TomSawyer-2112
Joined Apr 2015
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.
Ratings1.2K
TomSawyer-2112's rating
Reviews105
TomSawyer-2112's rating
The film begins well, but after 20 minutes, it repeats the same topics, behaviours, and events.
The environment is gloomy, sunless, bleak, depressing, and dull.
The characters are caricatures; one is solely concerned in marketing the product, the other in mourning his loss; you see them without concern, and the grieving anyones have no individuality at all.
For minutes, one character sits at a table, takes numerous tablets, and walks slowly, depressed, down the stairs.
The scenarios in which they present their idea to concerned parties or prospective clients are extremely repetitive without any climax.
Is the slow, monotonous, colourless portrayal of this daily existence of inventors, scientists and investors intentional? For what purpose?
The invention isn't really comprehensible; how technical is it beyond biologically transferring neurons and synapses?
They communicate through a simulation of the deceased, but a lot of substance is missing.
What do the simulated individuals see? Do they live in their own world? Or are they just lying bodyless and without eyes? What are they doing when they are not speaking out of the simulator?
It merely presents an interpretation of Freud's theory of human consciousness. Three levels of awareness, conscious, preconscious, and unconscious, intersect with his concepts of the id, ego, and superego.
But the researcher in the film describes the simulation as combining three voices in our heads: the morality of the superego, the reality of the ego, and the instant of the Id.
What is the moment of the id? What a bad, ambiguous, and inaccurate interpretation of the pleasure principle, which is the source of drive in all humans... What a squandered opportunity to base murders and suicides around this principle. What about the id of the simulated, what if the scientist pulls the plug. Void.
They mention moral questions rising, to seek the brain of the deads, but none are mentioned in detail, or in their effects. It does not even raise the issue of of the legal aspects of confidentiality, of a habeus corpus.
It is so devoid in content!
The movie repeats: Saying everything is OK is the biggest lie.
Saying this film is good would be my greatest dishonesty. I am truly generous to give it four stars.
It demonstrates how a wonderful idea dies when it falls into the hands of uninspired, uncreative individuals.
Rewatchabilty index : zero!
I urge you watch the Minority Report instead or again...
The environment is gloomy, sunless, bleak, depressing, and dull.
The characters are caricatures; one is solely concerned in marketing the product, the other in mourning his loss; you see them without concern, and the grieving anyones have no individuality at all.
For minutes, one character sits at a table, takes numerous tablets, and walks slowly, depressed, down the stairs.
The scenarios in which they present their idea to concerned parties or prospective clients are extremely repetitive without any climax.
Is the slow, monotonous, colourless portrayal of this daily existence of inventors, scientists and investors intentional? For what purpose?
The invention isn't really comprehensible; how technical is it beyond biologically transferring neurons and synapses?
They communicate through a simulation of the deceased, but a lot of substance is missing.
What do the simulated individuals see? Do they live in their own world? Or are they just lying bodyless and without eyes? What are they doing when they are not speaking out of the simulator?
It merely presents an interpretation of Freud's theory of human consciousness. Three levels of awareness, conscious, preconscious, and unconscious, intersect with his concepts of the id, ego, and superego.
But the researcher in the film describes the simulation as combining three voices in our heads: the morality of the superego, the reality of the ego, and the instant of the Id.
What is the moment of the id? What a bad, ambiguous, and inaccurate interpretation of the pleasure principle, which is the source of drive in all humans... What a squandered opportunity to base murders and suicides around this principle. What about the id of the simulated, what if the scientist pulls the plug. Void.
They mention moral questions rising, to seek the brain of the deads, but none are mentioned in detail, or in their effects. It does not even raise the issue of of the legal aspects of confidentiality, of a habeus corpus.
It is so devoid in content!
The movie repeats: Saying everything is OK is the biggest lie.
Saying this film is good would be my greatest dishonesty. I am truly generous to give it four stars.
It demonstrates how a wonderful idea dies when it falls into the hands of uninspired, uncreative individuals.
Rewatchabilty index : zero!
I urge you watch the Minority Report instead or again...
