timdotm
Joined Jul 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings414
timdotm's rating
Reviews7
timdotm's rating
Look, I get it. The creator has an insane depth of knowledge, a flair for putting historical progress in sequence and relation, and for digging out very obscure historical cinematic fact to educate the viewer.
I understand different ways of telling a story; the avant-garde, the alternative; breaking boundaries and forcing new ways to look at experienced subjects. Sometimes, this works. Sometimes, as it is here, the result is disaster.
Just because it's different doesn't mean it's good.
The material is spectacular. The presentation is horrifyingly flawed. An incredible story, presented by film, can be either brilliant or awful; in contrast, a boringly simple story can be brilliantly expressed or spewed out as worthless junk. The history of film is neither simple nor uninteresting. Here we have excellent material, brilliantly researched, and presented in a way that only the heartiest of viewer could possibly endure.
This documentary has great resources but is cut incorrectly. The idea of cutting between vintage clips and poorly filmed analogues just doesn't work. It is confusing, disruptive of continuity and frankly boring. It seems to me that the director/editor is trying to 'dumb down' the material to explain it. Never do that in a documentary - use the source material to show the detail, explain it clearly but simply by narration. Assume the viewer is just as smart or smarter than you. At some point, this disjointed and moreover 'pablumized' (copyright my term) presentation wears on the viewer.
The narration is beyond annoying (yeah, I know - some people find it difficult, some find it astonishing - unless an element is broadly appealing it risks being pretentious, uncommunicative, and ANNOYING ). There is no way this 'experiment' in English narration works, because it is largely unappealing no matter how much a given snob might think it is great. Put yourselves into the shoes of the broader audience - can you really say 'this narration is effective!'? It's like telling yourself that boiled jackrabbit is just as good or better than a Godiva chocolate; it may be to you, but not to most people.
The soundtrack seems like rushed afterthought. The scoring is choppy, shallow and uninspiring, and distracts from instead of enhancing the presentation.
Overall, the viewer is inspired not to seek out classic and important film, but to check their phones for the latest marketing from Target. Painful.
If the creators would REALLY like to educate the film going ignorant, they would hire an inspired editor, a gifted narrator, a knowledgeable, a deeply experienced musical director and a judicious producer to make it the watchable masterpiece it could be.
I understand different ways of telling a story; the avant-garde, the alternative; breaking boundaries and forcing new ways to look at experienced subjects. Sometimes, this works. Sometimes, as it is here, the result is disaster.
Just because it's different doesn't mean it's good.
The material is spectacular. The presentation is horrifyingly flawed. An incredible story, presented by film, can be either brilliant or awful; in contrast, a boringly simple story can be brilliantly expressed or spewed out as worthless junk. The history of film is neither simple nor uninteresting. Here we have excellent material, brilliantly researched, and presented in a way that only the heartiest of viewer could possibly endure.
This documentary has great resources but is cut incorrectly. The idea of cutting between vintage clips and poorly filmed analogues just doesn't work. It is confusing, disruptive of continuity and frankly boring. It seems to me that the director/editor is trying to 'dumb down' the material to explain it. Never do that in a documentary - use the source material to show the detail, explain it clearly but simply by narration. Assume the viewer is just as smart or smarter than you. At some point, this disjointed and moreover 'pablumized' (copyright my term) presentation wears on the viewer.
The narration is beyond annoying (yeah, I know - some people find it difficult, some find it astonishing - unless an element is broadly appealing it risks being pretentious, uncommunicative, and ANNOYING ). There is no way this 'experiment' in English narration works, because it is largely unappealing no matter how much a given snob might think it is great. Put yourselves into the shoes of the broader audience - can you really say 'this narration is effective!'? It's like telling yourself that boiled jackrabbit is just as good or better than a Godiva chocolate; it may be to you, but not to most people.
The soundtrack seems like rushed afterthought. The scoring is choppy, shallow and uninspiring, and distracts from instead of enhancing the presentation.
Overall, the viewer is inspired not to seek out classic and important film, but to check their phones for the latest marketing from Target. Painful.
