kids because that's the most common and familiar type of family. I think that there's a desire to read what we want into films and, when we do that, we often reveal our own attitudes more than the filmmakers, IMO. For example, a film like this with a traditional (heterosexual) family in danger can be interpreted as a statement either against the insecurities and fragilities of that structure or against the menace of outside, nontraditional (homosexual) forces. Either side can read what it wants, and the same might be done in reverse with something like Underwater, in which Kristen Stewart hides from monsters. In some cases, like The Babadook, the monster most likely does represent something, but I believe that those are exceptions and that we need to be careful about reading into things just because we can.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Hunt for the Wilderpeople

with a crusty Sam Neill and the fat kid from Deadpool 2.

Delinquent kid Ricky has bounced around the New Zealand foster/juvenile detention scene for obviously quite a while when he's sent to live in a remote farmhouse with the friendly, nurturing Bella and her husband Heck (Neill), who hates every living creature besides Bella and his dog. Bella warmly welcomes Ricky into the household, Heck grumps and grouses. Ricky isn't fond of the new digs and runs about a 1/4 of a mile away before returning for dinner. Is his shell beginning to soften? Maybe a bit...then Bella suddenly dies, leaving a bereft Heck to cope with the kid. Which he ain't gonna do. Sorry Ricky, back to the pound with you. Ricky bails into the wilderness, and Heck sighs and find him easily...then breaks his ankle. Can't walk out, can't call for help (New Zealand wilderness = no bars), nobody else in the bush. Heck's an accomplished outdoorsman though, so now he gets to bond with Ricky and teach him how to survive in the bush while they wait out the weeks it takes for Heck's leg to heal up. But wait...there's social services people out there wondering where Ricky went. Also he burned down the barn on his way out. Not a good look. Rumours begin to swirl about the missing pair, and various people begin a hunt in the woods...a hunt for the Wilderpeople! Cause they're wild. Get it?

Another one from New Zealand's preeminent cinematic weirdo Taika Waititi, who is seemingly incapable of making a bad movie. Some well worn tropes are trotted out, but you enjoy the trip and the movie ably mixes charm and humour while giving you characters you can genuinely like and feel sympathy for. Well worth watching if you're a fan of Waititi's other movies and shows (and you should be).

 

[kihei]

Perhaps a monster is just a monster and it tends to threaten the status quo simply because viewers tend to relate to the status quo. For example, more stories are going to feature a mom, a dad and a couple of kids because that's the most common and familiar type of family. I think that there's a desire to read what we want into films and, when we do that, we often reveal our own attitudes more than the filmmakers, IMO. For example, a film like this with a traditional (heterosexual) family in danger can be interpreted as a statement either against the insecurities and fragilities of that structure or against the menace of outside, nontraditional (homosexual) forces. Either side can read what it wants, and the same might be done in reverse with something like Underwater, in which Kristen Stewart hides from monsters. In some cases, like The Babadook, the monster most likely does represent something, but I believe that those are exceptions and that we need to be careful about reading into things just because we can.

I just think it's another way of looking at film, more as a sociological artifact than as a work of art or entertainment. Films cannot help but reflect the times in which they are produced, including the society's dominant (read, male) attitudes toward a whole host of subjects--homosexuality, sure, but also the role of women, women as sex objects, racial stereotyping, notions of honour and bravery, morality and ethics. One can learn a lot by watching old John Wayne westerns about the values of that particular society toward masculinity, justice, honour, role definition and so on.. It is simply a different way of looking at film, literally a different lens, one that is not so focused on the notion of quality but on what films tell us about the social values of that particular time and place.

Wood, especially in the later years of his career (when he was a teacher of mine at York University), became more outspokenly gay, and he did use his theory to lambaste homophobia. Some gay critics continue to use the theory to examine the homophobic nature of too many Hollywood films in the past. And I think they often make some very revealing and very persuasive points. But to me, Wood's particular approach is every bit as interesting and useful when looking at heterosexual relationships and non-gay issues in general, such as the ones I listed in the previous paragraph. As to being careful about reading into movies things that aren't there, well, that can indeed be a problem, but not with just this theory. There will be people with axes to grind. But then any argument boils down to the how well-supported and convincing the argument is. Any piece of criticism should be responsible and well measured. Those writers that misrepresent their evidence don't last very long as serious commentators or appeal to prejudicial fringes. I think most of us can safely separate one from the other. Another interesting thing about this sociological approach to film is that it can be applied to any movie. Whether the work is good or bad or indifferent, it is still extremely likely to have a subtext worth examining if one chooses to do so.

