A fresh film review or genius mini series

So i have not done a film review for awhile
because i have not seen a good film in awhile and no new films have caught my eye
so i thought to go into the archives
and see what hidden gems could i find

and i uncovered fresh via a film listing site

so i decided to watch it

so in short it was a masterpiece
it was layered in so many ways and a view lens you never see
and to think it is nearly two decades old

so the movie starts off with this kid juggling
running errands of the sinister kind and juggling schooling

which will be referenced later

we find out this kid is also part of a big family with up to thirteen people in one house
and he is surrounded by profanity and he is the lens we see it through
surrounded by this

and still innocent with this

it is a finely woven story with depth
but on top of this he is a genius
which i will go into depth in another post
and though when most people think of genius

i do not know how many pages you will go through before you would see a person such as him
but non the less he is a genius
and is noticed by the people he is in league with
it is slowly hinted at us and with some tongue in cheek references

such as with the monetary transactions
and they trying to shortchange him

and with him boldly correcting them and putting them in their place
such as when a purchaser asks him the price
and he goes 5 a pop
the guy goes give me 5 for 20
he replies 5x5 =25
and its 5 a pop

and from their it jumps
their is a few scenes where these kids his friends from school
are

talking about girls in a crude malformed way
and of fathers and mocking the guy in the white shirt
with the outlandish claims of what his father is and does
meanwhile we have not seen the main character
be with a father figure
except for the dealers

we first see this big shot playing chess

and we see him beat by our little genius
who then sits down with his father to play chess and loses

but it is more than a game it is a weird sort of intimacy
and nurturing
where he teaches him life lessons whilst teaching how to play chess
he seems so collected you wonder why he is not raising him
and then we see the brown paper bag


and though this kid is wise beyond his years he is swimming with sharks
which is perfectly portrayed in this shooting where
this talented kid playing basket ball

with the older kids is schooling them
and this one kid
who is the leader of the bunch

decides to take it no more
and fouls him sending him a message
but the message is soon forgotten when
the kid decides to take him on and humiliate him

which prompts the guy to go reach for a gun killing him and our main characters
innocent first crush
along with his friend

which was such a metaphor for though he may be bright and talented he is vulnerable
but another metaphor came up shortly after
in

for in the scene the dog is whimpering and scared and the other dogs is viscous
ready to fight ready to kill
and the main character called fresh
does not want him to fight
but when the dog fight he wins almost instantly
as if there was more fight in him or he was playing possum
or their was something buried inside of him
or merely the will to survive
this spoke to me of fresh
he seems weak compared to them but perhaps there was something more to him
a grit
especially being surrounded with the harshness of his surroundings
and if he did not want to become like the talented basket baller
an icaruseque flying to high to have his wings melted

his dead must of seen the message
for his message becomes more centered more direct
and has steel centered behind it
giving an alternate yet power image of the game chess
machavilainesque it could be said
for hr tells him
what is my game
how do i play
am i defensive
or offensive
yeah thats right i am neither
i play my opponent
if he is defensive
i make him take risks
if he is offensive i force him to defend
you need to play your opponent sun
and leave all your problems at the door
for with you you like the knight a lot dont you
you like his unpredictability
but it hurts you when he goes
and you retreat your queen
when ever it is threaten
the queen is just a fancy pawn
they are all fancy pawns you want my king you have to come get it
 that is the aim of the game

i paraphrase
but that hit me
for yes when any pawn reaches the other side the pawn can become anything but a king

so a pawn is endless

or is it
and then there is another powerful scene

When we see his fathers inner sanctum
it is a weird place tight but compact
but we see his flaw where he offers fresh a drink
and all he has is beer
but then we see the conflicted character
of how someone so gifted is where he is
on the right you see three simultaneous games side by side
and he tells us he is playing with world champions and one against himself
and we here from fresh he is loosing in all three
the man who looks invincible in his previous
scenes
we a sense of fragility
and we see on the wall the pictures are references
of famous players like bobby fischer
and of grand masters who he knows and plays against
he recalls how though they maybe getting government grants for playing chess
he could beat them in his domain speed chess
and how it is a different kettle of fish playing under pressure
and it parallels with fresh
the often names of genius you come across how would they suit in the domain fresh is in
and the disparity
where his father plays in a park for dollars whence others are world renown and have movies made after them
and the side of glass you are on
or

this hit me immediately
when he uses a certain racial epithet slash slang word
and his father rebukes him
and he is defiant about saying that word if he wants
this is the first time we see him undermined
and it is a point of reflection
about the use of the word
well the father sees the pitfalls behind
but the kid in defiance and familiarity sticks up for it
and it is another peak into why he is not in the care of his father

