What did We Learn from the Movie “Paycheck” Starring Ben Affleck?

The movie “Paycheck” starring Ben Affleck really highlights the fact that economic freedom is very fleeting in the United States.

It’s very easy to think that the United States is this land of free people. After all, it has a rich history of rebellious colonists and settlers turning their backs violently against the English king.

It’s as if people rose up as one and said, “No, we’re going to chart our own history. We’re going to chart our own way. We’re going to be free.”

There is quite a bit of a mythology built on American freedom. In fact, if you listen to any typical political debate or you pay attention to materials generated during a typical election cycle, the word “freedom” is mentioned probably most frequently than other words. Maybe the phrase “middle class” comes in a distant second or third.

There’s just something about the idea of freedom that resonates with most Americans. After all, the vast majority of Americans came from somewhere else.

Maybe they were fleeing starvation from Eastern Europe, or limited job prospects from Southern Europe, or religious persecution in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. They look at America as a land of second chances.

For a lot of people, America is not just the land of second chances, but third chances, fourth chances, and fifth chances as well. Given this context, it’s very easy to look at the idea of freedom and put it on a pedestal.

The problem is, ideals rarely match up with reality. And this is where the movie “Paycheck” starring Ben Affleck comes in.

When you notice that his attitude towards earning a living is kind of problematic, you basically start to realize the disconnect between the freedom that living in America supposedly delivers, and the reality on the ground.

The truth is, until and unless there’s some sort of universal basic income where the government basically guarantees a paycheck to everybody, every person is on their own.

Some people are naturally gifted, some people have skills that are heavily in demand, other people just have a unique way of attracting others to hand them money.

Whatever the case may be, there is this Darwinian or market-oriented process where the cream rises to the top and the simple idea of just drawing a paycheck payday after payday doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that would go on in a truly free society.

In fact, the sub-context of this movie really highlights the political reality of America today. You have to understand that the 800-pound elephant in the room is not what you think it is.

For the longest time, a lot of societies had to struggle with too many mouths to feed. If you go to places like India, the Philippines, or many countries in Africa, this is still the issue. There are too many people and there’s not enough agricultural food products to ensure cheap, plentiful food for everybody.

Well, in reality, this is an illusion because people who have money can access food. They can access quality healthcare. They can definitely get their hands on clean water.

The issue is not so much on food productivity because if trade was liberalized in many of these societies, food would be available. It’s only an import permit away.

The real issue is the notion of equity. What kind of society do we live in? Do we live in an inclusive society? Do we live in a society where everybody gets an equal shot?

Well, the problem is, for the longest time, the idea of an equal shot in the United States started to degenerate. It became very clear that regardless of how hard many people tried, they still end up settling for crumbs.

A lot of people would say, “Well, this is just the natural order of things. After all, there is such a thing as the Pareto Principle.”

You’ve heard of the Pareto Principle. It also goes by the name of the 80/20 Rule. In other words, 20% of the population will get 80% of the benefits.

This applies across the board. 20% of people are very, very attractive so they get 80% of the attention and opportunities for romantic partners. 20% of any NBA team account for 80% of their points.

Well, according to this thinking, there’s really nothing wrong with any kind of inequality because the cream rises to the top. Well, this is really the subtext of the movie “Paycheck” starring Ben Affleck.

Are we going to accept this? Is this the natural order of things? Or is there a better alternative plan out there? Is there a different option?

And as we come face to face with a fully automated world with the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning, it’s only a matter of time until the clamor for some sort of income equity or some sort of income redistribution system becomes deafening.

Because as more and more people lose their jobs because of automation, you can bet that there will be a tremendous amount of political pressure built up for some sort of solution. And the issues present in the movie “Paycheck” starring Ben Affleck will turn out to be just the tip of the iceberg.

While Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has made great strides in making the soon coming mass automation sea change a campaign issue, the mass media hasn’t really made this a top priority. This really is too bad. Seriously. No joke. Why? If automation takes place the way it was predicted, there will soon be a huge army of angry unemployed people. Whenever you have such discontentment, you can bet there will be social turbulence.

A lot of what’s gone wrong with America can be traced to the fact that it systematically ‘overcompensated’ for the Great Depression of the 30s. The end result are policies with long term effects that end up making the country worse off.

Can you imagine what kind of bad ideas will come to the fore when people become so desperate and angry enough to demand change? You can bet that it probably won’t be a well through out package of solutions.

What is Responsible for the Decline of Stuntmen in Movies?

