jpg-8
Joined Mar 2000
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews6
jpg-8's rating
About time ! Geek culture has been despised and neglected for years. This TV documentary is the very first one ever made in France about this subject. Being a geek myself, I found it extremely interesting.
Of course, this documentary talks about the "pittoresque" aspects of the geeks : grown-up people who disguise themselves as Spider-Man, who can spend a lot of money for the latest Warhammer collectible, etc.
It would have been easy to study only that aspect, and then let many viewers think that geeks are merely mad people, out of touch with reality.
But the two directors have been more farsighted. They've asked interesting questions about the real meaning of geek culture. What people's passions mean in our western societies. For instance, you don't spend days and nights playing "World of Warcraft" just because you're a lunatic. According to the type of life you've got, you can have very good reasons to love that game. Social pressure is tremendously high in our countries : being committed to a passion is a way to escape it.
This documentary also tears down clichés : geeks aren't necessarily people who spend their entire life behind computer screens, buried in their cellars. It also rightly points out that geek culture isn't confidential anymore : the success of movies like "Spider-Man" or "Matrix" proves it. Despite those clear facts, some critics and scholars still think (and therefore show their ignorance) that "Lord of the Rings" (novel and movies alike) is a merely a CGI entertainment for children.
A French documentary definitely worth watching !
Of course, this documentary talks about the "pittoresque" aspects of the geeks : grown-up people who disguise themselves as Spider-Man, who can spend a lot of money for the latest Warhammer collectible, etc.
It would have been easy to study only that aspect, and then let many viewers think that geeks are merely mad people, out of touch with reality.
But the two directors have been more farsighted. They've asked interesting questions about the real meaning of geek culture. What people's passions mean in our western societies. For instance, you don't spend days and nights playing "World of Warcraft" just because you're a lunatic. According to the type of life you've got, you can have very good reasons to love that game. Social pressure is tremendously high in our countries : being committed to a passion is a way to escape it.
This documentary also tears down clichés : geeks aren't necessarily people who spend their entire life behind computer screens, buried in their cellars. It also rightly points out that geek culture isn't confidential anymore : the success of movies like "Spider-Man" or "Matrix" proves it. Despite those clear facts, some critics and scholars still think (and therefore show their ignorance) that "Lord of the Rings" (novel and movies alike) is a merely a CGI entertainment for children.
A French documentary definitely worth watching !
An interesting thing : there are all kinds of viewpoints about this film. It means that everyone sees it with his own eyes, and every one has his own reasons to like or dislike "Black Hawk Down". Well, I most certainly liked it. To me, it's a major war movie, a worthy cousin of "Saving Private Ryan". To me, both changed the genre forever.
As many people pointed out, the most impressive aspect of "Black Hawk Down" is its realism. The war we see in that film is a bloody mess. We see scared men doing their duty, fighting for their lives. Of course, it's gory, noisy, but that's war, isn't it ? War isn't a pleasure cruise, it's not a picnic. It's about men being ripped apart, that you have to patch up the best you can (see the death scene of Cpl Jamie Smith). SPR was the first film to give us a taste of the kind of hell war is. BHD does it also. It has a visceral power. There are differences between the two movies. SPR had faded colors, and a documentary-style. BHD is very stylized, with a magnificent photography. Yet, both are equally effective. Once you've seen BHD, you don't forget it. Ridley Scott and his crew did a superb job in throwing us into the heart of the action. WWII movies like "A Bridge too far", "The longest day" are great (because they're interesting and very well directed and I still love them), but they give a Hollywood-like vision of war. They cut out the pain, the blood and the mess. The street-fighting scenes of BHD are the best I've ever seen. They give of good idea of the merciless ordeal contemporary soldiers have to face.