If the creators would REALLY like to educate the film going ignorant, they would hire an inspired editor, a gifted narrator, a knowledgeable, a deeply experienced musical director and a judicious producer to make it the watchable masterpiece it could be.
This is a spectacular movie for those in the tech world 1980s-present. It is a story I never knew, other than Tetris came from an inventor in the USSR. The movie is incredibly well made and well acted. Seriously, this is Academy material - folks just don't know it yet. You like electronic games? This movie explains a major facet of why you have them: because it's profitable, so profitable that the tech revolution helped to tear down countries. Because genius was at the root of such innovations, even if it came from the far deep, suppressed corners of the earth. Please see this film - it's different, it's entertaining and it's thoughtful + deeper than it seems at first glance.
Ties:
What was Peter Gibbons doing when Lumbergh came to his cubicle to hassle him prior to the meeting with the Bobs?
When Tony Mendez got the folks out of Tehran at the last minute after a narrow miss at the airport - where was the flight bound?
Mikhail Gorbachev involved in many USSR incidents... including Chernobyl and Tetris (both technological, although admittedly vastly different in scale). Nonetheless - don't underestimate the impact Tetris had on the world.
Finally: Villain Robert Maxwell died naked while peeing and falling over the side of his precious yacht... the Lady Ghislaine (as in Ghislaine Maxwell). Yeah, that person.
Ties:
What was Peter Gibbons doing when Lumbergh came to his cubicle to hassle him prior to the meeting with the Bobs?
When Tony Mendez got the folks out of Tehran at the last minute after a narrow miss at the airport - where was the flight bound?
Mikhail Gorbachev involved in many USSR incidents... including Chernobyl and Tetris (both technological, although admittedly vastly different in scale). Nonetheless - don't underestimate the impact Tetris had on the world.
Finally: Villain Robert Maxwell died naked while peeing and falling over the side of his precious yacht... the Lady Ghislaine (as in Ghislaine Maxwell). Yeah, that person.
I don't write a lot of reviews; my opinion of cinematic excellence is often different from others, as I am not in the business, but merely a fan. I also happen to be a lifelong engineer, I knew this was my profession in the 4th grade - maybe earlier. I wanted to work in the nuclear field, but I was discouraged by my parents due to politicization of the discipline and warnings about the scrutiny of the profession. I opted for mainstream classified work, but always kept nuclear science as a 'hobby'.
The background above gives a basis for my review. I was specifically clued to the Chernobyl disaster during my 3rd semester physics class in college - 'this is the worst nuclear disaster in history' our professor noted in April 1986. Little did I realize the prescience of his opinion or the magnitude of the issue. I have read several books about the disaster, and over time have established my own 'timeline' of what happened. As I started to watch Chernobyl, I worried that the story was going to concentrate on the aftermath, and ignore the actual problem. The first episode was captivating, incredibly realistic, and frightening. I watched it four times before episode 2 was aired; this added to my enthusiasm for the series. As I watched each installment, I became more enthralled with both the factual content, but the acting, script and feel of the series. The thing that really struck me: this is how I pictured the events. The imagery was spectacular, the sets fantastic, the acting nothing less than breathtaking. I can't emphasize this enough - the series seemed a masterpiece.
Episode 4 came along; I was disappointed. Why dedicate so much time to side stories such as escaped and wild-animal execution? I had been hoping from the beginning, from before the series was announced that someone would really explain the event. The split second decisions, the basic flaw of graphite moderated reactors, the complexities of nuclear energy... and the arrogance of the Soviet system. There has existed a clear, visceral depiction of what happened in the control room that morning - why hadn't it been revealed? This episode seemed to veer the story toward the typical emotionalist treatment so common in modern Hollywood.
Then came episode 5. If there was ever a visual art, a television production, a cinematic masterpiece worthy of recognition, it was here. I realized within 5 minutes that the previous 4 episodes were a set-up for this. I've watched it twice and I still don't know how to describe it. Everything came together like a great painting, like a classic novel... the script, the acting, the visual effects - all orchestrated in a way that not only explained the catastrophe in salient terms, but gave the most dedicated of students a sense of awe. The final scene left the watcher reeling, only to drive the stake into ones heart with the prologue, showing the actual footage of the heroes and villains, reminding even the most cognizant of their fates in poignant and heart wrenching detail.
