How to Train Your Dragon 2: Anyone else annoyed that Astrid and all the friends were shit?

Usually I'm not against killing off major characters for dramatic effect ala Lion King but in this case it felt rushed and unnecessary. I wish they didn't make it so obvious that they were going to kill off Hiccup's dad, it would've made more of an impact if it didn't seem so predictable. I did appreciate that it was Toothless who did him in. I actually think the fact that Toothless did it was the only worth while part of it. I thought that killing him was the easy way out. Forcing Hiccup to nut up and all but I guess kids movies can't have 2 living parents. Really kind of brought the pacing and tone down when it didn't have to be. I though that scene was weird overall, but I did like it when Hiccup pushed normal Toothless away. Like "fuck you, dog, you just killed my dad get out of here."

My problem with the movie is that the build up to the conflict with Drago was really weak and I really expected more out of the final battle. It felt really weak in the end. Too much time was spent on Hiccup's mom. Valka took the death way too well. Hiccup didn't seem too impacted either. When someone that close to you dies usually you're pretty fucking sad and need time to recover. Why was it alright with everybody that that bitch was just gone for twenty years for no real reason. It's probably because everyone sees that she's incredibly similar to Hiccup in how she sees the dragons and Berk flat out would have killed them for 15 of those 20 years which she wouldn't allow. She had lots of weird feral quirks in her behavior when she was interacting with Hiccup (as one would expect from someone who hasn't interacted with humans in 20 years), but as soon as Stoick came around, suddenly she was acting perfectly human again. I felt Valka's role was to present Hiccup with the alternative life he could choose and been happy with, but ultimately gives up on because of his sense of responsibility. Was anyone else annoyed that Astrid did almost nothing again in this film? I wanted her to be the awesome girlfriend who made a real difference in the outcome of events but she was worth than useless. I don't entirely blame the screenwriters because there were just too many characters to focus on.

Plot hole: Hiccup missed the stuff where Eret proved himself, and there's a whole island full of people that would have taken in Skullcrusher. Had Hiccup seen Eret becoming "good" it would have worked. Without that, it was a plot hole, one of many. I'm sure Hiccup trusts Astrid, but it just comes off weird that he's giving his father's pet to a guy that's a complete stranger. It just felt off. There were a lot of things that felt off. I don't think it would really have broken the pacing, when Drago is giving his brief monologue on controlling the dragons to Hiccup/ them destroying his village and shit, the writers could have given him a thirty second, "but I found this egg yada yada" to explain it, while giving some irony to the fact that the man who hates dragons is in control of the strongest one. Elephant Chain Syndrome is plausible, but not in the movie. There's just too many things we're expected to overlook. The long lost mom is a stretch, the long-lost mom being insanely good with dragons is a big stretch, Drago the dragon-hater having control over a ginormous dragon with mind control powers is convenient as fuck, and then you've got little things like Hiccup suddenly trusting Eret even though he wasn't there when Eret showed he deserved trust.

You really can't make a longer movie these days; the critics will have your head. You can't even really make a movie paced like The Return of the King; critics will call it too slow. I'm kinda surprised movies aren't down to an hour by now. Pretty much all the critics agree that this film was worse than the original but that it is visually stunning. To think otherwise makes you a dumbass. I thought the first film had perfect pacing and a great message. This film was doing well until about halfway through when it kind of lost focus and the character motivations got weird. That's not to say that it was bad, but it's not the A+ film that the first one was. When I saw the first HTTYD it was one of the first times I watched the movie and actively noticed how amazing the soundtrack was. It's to be expected that the majority are new compositions of the old movie's themes. It was generally enjoyable, but the only memorable songs for me was one near the beginning and the song they used for the credits. It's good but a majority of it is just remixed songs from the original plastered with a few great new songs. Where No One Goes is pretty damn great. There's also a little love song, it's incredibly sweet. HTTYD is immensely better than Frozen (even visual-wise alone). But since this doesn't have any princesses or corny singing, then I don't know if some kids would go watch this repeatedly.

I do like how Drago's motivation was how he never wanted to be weak again. And that Hiccup realized he was too far gone to even remotely pull him out of his view on the world. I still need to see both HTTYD films a few times to really tell which one I liked better. They're both better than Frozen. Frozen was shit. Way too many songs is my biggest complaint. Drago is basically evil Hiccup. Right down to losing a limb and intelligence. Reminder that Drago and Hiccup basically invented the same net gun.