 

[Madifer]

Indie Finnish movie based on Strugatsky brothers' Roadside Picnic... That book, you know, about the zone and stalkers.

8/10, I'd say. Very low budget, but still pretty decent.

Have you watched Tarkovsky's "Stalker"?

I doubt a better adaptation of that novel will ever be filmed. Its simply not possible and god knows I hope I'm wrong

 

[Madifer]

Joker 6.5/10

Yes its multilayered, yes its challenging, yes its unusual, yes its worth thinking about yet I still expected more from it.

 

[Kshahdoo]

Have you watched Tarkovsky's "Stalker"?

I doubt a better adaptation of that novel will ever be filmed. Its simply not possible and god knows I hope I'm wrong

Nah, as much as I love Roadside Picnic, I hate Tarkovsky's Stalker. Like, absolutely different thing, nothing in common with the book, despite Strugatsky were the screenwriters. They actually rewrote the screenplay like 20 or 30 times untill there was nothing from the book left.

Lem actually hated another Tarkovsky's movie, Solaris, that was based on his novel. He was a big Roadside Picnic fan too, so he said something like "I feel sorry for Strugatsky because of the movie, I know the feeling". Strugatsky weren't as tough as Lem, though, they were typical Russian intlellectuals, so they did, as Tarkovsky asked and they never said anything bad about the movie.

 

[sr edler]

Diamonds Are Forever (1971) by Guy Hamilton – 1/10

Sean Connery looks clinically depressed throughout this whole film. And old. And even a bit pudgy. Old and depressed and even a bit pudgy. It's like life just sucked all and every inch of joy and happiness out of his poor body and soul and then, for whatever dumb reason, they had to show it in a motion picture.

I once thought this film was mildly amusing, and I have no idea why now in retrospect. It's just so bad. I never took it seriously, obviously, but it doesn't work as a comedy either on any reasonable/intelligent level. Only thing I can still process today without getting into a depressive episode myself is some of John Barry's musical cues.

 

[Madifer]

Nah, as much as I love Roadside Picnic, I hate Tarkovsky's Stalker. Like, absoluttely different thing, nothing in common with the book, despite Strugatsky were the screenwriters. They actually rewrote the screenplay like 20 or 30 times untill there was nothing from the book left.
.

Its fine, I understand that not everyone likes Stalker yet I absolutely adore it. For me its as deed and as philosophical as a movie can get.

Hey Jedem das Seine

 

[NyQuil]

Color Out of Space (2029) Directed by Arthur Stanley 5A

Not only is the film science-fiction, but the review itself is science-fiction given that you have the privilege of reviewing films that are coming out ten years in the future.

Please let me know how good The Irishman 2 is.

The early line on Color Out of Space was that it is some sort of mind-blowing experience, but I was surprised by how conventional the movie is. Yes, the "monster"/"creature"/"entity" thingy is off the beaten path, but everything else happens exactly the way it always seems to happen to a family in a lonely house out in the woods when something goes bump in the night.

I'm interested in this film because IMO the novel that inspired Annihilation called "Shimmer" owes a fair amount to Color Out of Space by H.P. Lovecraft as well.

One amateur review of Annihilation (a critical darling) is as follows:

For those who haven’t read Lovecraft, in the ‘Colour out of Space’ a meteor lands on a New England farm and a strange unearthly colour (Lovecraft was thinking of something like Ultraviolet or Infrared light but somehow alive) begins to spread. The colour proceeds to suck the life out of every living thing on the farm.

Ok so in ‘Annihilation’ the meteor lands in a lighthouse instead of a farm, it generates a shimmer rather than a colour and causes mutations instead of sucking the lifeforce but those are just details. It’s really the same story plot.

The only part of ‘Annihilation’ that is different is an idea that gets mentioned along the way that anyone who volunteers for a suicide mission must have something terribly wrong with their life. The main character Lena, played by Natalie Portman certainly does. Her husband joined an earlier mission into the shimmer because he found out she was having an affair and now she feels guilty about him so she volunteers for the next mission. Much too much of the movie is taken up with this pointless subplot.

Annihilation really is a modern updating of an old story.

Whereas I assume this film tries to be more faithful to a very old novel, incidentally written in 1927, which I would consider to be a much more conventional time by today's standards.

Note: the theory I am alluding to above belongs to the late Robin Wood, a very imaginative film critic, who helped to alter the way film is perceived. His theory in a nutshell was that in science fiction movies there is significantly more going on than might meet the eye. That such movies are really about threats to the status quo--read nuclear family--and the task of the story is to restore order, defeat the threat and return things to white, middle-class, heterosexual normality. The "monster" usually represents whatever threat to patriarchy that the power structure fears at the time: nuclear annihilation, the rise of feminism, environmental disaster, whatever you got brewing socially in the era when the movie is made. I don't buy all of Wood's theory, but it makes for some interesting insights along the way.