Back in the 1970s, stuntmen were all over the place. In fact, if you’re looking to get a movie made, chances are, there will be at least one stunt person there.

Now, the only types of movies that involve absolutely no stunts are probably dramatic movies that involve mostly personal confrontation. But other than that, even for comedies involving any kind of physical slapstick or funny physical action, you can bet there will be a need for stuntmen.

Interestingly enough, as the years wore on, there are less and less stuntmen in movies. What’s going on?

Well, a lot of this has to do with legality. As lawyers got the hang of the legal questions of stunt work, many movie companies started paying bigger and bigger settlements.

As you can well imagine, when word comes out that a film studio has been forced to pay out millions in a judgment or in a settlement, people are going to get their acts together very quickly. In other words, people would tend to be more cautious than warranted.

This has been the typical effect of lawsuits in American society. You would think that when lawyers launch a suit that it would have the effect of basically getting people to get their act together and essentially provide a safer working environment. Well, it turns out that there are unintended consequences, and one of these is an overall reduction in stuntmen and stunt work.

Another unforeseen consequence of this is the emphasis on computer generated images or CGI.

Let’s get one thing clear, a lot of the Marvel movies coming out recently would not have been possible without CGI.

Even if you had an army of stuntmen willing, ready and eager to do the necessary stunts for the latest Marvel comics movie, it’s much cheaper to just animate these actors.

Also, please understand that a lot of action movies, which historically have required most of the services of stuntmen, are switching over to CGI because they feature large panoramic scenes of tons of people engaging in all sorts of action. And the best way to do that, of course, both logistically and financially, is through computer-generated images.

Based on these two factors, it is not surprising to find out that there are less and less stuntmen in the United States.

In fact, it would be surprising, given the current legal climate and the over regulation of many industries across the board, if the film industry used stuntmen at the same volume as the 1970s.

Say whatever you want about the 1970s, but one thing is undeniable. It is definitely part of the golden age of American cinema.

Not only are the stunts real, not only do you see real people engage in real action scenes, but the 1970s also pushed the limit as far as creative tension and creative imagination went. It seemed to have no limits. That’s why we continue to be blessed by the cinematic lessons of the 1970s.

As far as stuntmen, however, it appears that this is going to be a relic of the past. How come? Well, the issue now is not whether computer animation has displaced stuntmen or not. That’s pretty much a done deal. The big issue is whether animation is actually going to replace actors.

If you need proof of this, just look at the Deepfake adult content currently making it through the internet. If people are able to do that with standard animation software and image manipulation tools, what do you think they can do to actual legitimate actors? It’s only a matter of time.

This is why the march of technology and automation is both exhilarating, mind blowing, and very scary at the same time. If you’re an actor or actress, you might not have a job tomorrow. That’s where things are heading.

Another key reason why stuntmen are fast disappearing involves lawyers, lawsuits, and state laws. For the longest time, it was quite hard to get fat judgments against big companies when it comes to personal injury. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying juries weren’t handing out big 7 or even 8 figure judgments.

Instead, the issue involved really egregious or almost exceptional injuries. For example, if someone gets sued for wrongful death, the death involves must be so shocking that the jury won’t have a problem issuing a fat 8 figure judgment. In other words, there must something out of the ordinary with the case.

Well, stuntmen are fast disappearing because most production companies are becoming lawsuit-shy. How come? Well, the law has changed. Now, it seems juries are more likely to hand out fat judgments for injury situations that aren’t as harsh or shocking. We’ve gone from a very high bar of shock and injury to decreasing bars.

In fact, in some jurisdictions as long as the defendant is a big company with ‘deep pockets,’ jurors won’t be shy to give the company what ‘it got coming to it.’ No wonder so many big companies are being considered whipping boys by juries out to ‘right what’s wrong.’ Besides the inherent unfairness behind this trend, this readiness and willingness of many juries to award big judgments has resulted in production companies holding back.

Most of these companies don’t want to screw around with a potentially crippling lawsuit if any of the stuntmen on their payroll suffer what would otherwise be a normal setback. Keep in mind that stunts are inherently dangerous. Seriously.

This should be obvious. Let’s put it this way, when you jump from one train to another while both trains are speeding at 120 miles per hour in opposite directions, you are really putting your life in your own hands. You can quickly lose your life if you make one false move.

Given what could possibly go wrong as action movies switches from one risky action scene to another, more directors are going for CGI effects. After all, when was the last time you heard of an animated ‘actor’ sue the production company of the film they appeared in?