in conclusion of the hidden beauty
overlooked perhaps never seen you roses in concrete
some will see your arched contorted spine
and smile for your spine is just like theirs

limitless lividness or blissfulness

 limitless lividness or blissfulness

I watched this film quite some moments ago the film resolves around the drug nzt

the film limitless proposes something is limited implying ourselves as well as the characters but it questions the nature of the limited using the premise that we use 10 sometimes 20% of our brain or its potential
the former has been refuted and rebuked time and time again that we use 10 or 20% of our brain and rather we use all of it at different times

which then leaves the potential without philosophical getting into what is potential
could be argued
the film follows the exploits of a failing writer until the introduction of nzt
with his new clarity he finishes his book and looks to be a success but his limited supply means he will back to his limited ways so needs it to become limitless as his potential

He then sets his eyes on financial gain but runs into the counterproductive people but skipping the drama element one of the counterproductive persons gets their hands on the nzt and you see the transformation and he retorts of his transformation using a broader vocabulary and having clearer more defined thoughts/thought patterns

its been quite some moments since i watched the movie but correct me if i am wrong their was a scene where  the nzt was said to heighten the senses and that you still need to input into yourself and i remarked for the most of the movie no one was really seen reading and the drama and action followed from this though they were limitless their imagination was limited and that we are all limitless it is ourselves who limit our power

if we come back to the heightened senses of intelligence if a person was left with a limitless credit card they would probably follow the same sort of trail that one can have intelligence but lack wisdom and that as easy as it came it will also go it reminds me of an intellectual lottery for how many people do you hear of winning the lottery using it to change the world or at least seriously impact their communities

for their is a scene in the movie when he is fighting some people in the tube and he uses scenes of bruce lee he remembered so he can fight off this group of attackers but it wasn't as fluid as if he actually trained in martial arts

the film really challenges the quick fix mentality and in a sense to what happens to people who lack wisdom but also since when did we equate intelligence with monetary gain and if you asked most people what they would do if they got smarter would probably do the same
at the end of movie we see a change in the character not just his hair cut providing some kind of symbolism
but now he has acquired wisdom for most of the film is about the ownership of nzt where you have various people attempting to get ownership of it at the end of the movie we see that the main character had previously been creating his own supply of nzt making his supply truly limitless but also has changed his synapses so he no longer needs nzt so no longer is reliant
and in a sense see him living up to his potential using intelligence in a supposedly less menial self centered way even though its quite tame

which got me onto imagination thinking out of the box and how the patterns of thought is overlooked with regards to intelligence for without previous intelligence the quick fix intelligence is like pearls before swine or building a house on quicksand no foundation the same some say with fiance where there are countless cases of people winning the lottery to then end up back in the place where they first started

for he was limited he could of used his heightened sense to discover the answers to mysteries or helped usher  in a renaissance or perhaps fix problems "societies ills" it for me seemed like an allegory of the philosopher the lover of wisdom that with our insights what do we do with it or limitless potential do we limit ourselves attempting to fit into boxes laid out for us does our imaginations need stimulation or are we in blissfulness in our ivory towers

A philosophical banquet in the divide

   The divide a philosophical buffet

Let me go on record saying the film was a philosophical banquet but by no means a masterpiece of a film due to dire dialogue racism and the like
i will not be going through the films plot because it was so dire for my taste that i had to skip through most of the film

So the film was a film set in the apocalyptic vein the film touches on so many points i will touch on the few that reached out to me

Many have talked about the films gory and sexual content as detractors for the film but it invoked so many questions about sexuality i feel i should point out the sexist nature that all the male characters were fully clothed and one out of the two female characters had to be in a dressing gown and nobody offered her more clothes i also knew straight away when seeing her something of a sexual nature was going to happen to her
and before things did i remarked at the male to female ratio and it would or could be a cause for concern

and as i thought she ended up in a sex scene first willfully and after that it became less willful and finally sex slave with her hands raised and tied after being dragged kicking and screaming and by the end of the film (of what i saw) relegated to just an object a sex object nothing more sometimes less