What a pleasant surprise to find such knowledgeable, multi-perspective writing. Mr. Reed is such a suitable role for Hugh Grant.
He plays it with ease, spontaneously amused, and on the edge of suspiciously well-intentioned, giving the movie a caché, similar to Kevin Spacey's extraordinary imperturbable charm in Seven.
I totally comprehend Mr. Reed's drive to teach the missionaries a lesson. I had similar experiences with Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchtower, who went knocking on doors when people had died or were left alone. I've heard that some elderly widows signed testimonies to give their wealth to this "non profit" organization.
My mother never let them in; she was an ardent critic of religion, but in the end, they lingered at her table, like vultures waiting for her last breath.
What are the causes, motives, techniques, and common traits of specific religions' propagate?
From innocent discussions to heated disputes, the director and writers offer us a lot to think about, with unexpected daring up to the point of questioning Judaism. But to get this movie financed, I believe they had to make some compromises.
They caught me when I felt Mr. Reed was making a point, and then forced me to agree with the missionary's response... Sometimes there are no right or incorrect answers, no black and white. One of the greatest fallacies is that we feel forced to select one side over another, and politics and its hidden hand know all too well how to use this in a two-party election system.
It's so excellent that the narrative, atmosphere, and the finale don't matter much; the horror style was meant to draw young people's attention away from cheap gags mocking people to more deep issues to help them steer their choices and future.
The film should be shown and discussed in schools to safeguard young people from succumbing to any type of belief and to help them perceive free will. It has a wealth of interesting material to broaden our horizons, some of which I had never heard of before, and of course I researched them.
It raises topics like life is a simulation, the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, the evolution of initial true to ultimately false memories, the age of religious stories, their truth considering man is in his nature a sinner and a liar, iterations of a source, the near death experiences, the tricks of miracles, the relevance of testable ideas and conclusions, the role of God in sexuality, about polygamy, and finally why does knowing more make us realize how little we know.?
Heretic becomes the perfect response to religious films like "The Forge" whose final scene instructs to go into the world and make disciples, transforming one in a million into a "million to go in the schools, ball fields, and marketplaces."
Because it is not limited to religion, the symbolism of monopoly plainly shows that we should consider economic and political orientations to be forms of religion, as they share common objectives.
Capitalism, communism is a religion, Trumpism and Muskism ... Following is religious. Stop following !!!!
Cultivate your personality to remain your own master...
The movie in general is somewhat superior to Cary Solomon's Nefarious, but a little less compelling and genuine than David Fincher's Seven, but it undoubtedly fits in that genre.
No Spoiler, but before you begin watching the movie, consider whether religion is a system of... ?
The answer is revealed in the final act.
Regarding the actresses, Sophie Tatcher appeared more convincing at first than Chloe East in the end, but this could be attributed to the director's personality shifts for the sisters as they went through the entire survival experience, defending their challenged belief.
One of the best movies of 2024.
With a very high coefficient of "rewatchability"!
He plays it with ease, spontaneously amused, and on the edge of suspiciously well-intentioned, giving the movie a caché, similar to Kevin Spacey's extraordinary imperturbable charm in Seven.
I totally comprehend Mr. Reed's drive to teach the missionaries a lesson. I had similar experiences with Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchtower, who went knocking on doors when people had died or were left alone. I've heard that some elderly widows signed testimonies to give their wealth to this "non profit" organization.
My mother never let them in; she was an ardent critic of religion, but in the end, they lingered at her table, like vultures waiting for her last breath.
What are the causes, motives, techniques, and common traits of specific religions' propagate?
From innocent discussions to heated disputes, the director and writers offer us a lot to think about, with unexpected daring up to the point of questioning Judaism. But to get this movie financed, I believe they had to make some compromises.
They caught me when I felt Mr. Reed was making a point, and then forced me to agree with the missionary's response... Sometimes there are no right or incorrect answers, no black and white. One of the greatest fallacies is that we feel forced to select one side over another, and politics and its hidden hand know all too well how to use this in a two-party election system.
It's so excellent that the narrative, atmosphere, and the finale don't matter much; the horror style was meant to draw young people's attention away from cheap gags mocking people to more deep issues to help them steer their choices and future.
