[MOVIE REVIEW] Bridge of Spies

I will be reviewing some bad movies too, just trying to get to the good ones first.

Bridge of Spies is a good movie worthy of your time, written by the Cohen brothers and Matt Charman, directed by Stephen Spielberg. It is a bit too much of a feel good for my taste, but it is way better than the usual feel good stuff out there. There is no stand out performance, Tom Hanks plays his role very well, no other performances are worthy of mention. The movies is partly about constitutional principles, mob justice and how we can and should avoid it, but it is also about how spies and criminals are ultimatley people and finally its about the tensions that surrounded the cold war. The movie is based on a true story, which makes it more watchable to my mind, but it also limits the control of the film makers have over the final product. The sceneography and music is nothing special, no particular mood is maintained, and it is in this sense a very American film.

7/10, worthy of your time.

Next movie I intend to watch is "Wings over Berlin", allegedly really nice movie. I have seen the horrible movie "ant-man" and will be reviewing it shortly.

[MOVIE REVIEW] The Revenant

Good movie, worth your time. Not necessarily for the characters, or the historical accuracy, or the plot, or the intrigues, or any of that. It is good because it manages to create a certain mood that is relateable to twenthyfirst century living, it displays a kind of wilderness and landscape that is appealing to people of my generation (the millenial genertaion). With unusually prolonged scenes that the avarage Hollywood movie watcher may find boring, it manages to sustain my attention for the whole of it. It also has some nostalgic aspects for me, having been in Northern Sweden a lot my youth I remember those beautiful mountain landscapes covered with snow.

I dont find DiCaprio´s character particularly appealing (RIP oscar), yet I can imagine that some do. Watch it for the landscape and mood, not the dialogue, plot or anything else. The moral decision making that is involved in the story does not make any interesting points at all, the only redeeming feature is the landscape and mood of it, and it manages to save the whole movie. 

Re-re-reading Wittgenstein´s Investegation

I have a great copy of Wittgenstein´s Investegations, a parallell text with German on the left page and English on the right. The translation is by G.E.M Anscombe, a contemporary philosopher and friend of Wittgenstein and if I remember correctly he spent some nights staying at her home.

My current reading is intended to sort out some accusations against Rorty, that he reads stuff into the text that which there, a common accusation against him. Yet every time I pick up a book by an author Rorty mentions I get the feeling that the author is getting at what Rorty is getting at, rather than the other way around. Maybe it is some kind of bias, I dont know.

To cite an example that I cannot help but to read in a Rortian fashion:

• 491. Not: "without language we could not communicate with one another" - but for sure: without language we cannot influence other human beings in such-and-such ways; cannot build roads and machines, and so on. And also: without the use of speech and writing, human beings could not communicate.

[DOCUMENTARY] Finders Keepers

I recently watch this documentary about two americans that are fighting over the ownership of a real human foot. The documentary is entertaining, yet in the end it is a sad story about a superficial culture and what people will do to get famous. These are the kind of cultural issues we need to fight in order to create a more healthy society, a kind of culture which cultivates reasonable wants in individuals and that creates reasonable role models for children and adults. It is worth your time, even if the premise sounds rediculous. You will find the link to a stream below.


http://www.solarmovie.ac/watch-finders-keepers-2015-online.html

Stephen Colbert´s fall from grace

It is becoming increasingly clear that Stephen of the Late Night show will not maintain the same comedic standard as the Stephen from the Colbert Report. Together with more editorial control (I suppose CBS are more constrained in what they let on air than Comedy Central, the home of Southpark) and inheriting Letterman´s old audience, Stephen felt the need to adapt his comedy to a broader audience, making it rather dull in comparison to the Colbert report.

In finding his persona on the Late Night show, his real person, the real Colbert, we also get a feel for his catholicism, his rather non-progressive and leninent attitude to establishment politicians. The liberty the Colbert Report provided is shining with its absence. It is sad to see a great comedian become establishment medocrity. Greater editorial control to Stephen and a non-condescending attitude to Lettermans viewers could remedy the issues, yet I doubt Stephen has the balls to go through with that.