I would just like to say that Drago did nothing wrong. He did nothing right either. Eret was pretty cool in this movie but I hope he does better things in 3 with Skullcrusher. I don't know if I could handle Toothless just up and leaving. It'd be like...fucking ET, except more heart wrenching. I want to end with Hiccup finishing writing a book based on his and Toothless adventures and he peacefully passes away in his sleep. The Book is titled "How to Train Your Dragon" I have to say, the story is weaker compared to the first one. But god damn the visuals in this one are absolutely stunning.

Parents are soft about death nowadays. I think it's a good opportunity for parents to kind of talk about the possibility of death in life. I've always felt parents trying to hide death from their kids was rather selfish. They're only doing it because they don't want to face having to explain it. Death is another part of life, it's one of the few things that every single living thing on this planet has in common. It happens to all of us and sooner or later you're going to find out about it. I was really glad they had the guts to actually have not only a death, but that amazing funeral scene. I also admired how the movie had the guts to show a death and funeral scene; how they honored and remembered Stoic, how they drove the point that life goes on and we all have to continue to live, fight and keep surviving. Fuck, I hate over-protective parents who are protecting their kids for the wrong reasons. Teach your kids about death and sex and other important things before your kid learns that from somewhere else. I'm upset that parents are not complaining about it.

Appreciate what we have today because it might not be there tomorrow

Nightcrawler 2014

Most sociopaths are not successful. They generally are too self absorbed and intrinsically disregarding of society to consider what society expects of them. Hence they tend to be poor, and unwilling to expend effort to acquire wealth.  A sociopath won't care about the admiration of others.

Wealth is admired only because wealth is a proxy for power. Because without the admiration of others, money isn't all that valuable. You can be poor and still be powerful- i.e. through gaining followers, rule breaking, manipulation, etc. So, it's rare for one to stumble across the opportunity to take advantage of a situation that would have them acquire wealth as well as fulfill a fascination, instead of just fulfill a fascination. To clarify, power gets you the admiration of others. Wealth makes you more powerful, but there are other ways to demonstrate power.

Something bugged me about Lou. He's portrayed as full of shit. If he is such a masterful sociopath and manipulator how come he came into success only so late in his life? Well he's portrayed as a pretty knowledgeable and manipulative guy, he would have at least had a few schemes going on that are better than metal theft and scrapping. He didn't find his niche until later. He wanted to make money but he had no skills in particular. When he discovered that he could make easy money by recording incidents he went right for it. He actually says it to Nina that he didn't find what he both liked and was good at until then. He would have at least had run a few schemes before he got into the nightcrawling such that he wouldn't be a total pauper. I always got the vibe that he was run out of town for the last shit he pulled or whatever, like this is a single chapter in his life. The ending was kinda lackluster to be honest.

I came only for the mech Rhino

The Ultimate Rhino is best

In almost every Spider-Man movie, there has been a "People of New York love Spider-Man" scene. This one was my favorite. Because it had a set-up, it also had a reason, in-story, to exist, since he'd stopped being Spider-Man. It was also very well done on the part of the kid actor. My biggest problem with Man of Steel and other big superhero blockbusters is that it seems superheroes don't save people anymore. ASM2 had a lot of saving. And I loved it for that.

Check out some cool Rhino concept design for the movie: NuthinButMech

The Raid 2 Berandal

I've seen it. First one is better. The first is a simplistic nonstop action film, the sequel tries to be some Indonesian Godfather in a good way. The pacing though feels really off and the story parts drag on and felt like some cheap student film to be honest. There is definitely great action sequences in this, especially the car chase, but nothing beats the brothers vs Mad Dog from the first. I did thought the last battle with The Assassin was lacking compared to Mad Dog's fight which was more of a novelty I guess. Overall decent, but I was hoping for more, after those glowing "best action film ever" reviews from Sundance.

 

After second watch...

I felt the movie was better the moment you get to the prison yard fight. Personally I was surprised at how different and fresh this movie felt even though you are pretty much only watching for the action. My only complaint is that the middle act felt a bit too drawn out. There is so much action though, goddamn.

I liked the Bolivian Army Ending but how are they going to continue the series with Rama?

