dykstraNet

Oh man… I can’t believe I was so excited to see this one only to have it be so aweful. I was thinking I might learn something about quantum mechanics after having seen some good stuff on string theory on PBS. Unfortunately, my bull-bleep meter was going off the charts shortly after this bad movie began. It had me going back and forth for a bit, because I think they did con some real physicists into lending their names to the film. But then some of the interviews came across as sheer quackery. Any doubt was laid to rest when one clearspeak expert uttered the word “mediocracy”. Hmmm, I think your vocab might be a little mediocre there pal. Turns out the guy is a chiropractor. Is that where you want to be getting your physics?

Check out the script. Search for ‘mediocracy’.

There is a pretty good point by point breakdown of the science (and lack) here.
A snip:
The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts.

Unfortunately the theory of quantum mechanics does not say this. The film makers are confusing the theory of quantum mechanics with an interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is an explanation to help understand what might be going on, but it is not part of the theory because it is not falsifiable: it cannot be tested in such a way that, if it were false, it would fail the test (without falsifying the whole of quantum mechanics, and therefore all the other interpretations too).

Another scathing review to convince you this movie is bunk.

What is it that makes a modern movie special? These days, it’s got to be more than extraordinary special effects. We’ve become anesthetized to all the explosions and monsters and when we pay ten bucks to see a film, we want to be moved by the interpersonal interactions we see on screen. Filmmakers have the tough job of creating, in the audience, a sense of empathy for the characters. Even with $200 million to spend and over 3 hours of the audience’s attention, it’s still a tall order.

Peter Jackson delivers.

And on a story we already know. How exceptional.

This movie is so good, one could argue that the story has not been truly delivered until now. There are great moments that make this movie so much more than it has been in other incarnations. (Perhaps that is why it is so much longer than previous efforts.) I know that this is Peter Jackson’s professed favorite movie and he has said that he cried at the end of the original. Well, the story Jackson has put on screen perhaps allows one to share the emotions that he felt all those years ago.

One could say that this is a story of the beauty and the beast. But what does that mean? Kong subtly explains not only the male appreciation of the beauty but the female appreciation of the braun. We see it in the expressiveness of Kong’s (although one forgets) animated visage over and over again throughout the film. One can see Kong’s appreciation for Ann Darrow’s brand of beauty. And it is expressed in the story line when Kong eschews a look alike blond during the theatre scene in New York. (Again all communicated through facial expressions.) But the real feat is portraying Ann Darrow’s building appreciation for the brute. At the end of the day, in a dangerous environment, a woman is attracted by those that can provide and protect… no matter their appearance. This is communicated on film so subtly yet makes the point so clearly.

I would give this movie 5 stars but for the slow-ish beginning and moments of mellow-drama. I’m not sure if Jackson was re-producing those cheesy lines as a nod to the original, but they distracted me. There were certain brief moments when I was aware of the acting taking place. In particular, the scene that depicts the crew talking about skull island. When acting ruins the fantasy… even for a moment… it can take away from the overall experience.