With respect to good science-fiction, it's usually about:

1. Making commentary about current society by asking "what-if" questions in a future/alternate scenario.

AND/OR

2. Overcoming internal or external challenges through the use of technology or progressive human policies.

Good science fiction is societal criticism. While it looks forward, ultimately it is a product of its time (much like film).

Part of the issue with science fiction is that it ages. Authors like Isaac Asimov and Frederik Pohl were considered visionaries and forward-thinking in their time, but reading their stories now, the cracks in how society has actually progressed in terms of gender roles and other aspects are showing. That doesn't stop people from adapting their works decades later (like this film).

Adaptations of old science fiction are tricky because they are often still presenting a future to today. People tend to characterize future scenarios as utopian or dystopian in nature, and something that may have been seen as progressive when it was written (e.g. women serving on the U.S.S. Enterprise) is now seen as regressive (e.g. why are they wearing short skirts and knee-high boots?). Are we suggesting that women continue to be sexual objects in the workplace of the future, and that this is a desirable utopian state?

No, that wasn't the intent, but that was the unintended result for people watching today.

Meanwhile, to be fair to H.P. Lovecraft, his stories are famed for their inability to provide answers, deliberately so, and in humanity's inability to conceive of or understand the motives, intentions or morality of interstellar intelligence. I'm not sure if the usual criticism of science-fiction applies in the same way.

In that vein, his genre was termed "cosmicism" which may be a sub-genre of science-fiction but differs significantly. In this literary philosophy, there is no God, and humanity is greatly insignificant with respect to the scope of the universe.

H.P. Lovecraft diverged from conventional science-fiction because in the vast majority of his stories, there is no resolution to the challenge, no ultimate answer is achieved, no understanding of the phenomenon is attained, and often the human protagonists either die or are driven insane by the attempt. The "monster" generally wins, loses interest or achieves some unknowable goal and departs.

The objective of his storytelling is to remind people that we really don't amount to much as a species on a galactic scale and virtually everything that is out there is out of our reach, both physically and cognitively. It is a stark contrast to most science fiction which puts humanity at the centre (e.g. the Federation in Star Trek, the Foundation by Asmiov, any number of human-populated empires and confederations).

And yet, as a white male American from the early 20th century, his patriarchal views can't help but be reflected in the content. I can't think of a story of his that didn't have a white male as the central character, and his characterization of other races was often reduced to stereotypes that reflect inferiority and mysticism.

So, I guess, in summation, are we reviewing the film from the perspective of a movie made in 2019, or of a story originally written in 1927?

 

[kihei]

Not only is the film science-fiction, but the review itself is science-fiction given that you have the privilege of reviewing films that are coming out ten years in the future.

Please let me know how good The Irishman 2 is.



I'm interested in this film because IMO the novel that inspired Annihilation called "Shimmer" owes a fair amount to Color Out of Space by H.P. Lovecraft as well.

One amateur review of Annihilation (a critical darling) is as follows:



Annihilation really is a modern updating of an old story.

Whereas I assume this film tries to be more faithful to a very old novel, incidentally written in 1927, which I would consider to be a much more conventional time by today's standards.



With respect to good science-fiction, it's usually about:

1. Making commentary about current society by asking "what-if" questions in a future/alternate scenario.

AND/OR

2. Overcoming internal or external challenges through the use of technology or progressive human policies.

Good science fiction is societal criticism. While it looks forward, ultimately it is a product of its time (much like film).

Part of the issue with science fiction is that it ages. Authors like Isaac Asimov and Frederik Pohl were considered visionaries and forward-thinking in their time, but reading their stories now, the cracks in how society has actually progressed in terms of gender roles and other aspects are showing. That doesn't stop people from adapting their works decades later (like this film).

Adaptations of old science fiction are tricky because they are often still presenting a future to today. People tend to characterize future scenarios as utopian or dystopian in nature, and something that may have been seen as progressive when it was written (e.g. women serving on the U.S.S. Enterprise) is now seen as regressive (e.g. why are they wearing short skirts and knee-high boots?). Are we suggesting that women continue to be sexual objects in the workplace of the future, and that this is a desirable utopian state?

No, that wasn't the intent, but that was the unintended result for people watching today.