The film should be shown and discussed in schools to safeguard young people from succumbing to any type of belief and to help them perceive free will. It has a wealth of interesting material to broaden our horizons, some of which I had never heard of before, and of course I researched them.
It raises topics like life is a simulation, the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, the evolution of initial true to ultimately false memories, the age of religious stories, their truth considering man is in his nature a sinner and a liar, iterations of a source, the near death experiences, the tricks of miracles, the relevance of testable ideas and conclusions, the role of God in sexuality, about polygamy, and finally why does knowing more make us realize how little we know.?
Heretic becomes the perfect response to religious films like "The Forge" whose final scene instructs to go into the world and make disciples, transforming one in a million into a "million to go in the schools, ball fields, and marketplaces."
Because it is not limited to religion, the symbolism of monopoly plainly shows that we should consider economic and political orientations to be forms of religion, as they share common objectives.
Capitalism, communism is a religion, Trumpism and Muskism ... Following is religious. Stop following !!!!
Cultivate your personality to remain your own master...
The movie in general is somewhat superior to Cary Solomon's Nefarious, but a little less compelling and genuine than David Fincher's Seven, but it undoubtedly fits in that genre.
No Spoiler, but before you begin watching the movie, consider whether religion is a system of... ?
The answer is revealed in the final act.
Regarding the actresses, Sophie Tatcher appeared more convincing at first than Chloe East in the end, but this could be attributed to the director's personality shifts for the sisters as they went through the entire survival experience, defending their challenged belief.
One of the best movies of 2024.
With a very high coefficient of "rewatchability"!
Following my still undigested tormenting experiences with Caroline Lindy's "Your Monster" and Megan Park's "My Old Ass," two highly romantic female flicks that explore the emotional states of egotistical women, I see this other movie about self-absorbed women.
This time, they are actively involved in literature, which should boost the level of discussion above that of the aforementioned films. And it does.
The wonderful hues of the Moroccan landscapes and residences under a brilliant sun make it a true delight, a welcome respite from the drab, chilly winter months in which I am located, where the sun sets early.
A younger man raised among four sisters, who does not enjoy travel, and in endless arguments with his selfish girlfriend who glides on the success of her first book, gets attracted to an elderly woman who really wants to remain isolated to write her next book.
The way she is behaving to make him understand she is attracted, are a little too obvious and clumsy. Such an open receptivity to run after her so she can catch me makes me run away as quick as I can.
Young attractive alphas may grow bored of so many young girls extending their arms, I witness them come and go with my 25y young son. My favorite comment from the movie is "when it's not hard to get, it may not be worth having." Are women comparable to money ?
Either physically slim tall muscular guys with tight opulent hair and piercing eyes become gay, or they are "literally" driven to a more calmer mindset of older women. Finding hope in the huge emotional chaos and going with the flow can't be right; mature ladies are much easier to conquer after their experienced disappointments.
It was just a matter of time until they faced the unavoidable enlacement and subsequent disagreements created by age differences. There's nothing truly original or unexpected.
The men's profiles are often degrading. From the alcoholic sex junkie to the huge orgasm quarterback, their only goal seems to make money produce more money.
Why are women drawn to such unappealing partners? Is this a curse, to be primitively attracted to the leader of the pack? Or is it the money, are women comparable to money? One of the key reasons I discovered in life is that women enjoy making their girlfriends envious. This is a rather short-term motivation. Anyway, they never criticize themselves for their poor decisions, or for their misguided belief that they can alter a leader in love into their domesticated dog.
It was evident that this film was made by women when claiming the writing of a book is comparable to the development of a pregnancy.
While women continue to account for less than 20% of movie directors, they now make up the majority of book authors, due to their representation of approximately 70% of the highest ranking high school students. Or is it that avid readers are overwhelmingly female.
This does not imply that they are exceptionally creative or entertaining, which is bad news for us men. From my experience, they excel at repeating whatever they read or hear, and they have a remarkable capacity to learn by heart. In the film, they excel at a quiz about authors and they do not miss the chance to embarrass the man.
