Simple break down: if you care about anything actually happening - any plot -
Give up now. Read the 1-2-3 star reviews.
If you are content to spend hours watching Jonah and Emma do different acting schticks, you will love this.
Reviews
5 Reviews
Mermaid
(2007)
Quirky film - entertaining, humorous, but still dark
6 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't really understand the comment before mine, comparing this film to other obscure works of Russian cinema. I saw this film at Sundance, but I'm not an art-film aficionado.
I wouldn't say that its "like" Napoleon Dynamite, because that would create the wrong expectation. But in many ways, it reminded me of ND. The quirky teenage girl does things her own way, people don't quite understand her, there's humor but its vague, not slapstick.
Russians definitely have a darker perspective on life than Mormons in Idaho. This film has excessive drinking, suicide attempts, sex, and other such items you won't find in Napoleon Dynamite. And if you prefer action films or Adam Sandler humor, its not for you.
But its "accessible" to normal people who aren't familiar with comparable Russian cinema, and don't like the typically obscure and self-obsessed Sundance art films.
I wouldn't say that its "like" Napoleon Dynamite, because that would create the wrong expectation. But in many ways, it reminded me of ND. The quirky teenage girl does things her own way, people don't quite understand her, there's humor but its vague, not slapstick.
Russians definitely have a darker perspective on life than Mormons in Idaho. This film has excessive drinking, suicide attempts, sex, and other such items you won't find in Napoleon Dynamite. And if you prefer action films or Adam Sandler humor, its not for you.
But its "accessible" to normal people who aren't familiar with comparable Russian cinema, and don't like the typically obscure and self-obsessed Sundance art films.
Fuel
(2008)
Commercial paid for by biofuel industry
31 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This film does a good job of discussing the health and security risks of our oil dependence.
However, environmentalists and economists are increasingly opposed to biofuels for various reasons.
This film makes little mention of the downsides and risks of biofuels.
The film slams oil companies for funding pro-oil propaganda, but a quick look at the "sponsors" page on the website reveals that this film is a paid infomercial. Many companies stand to gain from the irrational promotion of biofuels.
This film is NOT fit for educational settings. It is pure propaganda.
UPDATE: As an example of the misinformation that biodiesel proponents are spreading, another commenter on this site claims that biodiesel production does not use or destroy food. This is a flat-out lie. Use of soy - the dominant biodiesel feedstock - absolutely destroys food. There is some residual value, just as there is with corn ethanol. But using soy for biodiesel is precisely why the cost of soy has good through the roof (just like corn).
The writer claims that algae can be used for biodiesel -- but this statement is misleading. Why, for example, would the author be imploring us to plants CROPS for biodiesel if algae were truly the panacea he claims?
The reality is that - today - algae yields oil that can be used for biodiesel, but this is only done on small scale lab settings. The reason millions of $$ of VC money has gone to startups is because no one has figured out how to do this economically. No one.
Biofuels today are driving up food prices, using obscene amounts of water, and soaking up huge amounts of our tax dollars. Corn ethanol is currently the worst culprit, as it also uses huge amounts of energy inputs (natural gas).
But around the world, rainforests are being burned down to plant soy to make biodiesel. The Europeans are already well aware of this, and have passed legislation to attempt to prevent the use of plant oils from non-sustainable crops.
The only honest assessment we can make today is that the current generation of biofuels (ethanol AND biodiesel) are robbing the world of food and water, and the "next generation" of biofuels is purely experimental right now.
Its funny that there's always a "next generation" that will be here shortly and solve all of our problems. That's exactly what they said about ethanol 10 years ago, but now environmentalists are running away from it.
Field of Fuel only adds to the hysterical and profoundly UNscientific mania for biodiesel, and we will all be shaking our heads over this film in 5 years. Actually, the producers and sponsors will be desperately trying to hide their involvement in this film, as they will have moved on to the next fiscal and environmental boondoggle -- which will probably be called "algae biodiesel" or "switchgrass ethanol".
Please refer back to this comment in 2013 -- and do not let so-called "environmentalists" say that they didn't know better, or that no one warned them. Despite their claims about the "science" of global warming, this is an extremely unscientific crowd. Emotional films like this exclude the opinions of *many* scientists and environmentalists who disagree with them. They bury the debate and claim that only oil companies could oppose them.
If climate change mania causes everyone to jump on bandwagons like this, it will set us back decades in our quest for both energy security and pollution-free energy sources. There are many respectable voices warning against this deluded thinking, so no one will be able to claim that they didn't know any better.
However, environmentalists and economists are increasingly opposed to biofuels for various reasons.
This film makes little mention of the downsides and risks of biofuels.