To me, BHD is also quite a clearsighted movie. The soldiers who were in Somalia fought because they were professionals, because they wanted to fulfill their mission, because they wanted to save their comrades. That's it. Eric Bana's character says it pretty well : "You want to know what I think ? It don't matter what I think. Once the first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that s... go right out of the window". Or : "It's all about the man next to you, that's it". There's a believable speech. It's a million years away from the silly propaganda of "We were soldiers", where the private dies on the field saying how proud he is to die for his country. Films like "We were soldiers" or "Pearl Harbor" give a glorious image of war : to me, a big lie. I also felt watching BHD that the United States were not depicted as the saviors of the world (a nice change from "Independence day", one of the worst Hollywood blockbusters). As I felt it, BHD tells about the naive aspects of the US foreign policy. The two scenes with the Somalis (Osman Atto talking with Maj-Gal Garrison and the man who talks with captured CWO Michael Durant) are well written. ("Do you think that removing Gal Aidid will have us put down our weapons ? That we will adopt American democracy ?") Soldiers on the field are paying the price (in blood) for the mistakes of their political leaders. In Somalia, they fought bravely to get themselves out of the mess. BHD also shows that immense military power isn't always a good solution. An armed militia entrenched in a city, warned by observers with cell phones (a powerful image, when the helicopters are flying over a kid with his phone) : there's enough to put heavily-armed US soldiers in jeopardy. In the light of the US problems today in Iraq, BHD had a lot of insight.
Of course, everything isn't perfect. I don't know if the reasons for US presence in Somalia are as simple as the opening captions. In the end credits, it's a bit annoying to see the names of the 19 KIA opposing a simple statement "More than 1000 Somalis were killed". The US soldiers have their names, but the Somalis can die anonymously by the hundreds. Those are Hollywood-like flaws.
Regarding the historical accuracy, I tracked down the articles by Mark Bowden. I was surprised to see how close to the facts the movie is. There are changes, of course (the main one is that Sgt Eversmann didn't spend the night in the city in the real fight), but those are only details. The spirit of the facts remains : we do understand what happened in Mogadishu.
The more I watch BHD, the better I think of it. It's excellent film making (great music by Hans Zimmer, by the way). It's a gripping war movie. It's quite gut-wrenching (you need a strong stomach to watch it), but it's believable.
As many people pointed out, the most impressive aspect of "Black Hawk Down" is its realism. The war we see in that film is a bloody mess. We see scared men doing their duty, fighting for their lives. Of course, it's gory, noisy, but that's war, isn't it ? War isn't a pleasure cruise, it's not a picnic. It's about men being ripped apart, that you have to patch up the best you can (see the death scene of Cpl Jamie Smith). SPR was the first film to give us a taste of the kind of hell war is. BHD does it also. It has a visceral power. There are differences between the two movies. SPR had faded colors, and a documentary-style. BHD is very stylized, with a magnificent photography. Yet, both are equally effective. Once you've seen BHD, you don't forget it. Ridley Scott and his crew did a superb job in throwing us into the heart of the action. WWII movies like "A Bridge too far", "The longest day" are great (because they're interesting and very well directed and I still love them), but they give a Hollywood-like vision of war. They cut out the pain, the blood and the mess. The street-fighting scenes of BHD are the best I've ever seen. They give of good idea of the merciless ordeal contemporary soldiers have to face.
To me, BHD is also quite a clearsighted movie. The soldiers who were in Somalia fought because they were professionals, because they wanted to fulfill their mission, because they wanted to save their comrades. That's it. Eric Bana's character says it pretty well : "You want to know what I think ? It don't matter what I think. Once the first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that s... go right out of the window". Or : "It's all about the man next to you, that's it". There's a believable speech. It's a million years away from the silly propaganda of "We were soldiers", where the private dies on the field saying how proud he is to die for his country. Films like "We were soldiers" or "Pearl Harbor" give a glorious image of war : to me, a big lie. I also felt watching BHD that the United States were not depicted as the saviors of the world (a nice change from "Independence day", one of the worst Hollywood blockbusters). As I felt it, BHD tells about the naive aspects of the US foreign policy. The two scenes with the Somalis (Osman Atto talking with Maj-Gal Garrison and the man who talks with captured CWO Michael Durant) are well written. ("Do you think that removing Gal Aidid will have us put down our weapons ? That we will adopt American democracy ?") Soldiers on the field are paying the price (in blood) for the mistakes of their political leaders. In Somalia, they fought bravely to get themselves out of the mess. BHD also shows that immense military power isn't always a good solution. An armed militia entrenched in a city, warned by observers with cell phones (a powerful image, when the helicopters are flying over a kid with his phone) : there's enough to put heavily-armed US soldiers in jeopardy. In the light of the US problems today in Iraq, BHD had a lot of insight.
Of course, everything isn't perfect. I don't know if the reasons for US presence in Somalia are as simple as the opening captions. In the end credits, it's a bit annoying to see the names of the 19 KIA opposing a simple statement "More than 1000 Somalis were killed". The US soldiers have their names, but the Somalis can die anonymously by the hundreds. Those are Hollywood-like flaws.