We know at the end the Yakuza still pretty intact. The third movie could be about them taking over Jakarta.  So maybe they'll use another main character and leave Rama's destiny up to imagination? Or will they show a complex plot of how he was saved? Because he was pretty much fucked at the end. Though I liked that ending I was pissed of they didn't deal with the corrupt police officers which was the entire reason Rama went undercover to begin with. I thought the whole point was to discover dirty cops dealing with the mob but that was forgotten for a gang war movie so that made Rama going undercover basically pointless.

Tom Cruise is always a boss.

"Oblivion" felt like a modernized rehash of classic sci-fi flicks. Matrix rip-off but still watchable, and was as good as Minority Report. Nothing spectacular about it, but it felt refreshing to get about to the roots of classic science fiction. I thought it was too much like the director's previous film "Tron: Legacy": great visuals, great score, but a shitty script. The film felt empty. The end was a bit of a let down. Well, maybe there could have been more back story to it.

Spoiler ahead: 

• The main twist is given away in the trailer but anyone that is familiar with sci-fi would have seen it coming anyways.
• The second twist which is pretty retarded is that Tom Cruise is actually a clone of the original Tom Cruise.
• The third even more retarded twist is that an alien spaceship is raping the Earth, using the Tom Cruise clones to upkeep its army of killer drones that keep the surviving humans running for their lives. 

There's even more retarded shit going on in the script but I have to admit the sound design was pretty good.
Tom Cruise is best when he's doing Sci-fi. His crazy beliefs and personal life aside, the man is a damn fine actor. Though he's also pretty good when he's being a total dick to everyone around him. See: Magnolia, Collateral, Tropic Thunder, Jack Reacher.

The Life of Pi: How Do You Explain Those Shining Whales?

If the movie had been a guy with a spear VS Tiger in a boat in the middle of the ocean for 2 hours, then all of my money in the bank. But that didn't fucking happen. When I really think of it, I don't see a point to the story, hahaha.. Who's going to give me back my 2 hours and 6 minutes? Only thing I took with it is don't be friends with a tiger. And there is NO tiger. I hate the fact that they kill a whole fucking Zoo to tell the story of a boy who got so seasick he thought he was a tiger. Pi didn't say on the movie that he eats anyone. But he can't handle the truth that he ate his family to survive, so he created a fantasy world to coop with that fact. Pi doesn't just see shining whales. He see shining everything all the way down to bottom of sea. He see stars and universe. The sun and sky and storms and fishes are all beautiful. These are all God's revelation for him. Yeah, all that shit was magic but the glowing water was phytoplankton. This movie really shows how religion is for the insane.

Many people said that whole point of the movie was a religious propaganda, through and through. It was not what bothered me the most. It didn't matter what was true. The movie is equating religion as some form of escapism. How is that even remotely pro-religion? Faith contributes to the main character surviving an experience and effects how he derives meaning from it. The events in the story being an allegory for human is bullshit. The only point to the horrible story was to demonstrate to the audience that if given two stories where the consequences are identical, we pick the one we like better. Why that means anything I don't know. My best guess has been that we live our lives, and whether or not you believe in God is in your life story, the events are the same. So which one do you like better? :)

The whole point of the movie is that when people don't know something, they seem to tend to believe that which is the more interesting story. The movie examines how humans tend to irrationally do a sort of reverse Occam's razor. The guy never says which one he believes, just which story he likes better. There is a huge major point in the second story that doesn't get enough attention: According to that story, Pi is a murderer and a cannibalist. And he ate his mother. These are about the biggest taboo in all society. You don't just walk away after saying things like that. After saying this, the relationship between the speaker and the listeners is changed. Now how do those two Japaneses and the Canadian face him? Personally I don't think I can continue the conversation after hearing this, unless I laugh it off and say "you must be joking!" or something. That's how I see these listeners' answer. They now know that this Pi before them is a cannibal. For politeness they choose not to calling him out. They choose the tiger story for politeness. What I find funny, is that the act of eating family members is prevalent even in ancient Greek mythology, as a way of explaining the world. Chronus ate his children right after they were born to stop them overthrowing him.

Here is the distinction between Fight Club and Life of Pi: The Life of Pi utterly centered around God and spirituality, and Fight Club is completely centered around nihilism, primalism, and masculinity. Spirituality is a personal and mysterious thing that every individual have. Spirituality is a small part of religion. Religion includes Spirituality but is not limited to it. Religion includes habits, rules, culture and politics, and even institution. In this the Life of Pi, there is no religious institutions and there are some brief mentioning of religious idea, and are lots of ideas about spirituality. With inner peace comes the possibility of laziness. With the tiger (or his darkside) tamed, he had a chance to rest, but you cannot stop there or you will never achieve greatness. But yeah, If my animal aspect was manifested into a tiger then it might change the meaning of my story.