The film slams oil companies for funding pro-oil propaganda, but a quick look at the "sponsors" page on the website reveals that this film is a paid infomercial. Many companies stand to gain from the irrational promotion of biofuels.
This film is NOT fit for educational settings. It is pure propaganda.
UPDATE: As an example of the misinformation that biodiesel proponents are spreading, another commenter on this site claims that biodiesel production does not use or destroy food. This is a flat-out lie. Use of soy - the dominant biodiesel feedstock - absolutely destroys food. There is some residual value, just as there is with corn ethanol. But using soy for biodiesel is precisely why the cost of soy has good through the roof (just like corn).
The writer claims that algae can be used for biodiesel -- but this statement is misleading. Why, for example, would the author be imploring us to plants CROPS for biodiesel if algae were truly the panacea he claims?
The reality is that - today - algae yields oil that can be used for biodiesel, but this is only done on small scale lab settings. The reason millions of $$ of VC money has gone to startups is because no one has figured out how to do this economically. No one.
Biofuels today are driving up food prices, using obscene amounts of water, and soaking up huge amounts of our tax dollars. Corn ethanol is currently the worst culprit, as it also uses huge amounts of energy inputs (natural gas).
But around the world, rainforests are being burned down to plant soy to make biodiesel. The Europeans are already well aware of this, and have passed legislation to attempt to prevent the use of plant oils from non-sustainable crops.
The only honest assessment we can make today is that the current generation of biofuels (ethanol AND biodiesel) are robbing the world of food and water, and the "next generation" of biofuels is purely experimental right now.
Its funny that there's always a "next generation" that will be here shortly and solve all of our problems. That's exactly what they said about ethanol 10 years ago, but now environmentalists are running away from it.
Field of Fuel only adds to the hysterical and profoundly UNscientific mania for biodiesel, and we will all be shaking our heads over this film in 5 years. Actually, the producers and sponsors will be desperately trying to hide their involvement in this film, as they will have moved on to the next fiscal and environmental boondoggle -- which will probably be called "algae biodiesel" or "switchgrass ethanol".
Please refer back to this comment in 2013 -- and do not let so-called "environmentalists" say that they didn't know better, or that no one warned them. Despite their claims about the "science" of global warming, this is an extremely unscientific crowd. Emotional films like this exclude the opinions of *many* scientists and environmentalists who disagree with them. They bury the debate and claim that only oil companies could oppose them.
If climate change mania causes everyone to jump on bandwagons like this, it will set us back decades in our quest for both energy security and pollution-free energy sources. There are many respectable voices warning against this deluded thinking, so no one will be able to claim that they didn't know any better.
Numb3rs
(2005–2010)
Utterly ridiculous
16 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The "math" aspect to this is merely a gimmick to try to set this TV show apart from the millions of other cop shows. The only redeeming aspect to this show is Rob Morrow, although his career must have been (undeservedly) waning after Northern Exposure if he signed up for this schlock.
The lame-ness of the "math" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the "mathematician" uses some theory about "bubbles". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use "bubble theory" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).
Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said "Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive." At which point, one other character points out "Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live." Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to "support" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.
It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.
Totally ludicrous TV show.
The lame-ness of the "math" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the "mathematician" uses some theory about "bubbles". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use "bubble theory" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).
Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said "Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive." At which point, one other character points out "Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live." Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to "support" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.
It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.
Totally ludicrous TV show.
The Shield
(2002–2008)
Addicted. Why is Ronnie the silent one?
16 January 2007
This is the best cop show ever, so I won't belabor that point any further.
What could be done to improve it? Well, if News Corp and Time Warner could team up and somehow stick Vik Mackey to investigate the Sopranos, holy s*hit!!! That would be a great crossover... Too bad they are separate companies....
The characters on this show are all so thoroughly developed and nuanced. But what gives with Ronnie? He is never developed, and sometimes you don't even realize he is in the room. Has anyone else noticed this? For all we get with Shane, Lemansky and Vik, and even all the other cops, why is one guy on the Strike Team the "oh yeah, him too" of the show? Just kind of odd, given how far back he supposedly goes with Shane or Lemansky (can't recall who brought him on the team).
What could be done to improve it? Well, if News Corp and Time Warner could team up and somehow stick Vik Mackey to investigate the Sopranos, holy s*hit!!! That would be a great crossover... Too bad they are separate companies....
The characters on this show are all so thoroughly developed and nuanced. But what gives with Ronnie? He is never developed, and sometimes you don't even realize he is in the room. Has anyone else noticed this? For all we get with Shane, Lemansky and Vik, and even all the other cops, why is one guy on the Strike Team the "oh yeah, him too" of the show? Just kind of odd, given how far back he supposedly goes with Shane or Lemansky (can't recall who brought him on the team).
Tell Your Friends