What Did We Learn from the Movie “The Truman Show”?

When “The Truman Show” first came out, a lot of people thought that it was great movie-making. A lot of people thought that this was an awesome piece of fantasy.

But that’s pretty much what people thought about it. Because back in the day, the legal and technological infrastructure for 24/7 surveillance of people’s individual lives were still not fully in place.

I say that in a calculated way because it was beginning to assemble itself. It wasn’t quite there yet when “The Truman Show” rolled out, but you can bet that it’s happening now.

If you don’t believe that the government or any private institution can spy on people and essentially turn your life into entertainment or a source of confidential intelligence information, you have another thing coming.

You have to understand that the turning point in American history, as far as the dividing line between government authority and snooping and individual privacy was shaken permanently and changed forever when the 9/11 attacks happened.

This was when the Patriot Act was essentially shoved through congress’ throat, and all of a sudden, all sorts of warrant less wiretapping, financial transaction tracking, and other activities that were previously unheard of became standard practice.

Prior to the 9/11 attacks, people were given a large leeway regarding how much money they can send and who they can send it to. There was even a large network of relatively anonymous money remittance services. Well, a lot of that went away, thanks to 9/11.

You need to have that kind of legal infrastructure to justify what happened in “The Truman Show.”

But please understand that “The Truman Show” was supposedly shot by a private company. In other words, it was motivated by the profit motive. It was supposed to make money. It’s a commercial enterprise.

What company does that kind of thing in the here and now? Well, you only need to open up your computer or turn on your mobile device and I’m sure one of the icons you could see is Facebook.

If you don’t think that Facebook is snooping on you, you’re clueless. Seriously.

The moment you log in to Facebook, Facebook is spying on you. It’s paying attention to the things you like, it’s paying attention to the stories you comment on, it pays attention to the friends you engage with the most. It pays attention to basically everything you do within Facebook itself.

If you think that’s bad enough, wait, it gets even worse. Facebook actually has strategic partnerships with apps and other websites.

So, when you get off Facebook itself and you engage in other activities, like you’re commenting on a blog post that uses Facebook’s comment plug-in system, Facebook is still tracking you.

For example, if you go to a stock trading website and you left a comment, technically, you’re not within Facebook. You’re not on a Facebook page, you’re not on somebody’s Facebook wall, you’re definitely not in a Facebook group. But Facebook can still profile you because you left a comment on content that runs its plug-in. You’re fair game.

So, your information is going to be sliced and diced, and don’t be surprised when you get back on Facebook, stock ads or investment-related ads start showing up all over the place. This happens quite a bit.

In fact, your behavior is cross indexed by Facebook to the behavior of your friends. The idea is to come up with a behavioral prediction matrix based on the clicking pattern of people who have certain shared features or traits. Sounds scary? You should be.

This has all the makings of a classic guilt by association tracking system. Everyone is an individual. Everyone should be judged and sized up based on their own merits. Just because you like what other people like doesn’t mean you share the same intensity of fascination with those subjects or themes.

Also, even if you go to a website that you thought was completely disconnected or unrelated to Facebook, you may have another thing coming. Thanks to retargeting technology, Facebook would encourage businesses and publishers to put their pixel on their websites.

When a user goes to a page that has the Facebook pixel, they are profiled by Facebook. So, what happens is that when you go back to Facebook, you might see an ad reminding you of that website that you previously visited.

If you went to an online store and you made it all the way to the shopping cart but had a change of heart at the last minute, don’t be surprised if you see a picture ad for the product that you were about to buy. This tracking and snooping technology is so powerful that, according to some estimates, it increases sales by 40%.

Please understand that the private snooping and privacy violations that took place in “The Truman Show” are happening. But the problem is, when you sign up for Facebook, you’re giving away a lot of your privacy rights.

This is why Facebook is under a tremendous amount of regulatory pressure, both in the United States and in the European Union. People aren’t dumb. People understand that Facebook is actually monetizing the property that you’re creating.

How can liking stuff and posting comments on Facebook and engaging with your friends be considered “property”?

Well, there’s a rising legal academic body of thought that argues that this is property. You have a right to make money off of this. You have a right to permit people to use this or to block people from using it. That’s the next legal frontier.

And unfortunately, the legal infrastructure wasn’t there yet with “The Truman Show.” That’s why it’s easy to look at Truman as a victim. And Jim Carey did a good job.

But do yourself a big favor. Understand that “The Truman Show” is happening now. You only need to log on to Facebook to see this firsthand. The funny thing about the Truman show is that it nailed on the head one key feature of modern American surveillance-it predicted private companies would do it instead of big government.