Stories provided by religion sound like silly made up stories but it is only told to you this way because the reality is too harsh and brutal for you to accept. So God gives you a more palatable version of the story but the point and result of the stories is the same either way. So eat up the piles of shit in the Bible, if it sounds like bullshit, its just God being nice. You can describe anyone's life story with or without God just as you can describe any story with or without fantastical elements that pretty much have the same point. And Pi's dad is right: the whole religion thing is made up by men and it keeps India in the dark.

I would not take this movie to that much heart so all I have to say about this movie is that it is a pretentious piece of work covered with beautiful cinematography; which is what Ang Lee is "usually" known for. But as for watching this movie, it is long and pretentious. This is just going to be a slow year for Academy Awards and Oscars. Which movie do you guys think that will win best movie on Oscar? For me this one or Miserables. The best thing about Life of Pi was the compelling love story with that girl at the beginning. I was moved. The Indian part of the movie is great. A story set in India without Bollywood musicals. :)

Carnage

I watch Carnage with my father on DVD. He can't enjoy this kind of movie.. Must suck for him.

Carnage is a great film, I didn't have any expectations for the movie, nor did I know what it was about, starting it and the movie greatly benefited from that. It was a fun film. The actors are fantastic, but there's not much to chew on after you've watched it, so it is kind of a pointless exercise in dialogue and acting. It's because the original was a play so it's meant to be like that? Probably better translated since the French and British has some jokes that are a little hard to pull off..

It's a quite a short film, but I doubt it would be as good as it was, if it were any longer. I felt that the forced way in which they were compelled to keep returning to the apartment added to the humor. It's not a comedy though, they really aren't comparable. Did the film try to make both the men likable but both the women not likable or was that just me? Maybe because the women were both highly strung and the men were relaxing with cigars and alcohol. Eventually, the men just take a sidelines to the women's bitching. 

Great cast, very fitting which blends with their characters perfectly, especially Christoph Waltz who stole the show for me. Kate Winslet might look old in here but she's so expressive in this film. I believe she broke her face or something. Although the other two (John C Reilly and Jodie Foster) were very good as well. (Apart from the drunken acting, that was a bit bad)

Only downside for me is the, what sometimes came off as quite artificial and not "random", lengthening of the couples stay, but that's only a minor complaint really. In a story written by a woman the women are so well written!

I really enjoyed the ending but it did feel like an extended short film. I am eager to know some other of Yasmina Reza's work. Yeah, she was quite excellent in this. She's now one of my favorite playwrights.  ---

The instructions say if we finish the game It'll all go away

The end of Jumanji, with young Alan and Sarah and old Alan (Robin Williams) and Sarah, did it represent separate timelines?
Presumably the game has been played numerous times and only a handful of people ever remember it, because they have eventually finished the game and changed the world back to how it was before. And probably due to experiences never want to play it again or really talk about it, for the better. So that's why the game gets dumped/ buried/ thrown into the sea and is rediscovered while people simultaneously have no idea what Jumanji is and are intrigued by it, like Alan was at the beginning.

At the end of Jumanji, it was as if the events of the movie never happened. Alan never disappeared into the game. Think about it as time travel if you want. Bad things happened, they beat the game, went back before bad things happened and go to relive their lives again.

They went back to their original "timeline" as the game was finished. Nothing else that happened matters.

But what are the ethical implications of winning the game for Alan? Sure, the devolved madman's ultimate fantasy comes true for him, he is made young again and gets to date the girl he liked. But at what cost? The two other children featured throughout the movie are erased from existence. It doesn't matter that they sort of come back at the end with no memory (because their lives are different). Think of it like this: Two people existed, and then the entire universe resets 20 or so years previous and now those two people don't exist. They died. Those children died. All so Alan could get his way, he sacrificed the lives of two innocent children to the mystical evil board game.

What happens to the other timeline? Does it just continue?
It would be a bit disturbing if it did. It's not Source Code, it's Jumanji- magic, just doesn't explain. Source Code had such a copout ending it should have ended with the kiss. That would have been the more artistic ending, but it also would have left things unresolved. It's been a while since I watched it but I remember it not making any sense and coming off as just happy tacked-on. It's also actually quite dark when you think about it.