What's worse is the manipulative nature of women. The story feels fabricated; the actors do their best, but their characters do not feel genuine. There is no discernible link between them, or perhaps people are like this today. It appears that incidents were fabricated in the story to create tense situations. Women are particularly adept at picking up on prior occurrences to justify their outbursts and manipulating the situation to blame the spouse.
After her luggage was either misplaced or stolen upon her arrival, despite having a safe in the hotel, she continued to write a book on a laptop for two years without a backup on a USB stick, when she had a safe in her hotel room and, most likely, a connection to backup to the cloud.
This idea must originate from a technically unskilled and unreasonable female story writer... It's preposterous, and it renders the film's culmination entirely implausible.
I comprehend that something had to happen to create a dramatic narrative in which women demonstrate how mean they can be, and that the drama would end happily, as if males were unable to resist the pull of twisted narcists.
Please, female writers, be a little more imaginative and plausible.
This time, they are actively involved in literature, which should boost the level of discussion above that of the aforementioned films. And it does.
The wonderful hues of the Moroccan landscapes and residences under a brilliant sun make it a true delight, a welcome respite from the drab, chilly winter months in which I am located, where the sun sets early.
A younger man raised among four sisters, who does not enjoy travel, and in endless arguments with his selfish girlfriend who glides on the success of her first book, gets attracted to an elderly woman who really wants to remain isolated to write her next book.
The way she is behaving to make him understand she is attracted, are a little too obvious and clumsy. Such an open receptivity to run after her so she can catch me makes me run away as quick as I can.
Young attractive alphas may grow bored of so many young girls extending their arms, I witness them come and go with my 25y young son. My favorite comment from the movie is "when it's not hard to get, it may not be worth having." Are women comparable to money ?
Either physically slim tall muscular guys with tight opulent hair and piercing eyes become gay, or they are "literally" driven to a more calmer mindset of older women. Finding hope in the huge emotional chaos and going with the flow can't be right; mature ladies are much easier to conquer after their experienced disappointments.
It was just a matter of time until they faced the unavoidable enlacement and subsequent disagreements created by age differences. There's nothing truly original or unexpected.
The men's profiles are often degrading. From the alcoholic sex junkie to the huge orgasm quarterback, their only goal seems to make money produce more money.
Why are women drawn to such unappealing partners? Is this a curse, to be primitively attracted to the leader of the pack? Or is it the money, are women comparable to money? One of the key reasons I discovered in life is that women enjoy making their girlfriends envious. This is a rather short-term motivation. Anyway, they never criticize themselves for their poor decisions, or for their misguided belief that they can alter a leader in love into their domesticated dog.
It was evident that this film was made by women when claiming the writing of a book is comparable to the development of a pregnancy.
While women continue to account for less than 20% of movie directors, they now make up the majority of book authors, due to their representation of approximately 70% of the highest ranking high school students. Or is it that avid readers are overwhelmingly female.
This does not imply that they are exceptionally creative or entertaining, which is bad news for us men. From my experience, they excel at repeating whatever they read or hear, and they have a remarkable capacity to learn by heart. In the film, they excel at a quiz about authors and they do not miss the chance to embarrass the man.
What's worse is the manipulative nature of women. The story feels fabricated; the actors do their best, but their characters do not feel genuine. There is no discernible link between them, or perhaps people are like this today. It appears that incidents were fabricated in the story to create tense situations. Women are particularly adept at picking up on prior occurrences to justify their outbursts and manipulating the situation to blame the spouse.
After her luggage was either misplaced or stolen upon her arrival, despite having a safe in the hotel, she continued to write a book on a laptop for two years without a backup on a USB stick, when she had a safe in her hotel room and, most likely, a connection to backup to the cloud.
This idea must originate from a technically unskilled and unreasonable female story writer... It's preposterous, and it renders the film's culmination entirely implausible.
I comprehend that something had to happen to create a dramatic narrative in which women demonstrate how mean they can be, and that the drama would end happily, as if males were unable to resist the pull of twisted narcists.
Please, female writers, be a little more imaginative and plausible.