Regarding the historical accuracy, I tracked down the articles by Mark Bowden. I was surprised to see how close to the facts the movie is. There are changes, of course (the main one is that Sgt Eversmann didn't spend the night in the city in the real fight), but those are only details. The spirit of the facts remains : we do understand what happened in Mogadishu.
The more I watch BHD, the better I think of it. It's excellent film making (great music by Hans Zimmer, by the way). It's a gripping war movie. It's quite gut-wrenching (you need a strong stomach to watch it), but it's believable.
A good way to know if a movie is great, it's to see how it passes the test of time. "Alien" does that. It's a classic. Even by today's standards, it's a really frightening movie.
The main reason why it's so suspenseful is that you almost never see the monster. You have glimpses, but that's it. The ending in the rescue ship shows a little more of it, but not much. Monsters on screen are always more scary when you don't see them. This one is all the more impressive because H.R. Giger did a splendid job with it.
The other thing that makes "Alien" beautiful are the sets. The interiors of the "Nostromo", the exteriors on LV4-26 (also created by H.R. Giger) : all magnificient. A rich movie is a movie where the camera has plenty to show : it definitely does in "Alien".
Jerry Goldsmith's music is also perfect. It doesn't show off at all, it's not overwhelming (like in other Hollywood movies). Instead, it's scaringly efficient. In the beginning of the movie, it's very low, but it helps a lot in creating suspense before the monsters are found.
The acting is also top notch. Sigourney Weaver gives here her breakthrough performance. Ian Holm is chilling as the android Ash, the five other actors are also just fine.
Ridley Scott managed to combine all these elements to create a fantastic atmosphere. My favorite part of "Alien" starts when Ripley is alone and triggers the auto-destruct sytem. The alarm going off, "Mother's" voice, the steam : all this is memorable.
Last but not least, "Alien" is not only a scary monster story, it also has something to say. The attitude of the Weyland-Yutani Company is very interesting. The film talks about perverted capitalism, where human life has no more value. The only thing that matters is to bring the specimen back for study. "Crew expandable". True, other sc-fi movies and books contain that theme. Nevertheless, it's a relevant point. It's a relevant today as it was in 1979.
"Alien" is definitely a must-see (except, maybe, for those who can't stand to be scared by a movie). It combines the best qualities of horror and sc-fi. If this one is my favorite, I do love the three sequels : "Aliens" is a scary, war-like but very human film. "Alien 3" is dark and beautiful, like a Greek tragedy. "Alien Resurrection" is beautifully shot and has an intelligent story.
The main reason why it's so suspenseful is that you almost never see the monster. You have glimpses, but that's it. The ending in the rescue ship shows a little more of it, but not much. Monsters on screen are always more scary when you don't see them. This one is all the more impressive because H.R. Giger did a splendid job with it.
The other thing that makes "Alien" beautiful are the sets. The interiors of the "Nostromo", the exteriors on LV4-26 (also created by H.R. Giger) : all magnificient. A rich movie is a movie where the camera has plenty to show : it definitely does in "Alien".
Jerry Goldsmith's music is also perfect. It doesn't show off at all, it's not overwhelming (like in other Hollywood movies). Instead, it's scaringly efficient. In the beginning of the movie, it's very low, but it helps a lot in creating suspense before the monsters are found.
The acting is also top notch. Sigourney Weaver gives here her breakthrough performance. Ian Holm is chilling as the android Ash, the five other actors are also just fine.
Ridley Scott managed to combine all these elements to create a fantastic atmosphere. My favorite part of "Alien" starts when Ripley is alone and triggers the auto-destruct sytem. The alarm going off, "Mother's" voice, the steam : all this is memorable.
Last but not least, "Alien" is not only a scary monster story, it also has something to say. The attitude of the Weyland-Yutani Company is very interesting. The film talks about perverted capitalism, where human life has no more value. The only thing that matters is to bring the specimen back for study. "Crew expandable". True, other sc-fi movies and books contain that theme. Nevertheless, it's a relevant point. It's a relevant today as it was in 1979.
"Alien" is definitely a must-see (except, maybe, for those who can't stand to be scared by a movie). It combines the best qualities of horror and sc-fi. If this one is my favorite, I do love the three sequels : "Aliens" is a scary, war-like but very human film. "Alien 3" is dark and beautiful, like a Greek tragedy. "Alien Resurrection" is beautifully shot and has an intelligent story.