artisticengineer
A rejoint le juil. 2005
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis39
Note de artisticengineer
Though not an objectivist, I have an interest in the philosophy or belief system. Since seeing the 1940s movie "The Fountainhead" some years ago I have been waiting for the movie adaptation of "Atlas Shrugged". Well, my wait was rewarded with the issuance of Part I, but I noticed that this movie did not receive much publicity. Well, Hollywood is full of dreamers and socialists who cannot or will not face reality so I figured that was the reason. It wasn't. This movie goes to such lengths to show the Objectivist philosophy that it, ironically, actually breaks completely with reality. This should never have been filmed.
The movie starts by showing the conditions of the American economy of 2016 and the problems faced in this economy. It is a somewhat unrealistic in how grim the economy of 2016 is portrayed but that does not go beyond the bounds of belief. The situation develops into a crisis where a railroad firm that needs to replace some very old track in Colorado. The movie implies that this old track is a century old. I doubt that any rails that old are left in place in real life but that is not the primary problem with this movie. What is the primary problem is that we have a railroad executive and deciding to use a new metal that is advertised as lighter and stronger than the metal used up to that time for rails. This metal is untested and unproved yet the executive goes with her (yes, the executive is a woman and strong willed women are found in Ayn Ryn's works; as can be expected due to the author) hunch. If she is right there is a tremendous improvement in the rail business; if she is wrong the railroad will go out of business. The manufacturer of this metal has a full factory dedicated to its production.
This whole situation is insane!! We are asked to suspend disbelief and assume that somebody is using an untried metal in an endeavor with public safety concerns?! That would not even be allowed due to issues of it affecting the good of the people. By even using the objectivist criteria this concept is still insane. A company would go out of business if this metal fails, so would it not be in the self-interest of the owner of the railroad to have it tested before he/she commits to it? Of course it would!
Metal or metallurgical testing is a very developed science. To use an untested metal (this is the first commercial use of the metal no less) on a major project that involves public safety is not the decision of a self-interested person with vision but rather that of a deluded individual who probably has visions due to hallucinations! I know of the qualification requirements for use of new materials and everybody (objectivist or socialist) agrees the process should be very thorough. This movie is so far off that there is no way it could be viewed as realistic. There is a limit to suspension of disbelief and this movie goes beyond that limit. Objectivism or socialism or any other philosophy is not proved or disproven by this movie as it is just too unrealistic. Sad.
The movie starts by showing the conditions of the American economy of 2016 and the problems faced in this economy. It is a somewhat unrealistic in how grim the economy of 2016 is portrayed but that does not go beyond the bounds of belief. The situation develops into a crisis where a railroad firm that needs to replace some very old track in Colorado. The movie implies that this old track is a century old. I doubt that any rails that old are left in place in real life but that is not the primary problem with this movie. What is the primary problem is that we have a railroad executive and deciding to use a new metal that is advertised as lighter and stronger than the metal used up to that time for rails. This metal is untested and unproved yet the executive goes with her (yes, the executive is a woman and strong willed women are found in Ayn Ryn's works; as can be expected due to the author) hunch. If she is right there is a tremendous improvement in the rail business; if she is wrong the railroad will go out of business. The manufacturer of this metal has a full factory dedicated to its production.
This whole situation is insane!! We are asked to suspend disbelief and assume that somebody is using an untried metal in an endeavor with public safety concerns?! That would not even be allowed due to issues of it affecting the good of the people. By even using the objectivist criteria this concept is still insane. A company would go out of business if this metal fails, so would it not be in the self-interest of the owner of the railroad to have it tested before he/she commits to it? Of course it would!
Metal or metallurgical testing is a very developed science. To use an untested metal (this is the first commercial use of the metal no less) on a major project that involves public safety is not the decision of a self-interested person with vision but rather that of a deluded individual who probably has visions due to hallucinations! I know of the qualification requirements for use of new materials and everybody (objectivist or socialist) agrees the process should be very thorough. This movie is so far off that there is no way it could be viewed as realistic. There is a limit to suspension of disbelief and this movie goes beyond that limit. Objectivism or socialism or any other philosophy is not proved or disproven by this movie as it is just too unrealistic. Sad.