“Air Bud” the Movie: What did you learn about the relationship between dogs and humans?

In “Air Bud” the movie, we get yet another exposition about the relationship between a dog and humans. What I learned from this movie is that it kind of showed me that there is a different way to look at dogs and humans as far as relationships go.

You have to understand that the main reason why dogs are not eaten in Western culture is because of their utility as companions, as well as being rescue dogs. The closer people get to a certain type of animal, the more they’re likely to read into that animal their range of emotions and other so-called human traits.

With this proximity, whether on an intellectual, practical or emotional level, it is no surprise that dogs and cats are near and dear to our hearts. Accordingly, we are shocked, and outraged even, when other cultures don’t share that affinity.

Please understand that in certain cultures like Indonesia or Korea, there is no shortage of people who love dogs. There is no shortage of people who buy doggie diapers, doggie mittens, doggie clothing, and who love their dogs to death.

On the other hand, they also don’t have any reservations with ordering a dog stew the next time they go to a special restaurant that caters to dog eaters and doggie cuisine. How do you bridge the two?

This is the big difference between the dynamic portrayed in “Air Bud” the movie and the rest of the world.

In the rest of the world, there is a firm hierarchy between humans and everything else. And a lot of this hierarchy is essentially hard set. You can have a pet, you can love it to death, but you can also eat your pet’s species.

There’s no dichotomy there. There’s no hypocrisy. There’s no conflict.

In the West, we agonize over this. We try to draw firm lines. But really, when you analyze “Air Bud” the movie, the main reason why dogs are put up on a pedestal is because of their utility. That’s really the bottom line.

But if you talk to the most hardcore animal liberation fanatic, they would tell you that this is unfair. And they have a lot going for their argument because if they’re going to say that if the only reason why you are protecting dogs is because they are useful to you, then the center of your moral universe is essentially the human being.

In other words, it’s all about use value. This is going to be very dangerous because we could easily apply this philosophy to other fellow human beings.

If somebody is, for example, disabled and can only feed themselves through a tube or needs assistance to go on living, what happens then? If utility is the end all and be all determinant of human value and who gets to live or die, then we’re left with a very sticky situation.

According to this line of thinking, there has to be some sort of fixed line as to value. In other words, we value dogs not because they do something for us.

It’s not because they make us smile. It’s not because they wag their tails so hard that it seems that their tails are about to fall off when they see us after a long absence. Instead, the conversation or the analysis is not about us, but actually about the dog itself.

In other words, we’re supposed to apply some sort of universalist morality very similar to the one championed by the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant. A lot of people are excited about this philosophy because this is a counter to the underlying philosophy or underlying attitudes behind “Air Bud” the movie and other feel-good pet movies.

The issue is not utility. The issue is whether there is a firm line between life, protection, and honor and dignity. And the idea is, to a lot of people in the West, that this should be applied across the board.

You should be as outraged when people eat a chicken as you would when somebody eats a puppy. There is really no big difference because they both feel pain. They both have similar nerve systems.

This is a very interesting approach to the ethics of how we should view animals and what animals mean to us.

Of course, this is very sensitive as well because a lot of us are practical in nature. In fact, even though what I just described is a typical Western European and American philosophical trend, please understand that there are countervailing trends as well.

The most countervailing, of course, is the long standing Judeo-Christian idea that human beings were put on this planet to exercise dominion over them. In other words, there is a fixed hierarchy of being.

And this is not just a Christian thing. Remember, the Greek philosopher Plato also had an order of being.

And as much as people like to cry and dispute and rail against some sort of a priori fixed hierarchy of things and how seemingly oppressive, arbitrary and capricious it is, a lot of people believe it.

And a lot of people think that the rest of the world supports that kind of thinking because there is some sort of order, whether we like it or not. According to this view, it’s better to look at the world the way it is, instead of trying to imagine it the way we want it to be.

Interestingly enough, the rise in New Age beliefs have added something to the mix as far as we look at animals go. Whether you’re talking about The Law of Attraction or the whole “name it and claim it’ school of New Age wish fulfillment, a lot of this ‘new thinking’ taking hold of the USA are based on the idea that there is an internal power uniting all people and all creation.

According to this mindset, this unity of origin and power cuts across species line and requires some level of empathy. Sounds Hindu? It is. Expect the way people look at animals to go through a sea change.

