Your Garage Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer PilotWave7B PilotWave7B PilotWave7B  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis DollyParton Water Sports
Customer Review

23 of 25 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A very Good and Emotionally Charged Action Film, April 3, 2006
This review is from: Mercury Rising (DVD)
This is an action film with a lot of emotion behind it. It has a real heart felt story that questions plausibility and true credibility at times but it really hits home as it evokes genuine sentiment and feeling through a brutal world we now live in. This to date is the last great action film staring Bruce Willis. His performance of the dedicated civil servant doing what is right against all odds is admirable. His adversary Alec Baldwin stands for all that is wrong with a system that is supposed to protect our way of life and liberties while sacrificing the innocent trying to protect it at the enrichment of his own ego. At the center is a small autistic boy who supposedly can compromise Baldwin's plans who is being protected by FBI agent Willis who has fallen from grace. In simplest terms it is a film of right and goodness against greed and evil. On that level this film works. This film contains one of John Barry's last great scores as it gives credence to the story by bringing our most tearfully compassionate emotions to the surface while driving the narrative with an impassioned purpose. I like this film a lot I think because it takes the hardened tough good guy hero image and on an emotional level shows what drives him and what's really makes his heart tick.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 13 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 25, 2012 4:29:06 PM PST
Star Bux says:
Art is your friend... OK, but what about science?
Is science your friend too? ... Science was a friend
to Peter Parker (Spider-Man) but not soo much for
the Green Goblin, Doc Oc, or Dr. Connors... I guess
it is not wise to trust either science, or art.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 3:28:24 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 28, 2012 3:38:58 PM PST
There is an argument in this movie Art has with this African American guy,
Where he says to him, Would you give up your kid?
And the African American guy says coldly, He's not your kid.
In other words, his advice to Art is,
Abandon the child... Save yourself..
Why did the director choose to cast the guy who did not care about the welfare of the child with an African American actor?
I see this kind of casting, over and over, where the person you hate
happens to be played by an African American.
It is as if "they" hope to create some kind of pavlovian response mechanism in the audience,
so that when they see an African American male, they might immediately
assume incompetence, coldness, lack of intelligence, and other negative traits.
(If the message is, Skin colour does not
matter, but behaviour does, well, that is an
odd way of stating that message.)
Of course, one could also argue and say, Why does the main character always look like he could fall back on
his other career, as a model for a menswear magazine?
I think it was Roger Ebert who once observed how photogenic American actors appeared,
compared to European actors, who look like everyday
Americans, rather than super-buff models (male, or female)...
Who would they cast if the French
foreign film, 'Trop Belle pour Toi'
(Too Beautiful for you) was "Made in
America"? At the risk of offending
somebody, I will not venture to say
who might play the character the
car salesman falls for...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 7:55:26 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 12:01:13 PM PST
Star Bux says:
Yeah, I think Michael J. Fox was supposed to play the Green Goblin,
but he had a scheduling conflict : Of course, being able to put "experience
with hoverboard technology" on his resume would have been a plus when
going in for the auditions for Spider-Man (Toby McGuire, Kirsten Dunst)...
And Pierce Brosnan was supposed to play Doc Oc, but then producers
thought that the audience would not find "Remington Steele" believable as a
nuclear physicist. Ironically, Denise Richards would end up playing a nuclear
physicist alongside Pierce Brosnan in the movie 'The World is Not Enough'.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 2:56:42 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 29, 2012 3:22:11 PM PST
Thinking (or imagining) something does not make it true (or real).

I think '2+3=7' does not make it true.
"I think, officer, you have the wrong guy".
Can an honest person avoid stormtroopers?
"These are not the droids you are looking for"... Did Obi Wan, lie?
Mere suggestion? Or perhaps he meant, "These are the droids
your superiors are looking for, but these are not the droids you
ought to be looking for"? I think Obi Wan would have made for
a competent attorney.

Sarcasm is when you say one thing, but mean another.
It does not translate well in written form,
for how can one say what was meant, when one cannot discern
the voice behind the words?
Wherefore, abstain from sarcasm, and stay in "logic space".
My guess is you meant "I think" as in "I think the moon is made of green cheese" and
was not using a sarcastic tone.

"He soo black" - that could mean anything. If a music critic wrote that of
the song 'Respect Yourself' by Bruno, would you say he was being sarcastic,
or complementary?

Perhaps only the truly innocent, and most righteous, would ask, "What is a lie?"

(Which was not what Pontius Pilate said. But Pilate did proclaim his innocence.)

Perhaps truth is a matter of interpreting correctly what was said?
If you desire truth, would you ever hear a lie? "I have no idea what
that means - speak English"... "So when you said,... I of course assumed you
meant..." Believe you not that Truth is in Love, and Love is in Truth?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 3:37:04 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 12:43:33 PM PST
Star Bux says:
OK.. I was being sarcastic.
But I think, "I think" could mean "Let me paint you a picture" referring to the hypothetical, or imaginary.
To wit, I do not think (nor believe) MJF was ever considered for the part of the Green Goblin.
Happy now?

