Change Your Image
mynameispanic
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Atlas (2024)
Good sci-fi, well told, but with some flaws
Wow, really a great sci-fi movie! The story is understandable from today's perspective. At some point, an AI experiment goes wrong and the AI thinks it is smarter than humans and wants to become the dominant life form. With regard to the protagonist Atlas, there's also a nice plot twist that explains late in the movie why such an intelligent woman reacts so hyperbolically in relation to the AI. It's all a little reminiscent of iRobot, but goes its own way.
The humor is not neglected either, many situations are easy to relate to. The AI tries to help you and you get annoyed because it won't let you think for yourself. The rejection of the neural link and overcoming it is fantastically told. Everything fits front and back.
Nevertheless, the movie does have a few weaknesses. The antagonists of the AI terrorists are very arbitrary and don't really have many facets. The fact that the analyst learns the skills that a strong fighter needs to survive within a few hours or days, while the elite squad was previously turned to dust without any effort, is unfortunately nonsense. Just because you're a good strategist doesn't mean you're a good fighter.
Just because you trust in your own abilities, you can still be manipulated. Smith, Atlas' mech, also seems to be almost impossible to destroy, while the other mechs seem to be dismantled in seconds. There are other logical flaws, but they don't detract from the entertainment.
Although the movie has weaknesses, the actors do a good job. In my opinion, their work cannot be criticized either. For my taste, the CGI is well done. It's not cinema quality, but it's coherent and looks good. The production company and the director have worked hard to deliver a well-rounded and coherent narrative. Will therefore recommend it to anyone who finds sci-fi with great effects, mech battles and AI development exciting.
Alexander: The Making of a God: Death or Victory (2024)
Good entertainment, but very poor historical representation
Quite historically incorrect. Alexander would not be pleased. He himself named Memnon as one of his greatest opponents. The depiction of the battles was also very amateurish. For one thing, men in antiquity were significantly smaller in terms of height, and the Macedonians fought in the Macedonian phalanx.
The Macedonian phalanx was a heavy infantry formation of great military-historical significance for the states of the ancient Hellenistic era. The Macedonian king Philip II, whose son Alexander the Great made it the pillar of his campaign of conquest through Asia, is regarded as its pioneer. Subsequently, the Macedonian phalanx dominated the theatres of war in the eastern Mediterranean in the Hellenistic successor states of the Antigonids, Seleucids, Ptolemies, Attalids and other ruling dynasties, until it succumbed to the Roman legion from the 2nd century BC.
Formed in battle formation, the Macedonian phalanx did not form a rigidly self-contained army body, but was divided into several divisions that had their own command structures and could act independently. Nevertheless, it drew its strength from the cohesion of the individual divisions, which required a high degree of coordination between the commanders as well as a uniform marching speed of the formations, which was practised through rigorous drills.
The basic formation of the army was a syntagma (group), which consisted of 256 men from the time of Alexander at the latest. These were divided into dekades (limbs) and formed a square of 16 men in width and 16 men in depth. Each member was commanded by a dekadarchos, who, according to the name, was a "leader of ten", probably because in earlier times a dekas had consisted of 10 men. The dekadarchos was assisted by two dekastateroi as deputies, who were the two most experienced warriors in the unit and therefore received ten stateros in addition to their monthly salary. One of them stood directly next to the dekadarchos, while the other one closed off the limb at its end. Each dekas formed a tent community and had a servant and a donkey to transport the tent and grain supplies for 30 to 40 days.
The portrayal of Alexander as a quick-tempered and insane person is also ridiculous. Yes, in ancient times many decisions were cold-blooded, which today seem extremely brutal to us, but for the time it was logical and understandable.
Alexander: The Making of a God: The Boy King (2024)
Expected much more from this episode
Many important clues about Alexander's career are missing here.
Alexander the Great, born in 356 BC in Pella, the capital of the Macedonian kingdom, spent his youth under the influence of several important teachers. His father, King Philip II of Macedon, commissioned the renowned philosopher Aristotle to educate his son. From 343 to 335 BC, Aristotle taught the young Alexander various subjects, including rhetoric, politics, ethics and natural sciences.
During his education, Alexander showed an impressive intelligence and a strong interest in science and culture. Aristotle not only taught him the basics of thinking and learning, but also fostered his love of literature and philosophy. This education laid the foundation for Alexander's later pursuit of knowledge and his interest in the unification of Eastern and Western culture.
In addition to Aristotle, Alexander also had other influences in his youth, including the warrior and general Leonidas, who taught him military skills. This varied education contributed to Alexander the Great developing an extraordinary personality that was impressive both mentally and physically. His youthful years left a lasting impression on him and laid the foundations for his future military successes and his endeavours to achieve cultural synthesis in the conquered Persian Empire.
All that is reported in this episode is the fact that Alexander was a philosopher. Instead, there is speculation about unproven drug use. Pretty lowbrow. As if Alexander was a weak man driven by his environment and drugs, who simply had a lot of luck with his decisions. The opposite was actually the case. Due to his education, which was completely omitted, he was able to make groundbreaking decisions at the age of 20. Otherwise, however, the historical facts are correct and the assumptions realistic. Unfortunately, however, we are presented with a false picture of Alexander.