The Most Fantastic “James Bond” Gadgets

If you’re looking for the most fantastic “James Bond” gadgets, please understand that it’s not what you think. A lot of people think that the most famous “James Bond” gadget involves a pen or some sort of portable tool or gadget that he had.

Well, those were important, but if you were to ask people who actually pay attention to how the plot lines of the typical “James Bond” movie pushes forward, they would point you to some sort of vehicle. Whether it’s a jet ski or a helicopter or a car, it’s the vehicle that actually pushes the story forward.

At the risk of sounding corny, it’s actually James Bond’s vehicle that act as the real carriers or vehicles, interestingly enough, of the plot line.

The problem with looking at “James Bond” gadgets as points of interest in and of themselves is that they tend to distract from the plot line. That’s really the bottom line.

As the famous director Quentin Tarantino said, “The reason why I put a lot of violence in my movies is because they push the plot forward. If the killings and blood did not create its intended effect, I would not have put them there.”

He has a point there. And when we just look at the “James Bond” movies with the idea that we’re looking for the most fantastic “James Bond” gadgets, we kind of miss the forest from the trees. We tend to overlook the fact that it’s not the gadget that makes James Bond awesome.

It’s not the fact that James Bond can basically whip out a potato and start talking, and all of a sudden, all this stuff will happen. That’s not what makes James Bond James Bond. Instead, it’s the plot. It’s about how he can get out of a sticky situation time and time again.

And usually, the main gadget, if you will, that gets him from Point A to Point B as far as these sticky situations go, don’t involve some sort of portable or small handheld device. Far from it. In fact, it’s a vehicle.

In the most recent “James Bond” movies, it’s his use of a specially equipped car that enabled him to get out of one sticky situation after another. You really can’t say the same about some gadget.

Gadget Obsession is What Separates “Get Smart” from “James Bond”

Have you ever heard of the American TV series “Get Smart”? It tracks the fortunes and misfortunes of the American spy Maxwell Smart. It really is just a parody of all the “James Bond” movies.

And guess what the centerpiece of the typical “Get Smart” episode is about? That’s right, it’s about gadgets, so people can see how cartoonish an overemphasis on gadgets could be. And that’s why that show got a lot of laughs.

“James Bond” is supposed to be something more serious. It’s supposed to be a nail-biting, exciting exposition of the adventurous life of a cold war era secret agent. And as a result, the focus should be on the plot.

It doesn’t really matter what kind of gadget he’s talking on or what kind of gadget he’s using to trigger something. What matters is what the plot line. is.

And this is how you can tell whether people are being serious or not. In fact, Roger Moore has always been criticized for kind of cheapening the legacy of Sean Connery.

There are many people who are convinced to this very day that Sean Connery was the best James Bond ever. The main reason for that is because they argue that he relied less on gadgets and gimmickry and other tricks and focused more on acting out the plot line. and the scene.

There’s a lot to that criticism. Because when the whole plot line. essentially lives or dies based on a string of gadgets neatly arranged throughout the story, then you really don’t have much of a story. You’re basically using gadgets to cover up for the fact that you have a very thin story.

It’s like trying to use a newspaper to cover up a woman in a bikini. It doesn’t work, and people can see right through it.

And it also didn’t help that Roger Moore tended to act out the James Bond role in a cartoonish and a shallow kind of way. In a way, it’s kind of a self-referencing joke. It’s as if he was winking at the crowd and saying, “Well, this is just a joke anyway and you’re in on the joke.”

Well, that kind of rubs a lot of “James Bond” purists and hardcore fans the wrong way. I can see where they’re coming from, and a lot of that criticism boils down to the gadgets being used.

So, if you’re really looking for the most fantastic “James Bond” gadgets, don’t look at the small stuff. That’s right, don’t sweat the small stuff. Focus on the vehicles because that’s where the real action truly is.

Another key thing to keep in mind about cars is that they require more logistical superiority. Let’s put it this way, coming up with a clever gadget may be traced to one clever scientist like Q. But if Bond uses a car, someone has to do all sorts of things to it. In other words, there has to be a cadre of highly skilled people making sure that car remains in tip top shape and would enable Bond to do what he needs to do.

What’s involved? Well, at the very least there has to be a maintenance bay. These are not cheap. Given the kind of technology that goes into the typical Bond car, you can bet there’s a whole lot of techno wizardry happening in the background. Also, you have to account for the array of replacement parts to keep such cars functional. Again, this needs a whole lot of skilled and clever people.

No matter how you cut it, if you are a deep thinker who thinks in terms of systems, Bond’s cars definitely take the cake when it comes to awesomeness. None of his other gadgets can even come close.