I wish to write this review as I do not believe many of the reviews for this film have been written by a skeptic. My viewpoint will be a little different than the usual review's take on matters due to that reason. I hope this review is interesting to the reader, but the reader must realize my different viewpoint.
Despite the movies and plethora of TV shows treating the existence of ghosts as a "given" there actually is no conclusive evidence for such things. The various TV shows that depict ghost hunting are bemusing, at most; most probably delusional, as they will show people equipped with thermometers, emf meters, infrared cameras, and other such specialized equipment looking for ghosts yet one wonders just how can one prepare oneself to look for something if that something has never even been proved to exist in the first place? And, there is no surprise, at least to me, when they never find anything conclusive.
Yet, the belief in ghosts must have some foundation. Somebody, somewhere, must have experienced or seen something that is "ghostlike". And, this movie deals with that position. Here, a live in "babysitter" (modern term for Deborah Kerr's role) experiences some things that are not easily explainable. Yet, nobody else seems to experience what she is experiencing. Or, do they but don't tell her? She has two young children to look after in a beautiful but rather empty Victorian mansion. The children are brother and sister and provide a sort of emotional mirror to a grown man and adult woman who had died fairly recently in this place and whom the children knew. The babysitter has an older woman to help her and this woman tells of the love of the now dead lovers. But, are the dead lovers gone or still there. The babysitter sees these "ghosts" in a frightening manner that seems to indicate no doubt of their existence...but nobody else does!!
Not told in this story but implied is the fact that this babysitter ("governess" as they called them back then) is unmarried and around 40. Certainly she has some emotional issues over that! Though Deborah Kerr said this her finest role, her physical beauty was such that nobody could imagine her character was unmarried for lack of attention from men. In the original story the governess was probably more of a frustrated "plain Jane" who had issues with that fact and probably projected herself into the story of the dead lovers for that reason.
So, is the governess imagining the ghosts or are there actually remnants of people now dead still lurking in that area? While watching the movie and trying to answer that question be prepared for some frightening events and sheer emotional terror. No great special effects like you see in modern films; just suspense and terror. They don't make these sort of films now like they used to so it is well worth viewing for a couple of hours.
Despite the movies and plethora of TV shows treating the existence of ghosts as a "given" there actually is no conclusive evidence for such things. The various TV shows that depict ghost hunting are bemusing, at most; most probably delusional, as they will show people equipped with thermometers, emf meters, infrared cameras, and other such specialized equipment looking for ghosts yet one wonders just how can one prepare oneself to look for something if that something has never even been proved to exist in the first place? And, there is no surprise, at least to me, when they never find anything conclusive.
Yet, the belief in ghosts must have some foundation. Somebody, somewhere, must have experienced or seen something that is "ghostlike". And, this movie deals with that position. Here, a live in "babysitter" (modern term for Deborah Kerr's role) experiences some things that are not easily explainable. Yet, nobody else seems to experience what she is experiencing. Or, do they but don't tell her? She has two young children to look after in a beautiful but rather empty Victorian mansion. The children are brother and sister and provide a sort of emotional mirror to a grown man and adult woman who had died fairly recently in this place and whom the children knew. The babysitter has an older woman to help her and this woman tells of the love of the now dead lovers. But, are the dead lovers gone or still there. The babysitter sees these "ghosts" in a frightening manner that seems to indicate no doubt of their existence...but nobody else does!!
Not told in this story but implied is the fact that this babysitter ("governess" as they called them back then) is unmarried and around 40. Certainly she has some emotional issues over that! Though Deborah Kerr said this her finest role, her physical beauty was such that nobody could imagine her character was unmarried for lack of attention from men. In the original story the governess was probably more of a frustrated "plain Jane" who had issues with that fact and probably projected herself into the story of the dead lovers for that reason.
So, is the governess imagining the ghosts or are there actually remnants of people now dead still lurking in that area? While watching the movie and trying to answer that question be prepared for some frightening events and sheer emotional terror. No great special effects like you see in modern films; just suspense and terror. They don't make these sort of films now like they used to so it is well worth viewing for a couple of hours.