Anyway, Alan had been taken into the game, so he lost years of his life inside it, and that had to go away. The only way to do that is to reverse time to that night before he started playing, so obviously everyone who was affect by his disappearance would forget. They remember because they had been the only two to start the game at the beginning so they were the only ones who remember. When the game finishes everybody goes back to the day they first played it, and only the players remember that they played it at all. Notice how depressed Judy was? Judy and Peter were miserable and hated what had already happened in their short lives. Alan saved their parent's lives in the rectified timeline, allowing the children to keep their beloved parents.

The Raid Redemption

It is a brilliant Indonesian action movie. A similar plot to the new Dredd movie- fighting way up a huge building to fight a big boss. Fighting coreography (Pencak Silat style) is as always immaculate. Every other time the cops have fist fight it's because they've run out of ammo which is made very obvious. 

The Raid (Serbuan Maut)

The last  2 vs 1 fight is ridiculous. The Duo (Iko Uwais and Donny Alamsyah) just tanked too much that the fighting even stay interesting past the first two minutes. They are not supposed to be superhuman, but they look like they are Superman and Jet Li combined. Mad Dog (Yayan Ruhian) really lived up to his name, guy just would not stop, he gets tossed around like a ragdoll then is back in your face seconds later. I like it when MD kills the commander guy because MD is a psychopath who prefers beating people to death than shooting them. 

Even fighting for life, human body have some limits not so far down the road. A few hard punchs or kicks that hit put you down no matter who you are. More so when guys are the same weight class more or less. Its not boxing gloves I am talking about. Its a fist made of bone that crashes at high speed against your defenseless skull. Not that the movie is meant to be realistic anyway, since everyone involved in the story just so happens to be a martial arts master.

Summer Movies 2012

Some movies I missed seeing in theaters this summer that I might actually enjoyed and would recommend to others. In other words about time to visit Ratu Plaza for Dvd hunting..

1 Bernie

2 The Bourne Legacy

3 Carnage

4 The Dark Knight Rises

5 Dredd

6 Lawless

7 Men In Black 3

8 Moonrise Kingdom

9 Paranorman

10 Prometheus

11 Premium Rush

12 The Raid

13 Robot and Frank

The Avengers

Captain America, a man from the 40's, would be a white bread christian. The line did a great job of making Cap looking out of place in time. I'm pretty sure if an atheist had a "witty" one-liner about how there is no God you people would be calling him a pushy asshole. So how come the christians get a pass? It'd probably be Tony Stark saying it and everyone would probably chuckle. Lighten up, it was an in character line. Very in character. If another character had said it it would be weird, but complaining about Cap saying it makes no sense.

Are people seriously mad about that line? He's an American from the 1940's, it would be unrealistic if he didn't believe in a Christian god. It wasn't like he was preaching or anything, it was just a good one-liner. There were atheists and non-practicing Christians back then too. If anything, given his early hardships and eventual lifestyle, I'd think Steve is a lapsed Catholic. And I'm having a hard time thinking of a moment outside of that one time when Ultimate Cap was bitching about being a man out of time where Cap's been shown to be any kind of religious.

In 1940's America the vast majority of people were Christian. He's meant to be the ideal American Hero of the 1940's. They never would have even considered him for the program if he were an Atheist. How could you use an Atheist for a propaganda tool in a time when they were reviled? Besides that, he's definitely a believer. His character is all about being one. He has faith in God, faith in America, and faith in his fellow man. If nothing else, he's a character that is almost entirely faith.

His another good line was "It seems to run off of...some sort of electricity..." or him not knowing who Steven Hawking is. It showed that he was from a different time and that the very core of his being was out of place in modern society.

I really liked how happy Steve was when he got the Wizard of Oz joke. I know the studios tried their hardest to make Robert Downey Jr. the man in that movie, but everything Chris Evans did was so much better I thought.

Nick Fury has the best looking poster of all

I would have preferred to see more of the crazy Samuel L Jackson rather than calm, but this guy was pretty snazzy regardless. Fury pronounced Colson dead very quickly over the radio. Too quickly for medical to have any chance with saving Colson. Then, after the fight began, Hill makes the announcement that Colson's cards were never on the person, thus revealing Fury's manipulation. (Colson lives. He lives, damnit).