The Best “James Bond” Movie Ever

This article is probably going to be controversial. “James Bond” is one of those cultural franchises that people get really emotional about. It seems that they will take a position regarding which “James Bond” movie was the best and they basically will stick to it come hell or high water.

This is one of those cases where, regardless of how well argued and how well put together your case may be, you’re going to head on into personal preference.

This is why it’s really important to understand that when you’re dealing with any kind of cultural franchise like “Star Wars,” “Star Trek,” or in this case, “James Bond,” it really boils down to personal preference.

I know that sounds like a cop out, but it’s ultimately true. You have to understand that the “James Bond” series is made up of many movies. The same goes with “Star Wars” and “Star Trek.” In fact, “Star Trek” has so many different versions.

If you think that there is some sort of magical answer here, you run the risk of comparing apples to oranges. I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked, comparing apples to oranges is not exactly a productive use people’s time. It’s pointless making it. It’s pointless hearing about it.

So, what is the best way to go about identifying the best “James Bond” movie ever?

Start with Your Preferences

The first thing that you need to pay attention to is your personal bias and preference.

Now, I know that the word “bias” comes with a lot of baggage. A lot of people think that once they are said to have a bias, that they are somehow, some way, some sort of a bad actor or there’s something wrong with them.

No. That’s not true because everybody has a bias. Even the best people in the world have a bias. We’re all prejudiced at some level or another.

Now, of course, there’s a hierarchy to this. There are certain prejudices that we could almost all agree are universally bad, and there are some prejudices that are basically just a product of your upbringing, your experiences, and your unique way of looking at the world. Learn to tell the difference between the two.

You’re not really doing yourself any big favors by assuming that you automatically have to go about this with absolutely no bias at all. No. The best approach would be to be as clear with your own prejudices and biases coming in. In other words, come clean.

If you are big on storytelling, be aware of that. If you are a stickler for leading man presence, then there’s no problem with that. Just make sure that you are fully aware that that is your bias.

This is the key. A little bit of self-knowledge can go a long way.

What is it about the typical “James Bond” movie that you first look at? What is the most important to you? What is your priority? How do you make sense of this long running series based on your biases? You’d be surprised as to the answer that you find.

A lot of people think that everybody else expects them to give them some sort of “intelligent answer.” A lot of people are under the impression that they’re supposed to like a movie because of the plot line or some sort of social, economic, cultural and political significance.

Well, when you do that, you’re just lying to yourself because that’s not the real you. That’s not how you really enjoy these types of movies.

So, there’s no need to come off as somebody you’re not. You’re not playing to the crowd here. Instead, you’re trying to discover what makes sense to you.

How Well Do You Remember Each Movie?

When trying to figure out the best “James Bond” movie ever, you have to be fair to each installation. In other words, you have to, first, watch all of them. Second, you have to remember enough of their details to make a well-reasoned and qualified judgment.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t even bother with this. A lot of people think that if they remember just one scene, that’s good enough.

In fact, some people are so jaded and skeptical about certain types of movie series that they think that if they’ve seen one movie, they have seen it all.

This can cut both ways. For every critic, there is also a die-hard, almost unthinking fan who say that “As long as the movie says “James Bond,” I’m good to go. That movie is legit.”

Well, you have to understand that both extreme options are off limits to you. Focus instead on what you actually remember.

Based on what you remember, can you render a decent judgment? Are there enough facts that you can glean from your experience so as to support whatever claim you’re making now? Otherwise, you would be unfair to the movie.

You can say that “Live and Let Die” sucked, but maybe you just saw one YouTube clip. Maybe it would be better if you actually saw the movie thoroughly for you to render a judgment.

Remember that It All Boils Down to Argumentation

At the end of the day, there’s really no right or wrong answer. But you know you’re doing things right if you can back up your claims. In other words, if you can make a claim, make sure that there are facts from the movies that can back up what you’re saying.

If you’re saying that Sean Connery is the best James Bond ever and nobody even came close, back it up. What is it about the Sean Connery movies that you think are so awesome? What do you think about Sean Connery’s acting as James Bond that made him the best thing since sliced bread?

If you’re drawing a blank, then you’re not arguing well. If it doesn’t make sense to you, what do you think it will look like to other people you’re trying to convince? That’s the bottom line.

So instead of automatically assuming that there is a one best movie, or that you can definitively say that the best “James Bond” movie ever exists, you have to do the heavy lifting. You have to point to facts and let people come to their conclusions.