Meanwhile, to be fair to H.P. Lovecraft, his stories are famed for their inability to provide answers, deliberately so, and in humanity's inability to conceive of or understand the motives, intentions or morality of interstellar intelligence. I'm not sure if the usual criticism of science-fiction applies in the same way.

In that vein, his genre was termed "cosmicism" which may be a sub-genre of science-fiction but differs significantly. In this literary philosophy, there is no God, and humanity is greatly insignificant with respect to the scope of the universe.

H.P. Lovecraft diverged from conventional science-fiction because in the vast majority of his stories, there is no resolution to the challenge, no ultimate answer is achieved, no understanding of the phenomenon is attained, and often the human protagonists either die or are driven insane by the attempt. The "monster" generally wins, loses interest or achieves some unknowable goal and departs.

The objective of his storytelling is to remind people that we really don't amount to much as a species on a galactic scale and virtually everything that is out there is out of our reach, both physically and cognitively. It is a stark contrast to most science fiction which puts humanity at the centre (e.g. the Federation in Star Trek, the Foundation by Asmiov, any number of human-populated empires and confederations).

And yet, as a white male American from the early 20th century, his patriarchal views can't help but be reflected in the content. I can't think of a story of his that didn't have a white male as the central character, and his characterization of other races was often reduced to stereotypes that reflect inferiority and mysticism.

So, I guess, in summation, are we reviewing the film from the perspective of a movie made in 2019, or of a story originally written in 1927?

I appreciate the fascinating and thoughtful response, Though my coming-of-age decade was the '60s and I had gone through the same young adolescent fascination with science fiction that most boys do, I somehow managed to avoid Lovecraft entirely. I neither know how or why that happened as certainly his name came up a lot in the mid-'60s. So except for the adaptation that I review above I am totally ignorant concerning his work. You do make me want to read something by him, so any suggestions of where to start would be appreciated.

I find your whole post informative and intellectually engaging. As to your last question, I'm not sure exactly what my answer would be, but will take a tentative stab. I think such adaptations of past works carry with them both the DNA of the original as well as the stamp of the present interpretation. I can't see how they could do otherwise as both are social artifacts of a particular period. To further extend your Star Trek example, it would be interesting--and I am sure there are already MA theses on this already--to compare and contrast the various Star Trek franchises to discover the ways in which social change is now reflected (or not) in the current models. The new Picard might be fun to look at from that angle. Though what changes have occurred aren't necessarily going to be treated positively. Michael Crichton's Coma (1978) is a good example. In many ways the movie is the first modern thriller with a female heroine (Genevieve Bujold) who has a boyfriend (Michael Douglas) who has been pretty much useless in supporting her efforts all the way through the film. She does all the work, all the investigating, all of the reasoning out, all the discovering about who the killer is (a rouge male doctor selling body parts). Sherlock Holmes couldn't have done a better job than she does. So, yeah, very positive statement about women, right? Not so fast. At the climax of the movie Bujold is knocked out on an operating table about to be killed by the evil doctor and she has to rely on her dumb-ass boyfriend, worthless to this point, to save the day and rescue her. As Dandy Don Meredith used to say "That tells you a whole little story right there itself, now, doesn't it?" None of the creative folk involved with the movie is consciously making that statement but the end result is a subtext that says in effect "Yes, women are equal, but let's not take this too far--They still need to depend upon a man to save them in the end." There is a famous essay about this, but, honest, I had the idea before I knew of the essay. I think a lot of smart directors, like Ridley Scott, are well read about such theories and now intentionally slip little depth charges of information into the subtext of their films just to mess with their viewers' minds. The original Alien, another movie with a female hero (and, in this case, a female monster), is a lot of fun to play with in this regard.

I think this approach can be dangerous because it cleverly gives the critic power over the artist, sort of "See what you did---and you didn't even know you did it." But used judiciously movies' subtexts can be very revealing about both social and individual values and how they slip into even the most modest of works.

And, yes, of course, why do you even bother to ask, I have seen Irishman II, and it is a total failure in 2029. Bottom line: Zack Efron, Michael Cera and Jesse Eisenberg just couldn't cut it in the central roles. And the dance numbers were rotten. I did like the animated shamrock, however.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

The Gentlemen - 8.5/10

Had some issues, but the last half hour is some of the more entertaining stuff I’ve seen in a while.

 

[NyQuil]

I appreciate the fascinating and thoughtful response, Though my coming-of-age decade was the '60s and I had gone through the same young adolescent fascination with science fiction that most boys do, I somehow managed to avoid Lovecraft entirely. I neither know how or why that happened as certainly his name came up a lot in the mid-'60s. So except for the adaptation that I review above I am totally ignorant concerning his work. You do make me want to read something by him, so any suggestions of where to start would be appreciated.