Sam Jackson played Fury as being too nice. I don't really know Ultimate Fury too well, but 616 Fury is a raging bastard. He should have been chomping a cigar and calling the Avengers sissies. The bloodied cards moment was classic Fury, though. If the cards were never on his person than who's blood was that? Still could be Colson's blood. He was stabbed afterall. The point, though, was that the blood was put their afterwards since Colson didn't carry them. Fury saw the opportunity to bring the team together by using their common sense of humanity

Also just going to say this now, SHIELD sucks. Tony straight up Hacks your system, Several people of interest have a very loud conversation about how they don't like SHIELD, Cap just ripping doors off of hinges, Their super freak squad just running all over the place, Board of shadowy figures has spies in the spy organization..

Nick Fury RUINED those trading cards! They were near mint! Fuck that guy. Those cards belong in a museum!

List of movies I need to watch again

In no particular orders and reasons...

1. Romeo & Juliet
2. Hollywood Homicide
3. Transformers
4. Charlie's Angels.
5. Red Planet
6. "A Change of Seasons
7. What Happened to Baby Jane
8. Red Dawn
9. Dirty Dancing

Name it Shaquayla and give it an Alicia Keys soundtrack

Today, major studios won't purchase or develop anything that isn't based on a comic book or theme park ride or board game or whatever. Only a very small percentage of screenplays are ever made into films, and only a small percentage of films are ever distributed widely. Best bet is either to learn to direct yourself, or meet a young, up-and-coming director who is interested in your script.

Best thing to do is to write something that could be made into a film on a very, very low budget. It should take place in only a small number of everyday locations, should have only a few characters, and shouldn't contain too much crazy, expensive shit, basically. You have to actually write the script, and if you want it to even have a chance, it needs to be flawlessly structured and entertaining. Meaning, you're going to revise/ rewrite about 50 times. But you don't just "send it somewhere" and then it's a movie. That was very rare even in the earlier days of cinema. Unless you're already famous, and your work has made lots of money for lots of people, you can do absolutely nothing with a "scenario."

Black Swan Perfect Blue

Perfect Blue (Satoshi Kon, 1998) is a chilling psycho-thriller about Mima, a young (pop) star who embraces the darkness within her in order to achieve her dream (becoming an actress), willing to alienate everyone who cares about her to do so. Mima has an overbearing but loving maternal figure (her manager, Rumi) who doesn’t approve of her new shady career choices. She is emotionally tormented by an unknown outsider who begins to destroy Mima’s already tenuous grasp on reality, and Mima is soon haunted by a doppelganger who represents both her mental anguish and the duality of her soul.

Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky, 2010) is a chilling psycho-thriller about Nina, a young (ballet) star who embraces the darkness within her in order to achieve her dream (becoming the lead player in Swan Lake). She alienates, she’s got an overbearing but loving mom who disapproves, emotional torment, tenuous grasp on reality, and a doppelganger who represents both her mental anguish and the duality of her soul.



Darren Aronofsky bought the rights to Perfect Blue for just $59,000 in order to replicate the gorgeous bathtub sequence for his 2000 film Requiem for a Dream. The staged rape scene in Perfect Blue also inspired a scene toward the end of Aronofsky's film in which a group of perverted men circle around and cheer on a vulgar sexual event.

ISOs

ISO's were emergent intelligence. They were entirely non-human beings. I assume it'd would have the same result as finding sentient aliens. The whole 'we're not alone' thing. They said they were completely resistant to virus's and disease. Also, they were a brand new form of life that was created within a computer program. Pretty sure finding a completely new form on life would be a major deal in itself.

The ISOs have digital DNA. That alone is a extraordinary discovery. But their DNA is also a triple helix. Their DNA contains several secrets of how to cure diseases, extend life and much more. Their DNA gave them complete immunity to all diseases and a high resistance to damage, all while being very similar to Human DNA. This would make it relatively easy to use some of their DNA to make a vaccine of sorts to make all humans immune to disease and more resistant to physical harm.

As if this alone wasn't enough, the fact that DNA based lifeforms came to exist in a computer and then were brought into the 'real world' would raise a ridiculous amount of philosophical and religious questions worldwide. Besides, their very existence could radically alter the current scientific and religious paradigm. The mysteries of the Grid would change the way we see art. The fact that rationality can arise from machines would make way for endless philosophical discussions. The impact of their existence would completely change the world.

tl;dr Basically, it was one more evidence that evolution is possible and probable to the point of certainty.