It really got me thinking about sexuality and how sexuality in its essence was about life and giving had been become about subjection and giving also you the reader may have caught on this already why could i see this coming before it came which brings us on to three inter-related topics

one sexuality for males

two sexuality for females

three sexuality in society/societies

for can we imagine a room where the male to female ratio is 8:1 or 15:1 or 25:1 how do we see it ending for the female is it possibly like the for mentioned scene i posited before or one even more dire for said female

it got me questioning what is sexuality for males for the male can be polygamous and the male plays only one real role in the fertilization process
one of fertilizing and for fertilization to happen the man must ejaculate this can lead to a male centered view of superiority and can cast the woman in the role of objectified
and give the man a kind of "god status" in a sense of having no repercussions for his role in fertilization and can simply move on to the next female for the fact the woman has a dual role in the fertilization process
Also the process of ejaculation and coitus is another factor for it can turn into the thruster and thrustee
a dual act separated into solo roles giver and receiver or in the previous case taker and receiver

then we have the females role in sexuality that females can be polygamous also for the fact that women don't need a rest period and can have coitus through all the stages of pregnancy
but the same outcome as the previous scene doesn't suddenly jump to mind if there is a 8:1 female to male ratio or 15:1 or 25:1
the film also highlights female attire and its sexual implications for what is sexual attire for males
and that sexuality for females can be one of submission there is even a porn niche for such things as their is for males but the difference is we can see both as niches but only one as a reality

This then brings us onto sexuality in society and how even the film portrayed her as the object and the night gown she was wearing as the gift wrapper
which bring us to the crossroads of is our society over sexualised or are the males over sexualised
And since the film is only a window to some peoples ordeal in the apocalyptic affair what would be others

though films never like to admit they are a segmented view

and how apocalyptic movies follow the same themes that in general the same people are rarely a high percentage of the strongly religious or the highly intellectual or idealists a point i picked up in the film that only one person in the film i saw read a book and in these movies females rarely ever are able to really defend themselves which is not the the case in the movie pandorum which i will review on a later date ( females able to protect themselves)

which are segments of society portrayed as the whole of society which for them wouldn't make an exciting movie but do films such as these just raise issues or perpetuate them do they show you what could happen or  provide a model to follow

and not to forget it is only viewing heterosexual sexuality in a spectrum

The film does make you think about yourself and how you would act in that situation and your views on sexuality and sexualism

And is female sexuality reactive in general and what is if there is healthy sexuality

and are there many women who escape that ordeal

A philosophical film review #1 The wave/Die welle

Philosophical film review

The wave/ die welle

A german film with english subtitles

With a wealth of philosophical meals leaving leftovers in the case of food for thought

More than the layout of the plot we will interfuse concepts and plot timings

We start with a teacher called rainer who is very unorthodox

We then get to the subject matter one not really touched on regarding the german's view of the nazi's and their legacy bouncing around a state of of annoyance of the topic to the saying those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it

This was the theme of the film the cloud they were cast under a risky move but considering how well the films production to this point i was intrigued

It started off with the question what is autocracy which was greeted with zero enthusiastic appeals and half assed answers for rainer to then answer this is when the brillaince of the film started he then questioned the students if it could happened again in germany they all waved if off

so he decided to do a practical thought based experiment so he starts of with minor changes such as a name change instead of rainer it is now mr wenger and to speak one must stand up understandly question arose but he claimed it made you more alert and made examples using students and their were some initial rebels which were dispelled but he made it their choice the very first signs of coercion some students even left but then notably returned he then started to use class participation turning it in for the students a hybrid of a practical lesson such a film documentary

over the days more changes were added put through the mouth of students drawing back to the source material like seeing a boy drawing art and suggesting he draw a logo and through oratation of a collective philosophy have the students spring into action proposing making websites and creating cohesiveness by saying the students do it together

he even gets the students to march but never addressing it as such but merely exercise which will bring union  and that it will annoy their enemies( the class he was meant to teach instead of autocracy) next uniform is introduce he asks the students their view on this and they agree the viewer can slowly see the transition going on here

one girl comes in to class without the uniform and feels alienated and is even ignored by the teacher and her suggestion regarding the name is overlooked she then stops coming to class and becomes an enemy of the now labelled movement this movement expands to the streets vandalisms and acts of violence

The questions brought forth by this movie are things such as the power of rhetoric and the power of the collective or the herd peoples longing for the other and what they can forsake in themselves for it reminding me of this quote

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

Friedrich Nietzsche
German philosopher (1844 - 1900)  

Also the power of groups and political models and what happens when we view another as the other and not as another self such as the uniforms were not just an attempt to establish the slef but to differentiate from the other

And how powerful ideas are and memetic nature they expressed for later in the film acts happen which are further down the fascist paths such as salutes and salutes to enter certain places intimidation to join the movement

also how quick this happened all within a week at a school of people well aware of the subject matter 

opening doors of thought to how a perfect if their can be perfect world could or would be run and that the world is based on to things force and persuasion when one fails you used the other

it also questions your stand and mental fortitude would you have been swept up with the wave would you be a rebel faction or just a middle man for it is easy to say in hindsight you would of not sided with the nazi's but would you have perhaps you are but it is under a different name

what strikes you is the way he got them to do all these openly fascist things without them expressing so much content and how they would lose themselves in the collective such as the famous experiment in america with the stanford prison experiment