Well, many of his stories are characterized as "horror", rife with ritual and superstition, race memory and gore.

However, I think they straddle the boundaries of the genre with science fiction due to the care that was taken in describing the fairly consistent universe in which they take place, known as the Cthulhu Mythos.

This quote (from the Call of Cthulhu) sums up his perspective:

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

I would say the entry point is usually "The Shadow over Innsmouth", a story that has been copied either subconsciously or in tribute many times over ever since.

"The Shadow over Innsmouth" by H. P. Lovecraft

I find your whole post informative and intellectually engaging. As to your last question, I'm not sure exactly what my answer would be, but will take a tentative stab. I think such adaptations of past works carry with them both the DNA of the original as well as the stamp of the present interpretation. I can't see how they could do otherwise as both are social artifacts of a particular period. To further extend your Star Trek example, it would be interesting--and I am sure there are already MA theses on this already--to compare and contrast the various Star Trek franchises to discover the ways in which social change is now reflected (or not) in the current models. The new Picard might be fun to look at from that angle. Though what changes have occurred aren't necessarily going to be treated positively.

Even a basic comparison between Kirk and Picard demonstrates how far the franchise had come between iterations.

It is interesting that the original Star Trek is reflecting a Utopian state as postulated by Gene Roddenberry. No greed or money, multi-racial and multi-gendered crew.

I remember a panel discussion including Paul Krugman thinking about the world of the Federation, and being quite cynical about it.

In such a world, the panelists said, people wouldn't work because they needed to, but because they wanted to. Their goal would be not earning material sustenance, which would already be provided, but things like reputation and honor. We've already seen a little of that in 2015, when people will create content for social media for free but gain in stature and reputation.

Such a world would be a strict meritocracy, "extremely harsh and cutthroat," said Manu Saadia, who wrote the forthcoming book "Trekonomics," which inspired the panel. The kind of people we see on "Star Trek," he said, are "really the 1 percent; these are the ultra-achievers."

NYCC 2015: Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong Ponder the ‘Star Trek’ Economy

Michael Crichton's Coma (1978) is a good example. In many ways the movie is the first modern thriller with a female heroine (Genevieve Bujold) who has a boyfriend (Michael Douglas) who has been pretty much useless in supporting her efforts all the way through the film. She does all the work, all the investigating, all of the reasoning out, all the discovering about who the killer is (a rouge male doctor selling body parts). Sherlock Holmes couldn't have done a better job than she does. So, yeah, very positive statement about women, right? Not so fast. At the climax of the movie Bujold is knocked out on an operating table about to be killed by the evil doctor and she has to rely on her dumb-ass boyfriend, worthless to this point, to save the day and rescue her. As Dandy Don Meredith used to say "That tells you a whole little story right there itself, now, doesn't it?" None of the creative folk involved with the movie is consciously making that statement but the end result is a subtext that says in effect "Yes, women are equal, but let's not take this too far--They still need to depend upon a man to save them in the end." There is a famous essay about this, but, honest, I had the idea before I knew of the essay. I think a lot of smart directors, like Ridley Scott, are well read about such theories and now intentionally slip little depth charges of information into the subtext of their films just to mess with their viewers' minds. The original Alien, another movie with a female hero (and, in this case, a female monster), is a lot of fun to play with in this regard.

What was fantastic about Alien is that we really didn't know who would end up surviving. It played against audience expectations when the strapping Captain Tom Skerrit did not end up as the hero.

Sequels never really could capture that ambiguity, and unfortunately in my case, I had already seen Aliens by the time I saw Alien, so I missed out on that aspect of the film.

I think this approach can be dangerous because it cleverly gives the critic power over the artist, sort of "See what you did---and you didn't even know you did it." But used judiciously movies' subtexts can be very revealing about both social and individual values and how they slip into even the most modest of works.

I find that there is a tendency more recently for directors or writers to be deliberately vague when asked about the symbolism or purpose of specific scenes, instead asking the critic or the audience "What do you think happened? Why do you think that occurred?".

I wonder if it is the result of true mystery or simply the fact that they would rather not be put into a position to be questioned or critiqued.

And, yes, of course, why do you even bother to ask, I have seen Irishman II, and it is a total failure in 2029. Bottom line: Zack Efron, Michael Cera and Jesse Eisenberg just couldn't cut it in the central roles. And the dance numbers were rotten. I did like the animated shamrock, however.

Well, that's a bummer to be sure. I had high hopes for Uwe Boll this time around.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]