How to Find a Great Review of the Ferris Bueller’s Day Off Movie

If you have a term paper due in high school and you’re supposed to do a review of the “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” movie, you may be thinking that you just have to watch the movie.

The problem with that approach is that you are basically going to be stuck with a typical narrative. You’re probably just going to go in there and try to dissect the movie based on what you know and the kind of movies you’ve seen before.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but please understand that there’s a reason why there are acclaimed movie reviewers throughout the United States.

There’s a reason why publishers as well advertisers pay them good money to write review after review of movies. You might want to pay attention to how they write their reviews.

If you are looking to come up with a truly compelling review of the “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” movie, listen up. First of all, I enjoyed the bathrobe scene in that movie!

Read as Many Reviews as You Can

The first thing that you need to do is to get on to Metacritic and look through their archives of past reviews of “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.”

You should start to see a pattern. You should see that certain people have certain writing styles. A lot of people seem to focus on one particular element, while others seem to be all over the place.

The key here is to get a nice little survey of everybody’s writing style. And most importantly, what they focus on.

By getting some sort of big picture view of the typical review of the “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” movie, you can start assembling some sort of internal hierarchy or priority list regarding things you should pay attention to.

Look for Recurring Themes

If you notice that people keep talking about a certain scene in the movie, you should sit up and pay attention. It means that there is some sort of cultural significance to the movie, especially if you come across a review that’s been written several years after most people have gotten around to doing a review of the “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” movie.

If you notice that this theme somehow, some way, captured the American critical imagination, then you may be on to something. You may be on to a particular cultural moment or turning point that it may resonate to this very day.

Now, please understand that just because a lot of people write a review about a particular movie, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is automatically culturally significant and important. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you would hang on to every word of each reviewer.

But if you notice that a lot of the reviews were written closer to your time than to the actual release date of the original “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” movie, pay attention. This means that somehow, some way, this is some sort of a generational movie.

Maybe it captured the essence or the spirit of the age. Maybe a lot of people are looking back and using the movie as some sort of filtering mechanism for their own struggles and issues from that period in history. Whatever the case may be, look for these elements so you can start off strong with your own review.

Start Strong and Finish Strong

Please understand that all movie reviews are essays. Seriously.

Why? An essay is supposed to be a piece of writing that tries to convince the reader of your position. That’s the bottom line behind an essay. That’s its whole reason for existing.

Now, given that reality, it should logically follow that reviews are essentially essays. If you’re writing a review and saying that “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” is an amazing movie and it’s the best thing since sliced bread, or you’re trying to say the opposite, then you’re trying to convince the reader to come around to your position.

In other words, you’re trying to persuade the reader. The whole essence of the essay form is to persuade.

Now, understand how this works. In other words, you’re going to make an assertion in the beginning, and then you are going to offer proof of that assessment.

How do you prove a claim? Well, it’s very simple. You can look at facts and say, “Well, this proves what I’m trying to say.”

You can also use logic by pointing out facts. You can say that this fact happened, and by logical deduction and logical analysis, this proves my point.

Regardless of how you do it, please understand that the overarching reason why you are writing a review in the first place is to persuade the person.

There is No Right or Wrong Answer

Now comes the good news. As long as you can identify key elements of the movie and you can persuasively make your case, then you can take comfort from the fact that when it comes to this kind of thing, there is really no right or wrong answer.

You don’t have to hang your hat on a particular position. It’s not going to make or break your academic career. Instead, it’s just going to show whoever is going to be reading your essay that you know how to write, you know how to make a claim, and you know how to back it up.

Believe me, that is not a strictly academic skill. That’s the kind of skill set you will need for any kind of job in the real world.

Whether you want to become a corporate soldier or a CEO, or if you want to work in a factory, the ability to read instructions, read between the lines, read for maximum comprehension, and put it all together in a persuasive document can serve you well throughout your life.

Don’t think for a second that just because you’re looking for a review of the “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” movie that you’re just wasting your time and that this is all useless academic exercise.

No, it isn’t. It actually builds up your skills as a person. You become a more persuasive and, ultimately, a more effective individual.

Some of the Best Movies of the 1990s

A lot of people think that the 1970s was the golden age of American cinema. It’s really hard to fault this thinking because, let’s face it, some of the best movies that film students continue to pore over today with a fine-toothed comb were made in the 1970s.

