jd7myers-1

Big fan of this series, but this entry was beyond weak. No suspense, no mystery -- so to compensate, they add in heaping tablespoons of the worst overacting you could possibly imagine. This is almost unwatchable, and if you've had the pleasure of viewing it, you will see what I mean.

Probably the most unrealistic episode of the series... a train wreck of a performance by the lead actor.

The story picks up vignettes in the life of a emotional 17 year old. You begin to imagine that these vignettes have a point -- that there is some sort of irony or Hitchcockian twist on the way. But no. This was based on a short story that I now must find and read, because I cannot believe that what I just saw on screen is what the author intended. Least I hope not.

This review will probably be more flattering than deserved, due to my fondness for science fiction adventures. After Earth kept my attention, but I had to completely ignore the predictability (from M. Night? Who would have thought?). A reasonably decent Saturday matinée movie that owes more than a little to Jurassic Park. Yet unlike its paleolithic predecessor, After Earth is in the hands of M. Night who has forgotten how to adequately build suspense. A few of the shocks were 80s style horror movie jump cuts -- the cheapest way to get an audience's attention -- and frankly everyone will know how the story will end after watching the first twenty minutes.

So no suspense, decent action. The acting? As a complete Will Smith fan, I have never seen a movie where his performance disappointed -- until this one. I know he had to play the stoic general/father, but there is a big difference between a stoic and a flat performance. Mr. Smith senior was reading dialog in a fashion more wooden than a bad high school play. Since the man knows how to act, the fault must lie with the script/director -- each of which were (surprisingly?) associated with M. Night. Jaden Smith is young and I hate to be unkind in my review of his acting. Let's just say that I hope he was as victimized as his father.

I now believe Shymalan has exhausted his bag of tricks. The writing of this movie lacks, and he even borrows a bit of his foreshadowing techniques from Signs, although less effectively.

Bottom line, if you enjoy a little questing adventure movie that has really nice cinematography, then go and have a good time. But your chances of finding a better movie than this are pretty high.

I've just read review after review about how this movie fails because it spends so little time on the poll tax, or how the Faukland war is glossed over, or how protesters never got that close to Thatcher's car.

I am amazed at how many film goers missed the point.

This movie was not intended to be a Biography Channel documentary on Margaret Thatcher. So why judge the movie as if it were? Those associated with the film responded to one historical inaccuracy (the lack of women in Parliament in 1979) by pointing out that this movie was from the point of view of Thatcher, not the objective observer.

Thatcher, it seems to me, was a woman of strong convictions and a bit of tunnel vision. Though far from a Thatcher expert myself, it seemed like Thatcher would view herself as a "lone beacon." Therefore, the symbolism of Maggie versus the pseudo all male House works.

Another reviewer commented on the blatant symbolism of Thatcher grabbing the wheel of the car her daughter was driving and veering it to the right. Far from being a metaphoric sledgehammer, this scene like so many in the movie, paint a portrait of a personality.

Yes, I said a personality, not necessarily a real person. Because the true point of this movie is the eternal conflict between the inner weaknesses and the inner strengths of mankind. It is why the scenes of Thatcher learning how to speak and realizing when to ditch the hat are important.

It is a study of aging, and the forces at war within a human persona. Thatcher proved to be an excellent model for this inner struggle, and from what I've seen and read, the Iron Lady (to its credit) did not stoop to revisionist history. (This is no Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer!) Despite its low scores, Streep is nearly universally praised and rightly so. The fact that this movie focuses on the aging process and its tipping of the strength versus weakness balance is NOT a bad device. In fact it is probably one of the more unique ways to portray Alzeheimers. Not just as a sad deterioration, but the more complex medical phenomenon that it truly is.

Watch the movie carefully. Look for signs of Thatcher's ease in having her stronger self battle her weaker one in her youth. See and enjoy the character progression from youth to elder.

Denis Thatchter, beyond just being good emotional balance and sparingly used comic relief, is a personification of her strongest weakness -- her disease. The ending, while ridiculed by many, is one of the best in modern memory. This is a balanced, yet caring portrait of Thatcher -- or rather a Thatcher-like personality.

In grade school, we were all taught the four essential types of conflict: Man vs Man, Man vs Society, Man vs Nature, and Man vs Self. Those who come in to this movie expecting one of the first two conceits will be legitimately disappointed. Those who grasp the notion that the movie has more in common with A Beautiful Mind than with The Queen or The King's Speech will be rewarded by seeing one of the finest stories put to film.