Sterling Arthur

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore

Start with the title. It's called Secrets of Dumbledore, but you don't learn anything about Dumbledore that a reader wouldn't already know. Then, there's the fact that it's ABOUT Dumbledore v. Grindelwald. Newt and his pokeball suitcase of creatures have been more of a subplot throughout the whole of Fantastic Beasts. In fact, a lot of characters and elements fade in and out to the point that the whole plot is just unclear. Example: Each country has its own Ministry of Magic, but Grindelwald is trying to be elected leader of the entire world rather than any particular ministry, and people are supposed to vote about this, but actually they just let the qilin choose. In the beginning of the movie, the characters actually decide not to make any plans, and it seems the whole film team did the same.

It's definitely Hollywood rather than King. Here, Roland is defined by his sense of honor and purpose; he isn't coldly, deliberately killing the people close to him. Jake is everything you'd want from a kid hero, and since he's the protagonist, he doesn't die (twice). There's a bit of world-hopping but no complex webs of time travel. The screenplay is straightforward and maintains a nice balance by giving you the information you need while hinting at deeper histories beneath everything. There's also a good bit of humor in the Jake-Roland relationship. A fun and satisfying action fantasy with likeable characters and a strong visual aesthetic. It's not the books, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Imaginative yet somehow very dry. There is untapped potential in the narrative and unreached depth in the characters--especially in the conflict between Jo and her abusive father, which is merely hinted at. The scene with the "water man" was great, but afterward the movie wraps up very quickly, and you're left wondering how Gunner's relationship with his mother has changed. Otherwise, an enjoyable watch. Otherwise enjoyable viewing, and fairly unique although it hits pretty close to I Kill Giants.

Speaking as a former marine scientist currently living in Thailand, most of the essential points are true and some things are even worse than the film shows. I would argue that it's actually impossible to conduct commercial fishing without killing dolphins (plus thousands of less charismatic species) because all commercial fishing methods are fundamentally unsustainable, designed to kill everything in their path and sort out a few commercially valuable species. It's certainly true that the "dolphin safe" labels mean nothing. The film does a great job of exposing corruption and conflict of interests in marine conservation groups and hollow political efforts toward conservation. Something not mentioned in the film is that this corruption and conflict of interest even seeps into the scientific sphere, because research requires funding that often comes from oil and fisheries. I left my career because I was appalled at how my Alaskan fisheries-funded research project was wantonly destroying the animals and ecosystems we were supposedly interested in preserving, using exactly the same methods as commercial fisheries, trawl nets and all. (Scientists kill dolphins too!) I congratulate the film makers for showing how abuses in the fishing industry cascade into everything from climate change to slavery to ebola; for challenging our assumptions about plastic in the oceans (which mostly comes from fishing industries); for destabilizing the claim that commercial fishing can be "sustainable;" and for showing that the only sustainable future requires not eating any commercial seafood. If you weren't already convinced that being vegetarian or vegan is one of the most necessary acts for saving the planet, please give this film your consideration.

This book has some interesting discussions and a lot of illustrations to help Western or modern audiences with the difficult subjects of mindfulness and enlightenment. Specifically, it’s about liberation from suffering through relinquishing our attachments to pain. But it definitely isn’t above criticism. First, Tolle should be more honest about where his ideas come from. It seems he’s asserting ties to many religions in order to appeal to a broad readership; but in fact, most of his ideas come from specific schools of Buddhism or specific mystics and philosophers. It’s important for readers to understand that anything put forward here as universal truth is just one of many competing perspectives, some of which have been awkwardly fused together. The effect can be seen, for example, in Tolle’s discussions of feminism and social justice, which he doesn’t seem to understand at all. Tolle identifies menstruation as the expression of women’s collective suffering through the eons—a curse rather than a natural biological process. He warns women to subdue PMS and mood swings which arise from mind-possession by the collective female pain body. (His words, not mine). He also dismisses solidarity as exclusivist and an obstacle toward enlightenment, saying that women who identify with the suffering of other women are just inflating their egos, and what they should be doing is looking beyond the male/female duality. Perhaps other readers have missed the implications because it’s hard to figure out what Tolle is saying in the first place, especially if this book is your introduction to mysticism. The least we can say is that Tolle’s perspective is far from universal and unattached; it begins with his specific experiences as a listless young white man reading Meister Eckhart and never really transcends that stage. PS - This is a review for The Power of Now. For some reason, Google currently lumps the reviews with The Power of Now Journal.

It's not what you expect, and that's the point. As a drama of the sexual revolution, The Naked Director is itself revolutionary film-making. The series honestly, and sometimes brutally, examines the problems within the porn industry while highlighting a vision of what porn could be and should be. The contrast is built as a battle between two directors--the tycoon Ikezawa, with his harem of robot women and his political machinations, versus the indie director Muranishi, who creatively and authentically explores human desires but becomes blind to the consequences. The show is also full of beautifully executed, meaningful, non-gratuitous sex scenes consistent with Muranishi's vision. Thus, rather than merely explaining what porn should be, the series lets you experience it firsthand. Its dialogue of conflicting social opinions, and the way it traces their evolution, also helps viewers work through their own opinions about the world's largest film industry. I hope we see more porn like this!

The director of this film wasn't allowed to play with stuffed animals as a child, so in revenge he decided to ruin Winnie the Pooh for everyone. OK, I'm making that up--but seriously, did we need a gritty portrayal of Milne's abject failure as a father, the life-crushing mill of fame, the cruelty and carelessness of upper class society, and how all these influences led a lovely young boy to consider throwing his life away? I guess we could apply Milne's dictum that if people don't talk about it, it could happen again. Well, problem solved: Here's a film that will make you never want to be a parent. If you want the return to joy and innocence that Winnie the Pooh usually represents, try the fictional nonsense of Disney's Christopher Robin. The true story is just too oppressive.