I am, of course, talking about classics like “The Godfather,” “The Godfather: Part II,” “Chinatown,” “The Deer Hunter,” “Midnight Cowboy,” “Apocalypse Now,” “Star Wars,” – you name it. It seems that it’s very tempting to conclude that all the best movies have been made a long time ago.

Well, you wouldn’t be absolutely incorrect for assuming that, but you may be accused of being narrow minded. After all, you’re supposed to look at the whole corpus of American cinema starting from the classic “Birth of a Nation” to “Metropolis” to “City Lights” to “The Wizard of Oz” to “Gone with the Wind” and, of course, “Citizen Kane.”

Usually, people who want you to look at the full corpus of America’s cinematic work product have a fairly dismissive view of the 90s. They think that a lot of the heavy lifting has already been done in previous decades.

To put this in practical terms, this mindset assumes that if a movie is to be honored and described as ‘revolutionary’ and ‘ground breaking’ it has to eclipse the works that came before it.

There appears to be a fast rising cumulative ‘critical barrier’ for newer films. If this sounds unfair, you can be it is. You really shouldn’t fault a film for being made at a later date.

If were to use this standard across the board then few films would withstand critical scrutiny since they have to bear the cumulative artistic critical weight of films that went before them.

Please understand that, as easy as it is to dismiss the 1990s as the age of commercial theater and as the final hurrah of old school cinematic releases in light of the upcoming internet revolution, the 90s produced some amazing movies.

Here are just three great movies that came out in the 1990s. I’ll explain why they are worth taking a look at.

“The Shawshank Redemption”

“The Shawshank Redemption,” starring Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, is easy to overlook. It’s the story of a person who got unjustly sentenced to prison where he witnessed all sorts of inhumanity and brutality.

The interesting thing about “The Shawshank Redemption” is that it speaks to the American need for justice. As the old saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. There was definitely a sense of delay in exposing the innocence of the protagonist in this movie.

Most people who have been unfairly accused of wrongdoing can definitely relate. But anybody who has been misunderstood, marginalized, or otherwise opposed based on some sort of exaggeration of what they thought or did can definitely relate to this issue.

In fact, “The Shawshank Redemption” is so emotionally powerful because it really appeals to most people’s tendency to side with the underdog.

I’m going out on a limb here, but I am going to argue that this tendency is actually universal. Most people, regardless of where they come from, regardless of the color of their skin, regardless of their religion or ethnicity, do not like it when a person is oppressed, especially if that person is innocent.

There’s just something about the universal human condition that is triggered when we feel that somehow, some way, some injustice is happening. This is what “The Shawshank Redemption” shines a bright spotlight on.

While it was set in a distant past decade, a lot of the dynamics in play and a lot of the anger and confusion and desperation communicated by the movie still resonates to this very day.

I’m not going to give you a spoiler for the movie, but the way the movie resolves the conflict speaks to both optimism for the human condition as well as pessimism.

The truth is, when a person finds himself against a large, faceless, anonymous organization and power called the government, it’s very easy to lose hope. It’s very easy to think that until and unless you engage in something really weird, your situation is not going to change.

But here’s where the movie’s optimism comes in: never underestimate people’s ingenuity.

“The Usual Suspects”

If you’re looking for a movie that made Kevin Spacey, look no further than this movie. This movie is just amazing in the way it told its story.

What’s so awesome about this movie is that it really highlighted creative timelines. Usually, when people tell a story, they begin with the beginning, and then they proceed to the middle, and then they wind up with the end.

Well, this movie is told from an interesting perspective, and the timeline is jumbled up. Regardless of that, you can still understand the movie. And the tricky and sneaky ending really makes the movie worth seeing.

I’m not going to give away the ending, but believe me, if you haven’t seen this movie before, the ending will definitely make up for it. There’s a lot of weird twists and there’s a lot of suspense, but the ending would really blow your mind.

“Pulp Fiction”

The 90s seemed to be a golden age of creative timeline storytelling. The awesome thing about “Pulp Fiction” is that not only does it play with the timeline of a typical movie narration and storytelling, but it also tells the story of its protagonists from their own perspective.

It’s kind of like reading the book by Nabokov, Lolita. What’s so awesome about the novel Lolita was that the way the story was told, it was told from an imperfect storytelling.

When you understand how that works, then you would appreciate “Pulp Fiction” because it highlights the fact that when it comes to reality, there are many different people watching, and they have different perspectives. And guess what? The timeline is not as clean and tidy as we would have hoped.

Make no mistake, the 1990s contain some veritable cinematic gems. You would really be at a loss if you did not take the time to watch the recommended movies above.