The Time Machine (2002) There was no reason not to do a new version of HG Wells’ classic – underwhelming as it was, Spielberg’s War of the Worlds remake a few years later would bring in big bucks – but it absolutely needed to be better than this. To some degree, John Logan was correct to identify that the bare-bones plot needed embellishing if it was to stand out from the innumerable variations since, but he unfortunately went about it in a largely uninspired manner. And then, on top of that, we have Wells’ actual grandson (Simon) helming, making
Search Results
The Time Machine (1960) Perhaps having a weekly time-travel TV show readily available was the root of finding The Time Machine merely so-so when I first saw it. I can’t say I was that blown away by the source novella either; in all honesty, Stephen Baxter’s officially-authorised centenary sequel The Time Ships was more impressive, probably because we’ve all been spoiled with increasingly intricate, multiversular explorations of the concept since 1895. HG Wells’ first temporal stirrings now seem rather quaint and rudimentary. Revisiting George Pal’s picture is rewarding in one sense, then, as it’s much more serviceable than I
“I am Ra.” And so it goes. The Law of One channellings, as the Ra Material is also known in its more approved & published form, counts as one of the foremost in the pantheon of wisdom delivered via such entranced means. A discourse from a sixth-density “social memory complex” ET intelligence (originating from Venus), the material’s baseline teaching revolves around said Law (“You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are”). As explained by Ra, the Law of One “blinks neither at the light
Science, or science-fiction in many cases, as much of what we’re told is bunkum, even as those who tell it thumb a superior nose at the alt- or unproven (by their weights and measures) field, is perhaps the most fertile “authoritative” ground for the obfuscation of the truth. Well, that and official history. It sells us ideas as germs, whether or not they have any substance, in order to perforate an already prescribed paradigm – are we living in a simulation? Is the multiverse real? – while submerging us in inconceivable quantities of nonsense, both in terms of our physical
Kubrick Ranked Worst to Best Ah, Stanley. The man whose greatest directorial work – or at least, most paradigm-influencing – is yet to be granted formal recognition. But enough about the Moon landings. Kubrick has been analysed like no other, both for his unparalleled martialling of cinematic language and for the seemingly endless variations of esoteric nutrition his work conceals. What he was saying does not, necessarily, present a unified vision, however. Express (and hidden) intent, perhaps, but at some point – it seems during the decade following his Apollo 11 mission – he recanted the dark side and
Christopher Nolan Ranked Worst to Best The Nolan-verse is about as rarefied as one gets in the blockbuster realm: chilly, cerebral storytelling enlivened by more populist approaches to scale and subject matter. The results have, on occasion, scored a resounding bullseye, on others exposed the separate components in rather unforgiving fashion. What endures, however, is a director in demand, one who may have peaked with the public a decade ago but can be relied upon to avoid the easy route. Which means he may yet engender a burst of event-appeal glory again, and in so doing give the MCUs