The importance of ISOs was severely understated in the film. Sure, intelligent life coming into being randomly is cool and all (and in a computer system, no less) but what was all that nonsense about them being the keys to all knowledge and religion and all that other stuff? From that I got the idea that ISOs were abstract ideas represented in some kind of tangible 'form' but that wasn't made clear at all. Jeff Bridges was just all like 'ISOs man, keys to the future and the human condition man' and it was all very easily disregarded in the context of the film.

Honestly I see the digitization laser as more profound. It has the capability to deconstruct an entire human body into digital pieces then reassemble those digital pieces back into a human body from nothing. It gives Quorra and Sam their bodies back and it also has the power to bring Clu and his entire army into the real world.That laser is magic technology, forget the ISOs, that's just a quirk of the system. If the system is based on how our world works it stands to reason that it would evolve along similar lines. In fact, if I designed the Grid I would be pretty surprised if I didn't see some kind of emergent digital life come about. It raises philosophical questions too since it essential solves the mind-body problem and the essences of consciousness.

Harry Potter 7

Personally, in my own opinion, I thought that it was good because I enjoyed it and did not find many flaws with it. I loved it. Heavy on character relationships and dialogue which is what I like. I think that the inclusion of those elements as well as the priority given helped the movie to shine.

I also enjoyed how the movie managed to included all of the important scenes and also gave each as much length as it needed without appearing too long. I found that the movie also made parts which were important feel important and were built up as such. First movie since the third one where I have no complaints...except for the cellar scene NOT including Wormtail choking himself to death. I thought that everything was more or less as it should have been, I even found myself surprised by how much I was enjoying myself at a movie. The Wormtail issue is really my only complaint.

Did Patrick Bateman ever actually kill anybody?

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Yes, but no.

The original message of the book is that the society is just a heap of manipulated and shallow tools. They only see what they want to see and refuse to believe that Bateman slaughtered all those people. That money and material goods were more important then human lives. But to be honest, he left it intentionally vague. Same thing in his interviews. The movie done goof with the lady at Paul Allen's apartment. That's the problem with the movie and why's it's confusing. I'd hate to be one of "those guys", but just read the book.

In the movie, I take it he didn't kill anyone besides the homeless man. The whole ending part the ATM scene, the cop car exploding, the walking through his apartment, Paul Allen actually being in London, leads me to believe the rest of the film was just figments of his imagination. The only person who says Paul Allen was in London was the asshole lawyer, and the movie went out of it's way to show how all of the businessmen were indistinguishable because they dressed, behaved, and spoke so similar to one another. If you're to believe that Paul Allen actually was in London, then what prompted William Dafoe's investigation? My interpretation is still that the lawyer mistook him for someone else, and most of the movie actually happened. Really, only the ATM, exploding cop car scene struck me as being imagined.

I felt like the lady at the apartment found all the corpses and what not, presumed the killer would never come back, and covered it up to keep the property value up to go along with the movie's message about greed or materialism etc. Like the lady was willing to cover up a great evil for the sake of protecting her assets. That's the only thing that makes sense, the way she recognized Bateman and said "you'd better leave" seems to indicate she knew he was fucked up. I think the thing with the guy seeing Paul Allen in London was just because all the corporate drones were so similar, he probably confused him with someone else. Pretty much that. But I felt in the movie she wasn't scared. Like she was just saying to leave because. In the book it's made out that she's scared when she sees him because she realizes who she is. The actress in the movie just doesn't seem to understand what her motivation is.

Some people say "what happened at night didn't happen", maybe thats true with the book but in the movie its clear the message is being so wrapped up in making profits and looking good is bad because people didn't take time to pay attention to the fact that Bateman was murdering all these people. The apartment lady covered up the murders because she would never be able to sell that apartment again and it would probably be torn down.

9 movies i never bored to watch again

Predictable

Predictable in the sense that they freak out over insignificant stuff all the time.

Inception isn't 'good' due to the fact that the plot is never explained and is simply a Pseudo-Intellectual mindfuck that has no ability to even use actual science in it. As well the CGI was overly terrible and the sound felt muffled at times even to the point to where the dialogue was irritating to listen to.

As well as this, the movies acting is terrible and the actors that they had chosen should be noted for previous pretentious roles and in their roles in this film attempting even harder than previously to create one of the largest and most pretentious acting that we've seen yet.

The reason that this movie however is regarded as 'good' is simply due to the fact of the overhyped and overrated opinions of the few as compared to the majority.

Avoid Inception at all costs.

I want everything he has

Money, fame, armor suit, and some donut.