HarryB

George Orwell's Big brother (1984) is ominously turning into a reality. Edward Snowden is a whistleblower who sheds light on unlawful expanding mass surveillance and privacy issues conducted by US government.

“When people think ‘Humans are different from robots’, it is no more profound than thinking ‘white is not black’.” Why does man try to create machines in the image of the ideal human body? None other than a cyborg makes the quite unorthodox and controversial approach to answer this by creating an analogy between children and dolls. A child playing with a doll is essentially the same as parenting. The child substitutes the doll. The macabre intellectual argument is taken even further. The ‘content’ of a child is different than that of a human, yet it is human-shaped. Therefore parenting is closest to the creation of androids which is the intent to conquer nature that created us. A very factual and coherent argumentation - but devoid of emotion. That is obviously where the machine is lacking. And Togusa, closest to being a human in the whole movie, reacts emotionally. While the cyborgs might be the most complete form of existence, they are treated as inferior to man which is allegorized by the girl sacrificing the ‘life’ of dolls in order to be found. They are ignorantly treated as things despite the absence of a clear definition for life (which could disqualify them). "You cry for bird’s blood, but not for fish blood. Fortunate for ones with voice. If the dolls had voices, They would have screamed, ‘I didn’t want to become human!’” This is by no means shallow entertainment or easily digestible. The story moves solely by its highbrow dialogues which are in a way mentally exhausting, yet quite rewarding

Going in with low expectation, not knowing anything about this show, the pilot turned out to offer a pleasant surprise. In short, the show is a bit unconventional, like a mix between an audio book and a TV show, but one rather well researched and executed. Whereas most shows and movies seem to throw all connection to reality straight out the window when it comes to I.T related stuff, this show does not. In fact, it seems extraordinarily well researched for an entertainment piece. It seems as though we finally have a show that doesn't treat its audience as idiots, and where the writers actually spent some time doing their homework. I'm just concerned that the show may be targeting too small an audience, an audience consisting of people who do not switch their brains off when they turn on the tele, So far, highly recommended to tune into if you're interested in seeing something fresh and aren't allergic to narration (getting inside the mind of a somewhat odd protagonist), as there's quite lot of the latter. Now time to embark upon season 2.

This is a truly unique movie, comic, sarcastic, tragic, ironic, and definitely hilarious, accidental discoveries of significant historical scientific findings (such as the steam engine or the concept of gravity). The characters stumble their way through the film, unaware of the consequences to their actions or their significance or importance. The constant banter between the two characters (specifically in their 'Game of Questions' at a badminton court) is pure quality

Pro wrestling doesn't get much better than this.

Fun watch with great actors.This movie had one of the best action sequences I've ever seen.

A tragic and heart wrenching film,and one that makes you really consider our values as humans,and the depths to which our hearts can navigate. Great performance by Min-Sik Choi .

Based on Japanese light novel and manga "All you need is kill" by Hiroshi Sakurazaka, Very much exceeded my expectations. It had a nice intriguing plot and wonderful character build up, but the credit of it must go to the original novel, that being said, Tom cruise and Emily blunt did surprisingly well to fit into their roles.

It's true: Linklater took 12 years to develop his family of characters. While I was intimidated by the 3 hour run time, I have to admit, there was not a moment of this film I could have done without.There is something people should know before watching this movie, and that is that it takes place from 2002 to 2014. Boyhood tells the story of Mason, whom we follow from ages 5 to 18. I grew up in that same generation, so as I watched this movie I felt like I was growing up all over again seeing the references to pop culture, society, politics, middle school, high school, and technology. The plot is very simple: what does it mean to grow up, become an adult, and live? And as the years go by, it becomes apparent that Mason (the main character) is struggling to find his place in life. From Richard Linklater's previous films, I've noticed that the dialogue all feels real (to a point where I feel like I'm interacting with the characters). And it is so well done in this film. ""Boyhood" is the unique coming-of-age film. Infact, this is more than a coming of age story; the title "Family" or "Motherhood" would be just as appropriate. The characters are well developed. Don't be fooled by the title --- the spirit of Boyhood is alive here, but the female characters are thoroughly developed, distinct, and alive. Unfortunately, though it's 2014, this is a rarity in cinema. Although it is a fictional piece, you can't help not to relate with the characters as if it would be a documentary. Every scene feels like real life. I know that this is not necessarily a good thing to say about a movie but it is meant as a compliment. This is the movie I subconsciously always wanted to see.

Highlight of the movie was Naseeruddin Shah's monologue about culture and religion, and different interpretations of religion. It was thought provoking. Otherwise, rest of the movie could have been better. Some of the dialogues were cliche and narrow-minded, for instance that Taj mahal reference. Acting was also below par but nice music and good effort to make a movie on such an important topic.