I have seen one poster for this movie so far, and it's Matt Damon all wrapped up in technology. Then I found an IO9 article, where the director explains how the technology is vital to the character's mission, and I'm now drifting further from "I don't see that criticism" and towards "wow, they sure like their tech, don't they?"

Yeah, I've been *trying* to see the neo-Luddite vibe that has chrismg so upset, and I'm with you ita. Not only don't I see it, I see the opposite. Or, more accurately, I see visuals (to play the confusing semantics game) that are about class warfare, with tech on both sides, making tech just a tool, with no political aspirations at all.

Yeah, I've been *trying* to see the neo-Luddite vibe that has chrismg so upset, and I'm with you ita. Not only don't I see it, I see the opposite. Or, more accurately, I see visuals (to play the confusing semantics game) that are about class warfare, with tech on both sides, making tech just a tool, with no political aspirations at all.

Pretty much this on my part, too. I also don't see how the 1% are the "bad" guys. I suppose there's an implicit structure where the rich get richer and the poor get children, but it doesn't follow that ALL of the 1%, despite having machines that zap their cancer, are "bad."

Also? Even if there is some massive neo-Luddite message there, and all over the place elsewhere, I think ita's other point also stands: Very few people are buying that message today, from where I'm sitting.

I really do not see a society on the verge of flinging their wooden shoes into the machines and casting technology down in the muck.

And the Luddites were hating on the machinery because the machinery was taking their jobs, not because of an ideal about social purity or something. (The shows I was watching about Edwardian farm and Victorian farm did a lot on how improving farming technology put unskilled people out of work.)

Sometimes I wish. But that's just because I feel left behind(in a non- Kirk Cameron way) by a lot of it and feel like I need time to catch up. Rationally, I know technology makes me life possible.

t Shrug

By this point I've calmed down enough that I'm interested in seeing the movie, just so I can tell how much was only in my head.

Beau and I are going to see Trance this evening. Wish us luck.

We came back from Trance. My standard phrase: entertaining movie, but...

Definitely entertaining, definitely adult content with full frontal nudity for women (none for men), a lot of violence. The plot is interesting: art heist gone wrong and the main character hid a painting and cannot remember where he hid it.

The plot has a number of twists and turns and the movie is way over the top. I think I would have preferred a bit more restraint - some of the twists were unnecessary it seems to me. I was with the movie until around the last 20 minutes, then I'm like: "what the fuck?" After a couple of twists, the internal structure of the story doesn't really make much sense.

I am not sure I would necessarily recommend the movie. You won't be bored, but the plot falls apart.

So, I thought I'd ask Buffistas if that sort of thing ever happened to them. Maybe a friend LOVED something and kept trying to get you to watch it, or your queuelooks like mine, as if four people make the decisions and it's mostly just you.

I easily reach a saturation point when I feel like an overwhelming number of people (or even ads) are telling me I Must See the Awesome Thing! I think that's part of why I've never seen Parks and Rec and Avatar, among other things. Too much pushing, too many ads, too much Tom Cruise (which is to say, any Tom Cruise), too much on mu Tumblr dash. After a while I just go all Bartleby about it.