Chernobyl is a masterpiece; I encourage every person alive to watch it; to learn what authoritarian control does to a society, and to appreciate the value of western science and industry. Despite the 'skull and crossbones' that Chernobyl projects on the nuclear sciences in general, one should realize that nuclear energy has been and is our planet's best chance for a pollution free and sustainable energy future. It may be another generation before folks realize it, but covering the earths surface with solar panels and corporate wind farms, killing the birds, tortoises and land environment is an abomination compared to the efficiency of safe nuclear power. Use Chernobyl as a basis for your new open mind - reasearch the subject! Learn about RBMKs, PWRs and BWRs. Explore TMI, SL-1, Fukushima. Realize that you can find nuclear material everywhere - in any antique store, in your home, hardware supply, the ground, the sky, your food (naturally) and every part of your environment. It is part of life, learn to accept it, and talk intelligently about the risks and rewards of nuclear science. Then, we can have a dialogue about our future!
The background above gives a basis for my review. I was specifically clued to the Chernobyl disaster during my 3rd semester physics class in college - 'this is the worst nuclear disaster in history' our professor noted in April 1986. Little did I realize the prescience of his opinion or the magnitude of the issue. I have read several books about the disaster, and over time have established my own 'timeline' of what happened. As I started to watch Chernobyl, I worried that the story was going to concentrate on the aftermath, and ignore the actual problem. The first episode was captivating, incredibly realistic, and frightening. I watched it four times before episode 2 was aired; this added to my enthusiasm for the series. As I watched each installment, I became more enthralled with both the factual content, but the acting, script and feel of the series. The thing that really struck me: this is how I pictured the events. The imagery was spectacular, the sets fantastic, the acting nothing less than breathtaking. I can't emphasize this enough - the series seemed a masterpiece.
Episode 4 came along; I was disappointed. Why dedicate so much time to side stories such as escaped and wild-animal execution? I had been hoping from the beginning, from before the series was announced that someone would really explain the event. The split second decisions, the basic flaw of graphite moderated reactors, the complexities of nuclear energy... and the arrogance of the Soviet system. There has existed a clear, visceral depiction of what happened in the control room that morning - why hadn't it been revealed? This episode seemed to veer the story toward the typical emotionalist treatment so common in modern Hollywood.
Then came episode 5. If there was ever a visual art, a television production, a cinematic masterpiece worthy of recognition, it was here. I realized within 5 minutes that the previous 4 episodes were a set-up for this. I've watched it twice and I still don't know how to describe it. Everything came together like a great painting, like a classic novel... the script, the acting, the visual effects - all orchestrated in a way that not only explained the catastrophe in salient terms, but gave the most dedicated of students a sense of awe. The final scene left the watcher reeling, only to drive the stake into ones heart with the prologue, showing the actual footage of the heroes and villains, reminding even the most cognizant of their fates in poignant and heart wrenching detail.
Chernobyl is a masterpiece; I encourage every person alive to watch it; to learn what authoritarian control does to a society, and to appreciate the value of western science and industry. Despite the 'skull and crossbones' that Chernobyl projects on the nuclear sciences in general, one should realize that nuclear energy has been and is our planet's best chance for a pollution free and sustainable energy future. It may be another generation before folks realize it, but covering the earths surface with solar panels and corporate wind farms, killing the birds, tortoises and land environment is an abomination compared to the efficiency of safe nuclear power. Use Chernobyl as a basis for your new open mind - reasearch the subject! Learn about RBMKs, PWRs and BWRs. Explore TMI, SL-1, Fukushima. Realize that you can find nuclear material everywhere - in any antique store, in your home, hardware supply, the ground, the sky, your food (naturally) and every part of your environment. It is part of life, learn to accept it, and talk intelligently about the risks and rewards of nuclear science. Then, we can have a dialogue about our future!