That said, do movies reflect reality, or do they affect (program, predict, cause) reality?
JFK once said, Some like to look at the way things are, and ask, Why?
I like to look at the way things could be, and ask, Why not?

And so movies, can help some think of the way things could be,
and help others see the way things are.

I think it is wise to do both, See the way things are, and ask why they are so, but to also
consider possibilites, alternatives, see the way things could be, and ask, Why not?
For example, have you ever walked by an adoption agency,
and saw a poster of an African American man with his Eurasian wife,
adopting a blue-eyed, blonde-haired boy?
Movies can be "escapist entertainment" or like "a jolt of coffee" - an awakening experience.

And with respect to a music critic who would write "He soo black", I would say that such
is at a loss for words.

Also, not all falsehoods can be called "lies" for some falsehoods are useful (originate from
good intentions - loving kindness) ; A useful falsehood is love's illusion. For example,
without fantasy, many may never have been born. But would you falsely accuse
Adolf Hitler of wrongdoing? Did Al Capone really cheat on his income taxes? And
if Capone was framed because the FBI could not find enough evidence (or any) to
convict Capone on charges such as murder, would framing Capone using techniques
of forensic accounting to imprison him be truly just? How about falsely accusing
some guy named 'Blain', for the sole reason that you think his name sounds like a
kitchen appliance? Is that statement true? : "All's fair in love and war"? ... "I
cannot keep a secret - he did it.. that guy, Adolf"... "I wish people would stop calling
me, Ducky"... (slang, for 'evasive', or 'prone to misdirection', or a referece to a movie?)
And would you call that a lie, telling somebody what he wants to hear, rather than
choosing to answer his questions? "Can I go now?" ... I think the righteous think about
these things, whereas the wicked seem not to be troubled by such moral dilemnas...
After "9-11", 'kangaroo courts' and torture became legitimate tools for the US goverment
to fight "terrorism", in the name of 'Homeland Security'.

A name... A label... A guy named Art... If you call a bag, a shopping bag, will you not
think of filling it with items marred by price tags, a bag "to be used for purchasing
stuff only"? Words can limit you, or they can expand your horizon... What does, "A bird
in the hand is worth two in the bush" mean? Sounds like, A quarter in the hand is worth
two in the pocket... "Got a quarter?" .. In what sense, can art be a friend? Jon Bon Jovi
(the rock band) once put out an LP, or CD, called 'Slippery when wet' ; The art cover
consisted of a bag filled with water, with condensation upon it, and a yellow traffic-sign-like
warning sticker with the title 'Slippery when wet' on it... How do you interpret words?
Subjectively? Poetry vs. legalese, art can help you see, things you would otherwise not
consider, or help you NOT see what you would rather not see. The challenge for you
perhaps being to think no evil thoughts. It is written, Charity thinks no evil (and not,
Charity thinks, "no evil"). Mapart - a useful word.

That said, sometimes a song is soo pleasant that one wonders if it is not a case of
"angelic possession". You compare U2's 'Joshua Tree' album, with albums that preceded
that one, and you have to wonder... Well, OK, you do not HAVE to wonder. Again, it
is written, Charity thinks no evil. But seriously, would you put Bruno, or Bon Jovi, in
the same category as U2? I think not.

The (or, A) point being : Singing, and Saying, are two different concepts.
Words, are words. But a voice, can tell you something the words by themselves
might not. The way an actor chooses to say a line, is a choice, an interpretation.
Words which appear in the Bible (kjv) there meanings are "inviolable", are not to be
subjectively interpreted, but their meanings to be searched for, sought after, in
the hope that their meanings be revealed to you. For the Word of God is Truth.
And so if a word appears in the Bible (kjv) it has a meaning. But is that meaning
correctly defined by a dictionary.

Mercury Rising... MERC.. you are.. Y... This word MERCY is about HEALING, repentance
even, but NOT forgiveness, as a dictionary might suggest (say). How do I know this?
Well, that is a good question... Now, your neighbour is he who shows you mercy.
How close to God are you? In contrast, your enemy is not your neighbour. It is written,
Thou shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbour.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 10:25:14 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 4, 2012 10:35:10 AM PST
What is 'Chutzpah"?

Do you seriously think that a godly man would
fabricate evidence against an "Adolf Hitler", or an "Al Capone", if
no evidence of wrongdoing could be found by legal
means to put what is apparently a dangerous person
in prison? For no matter how obviously apparent is the guilt,
would not a godly person wonder why God has forbidden such
evidence to be obtained by legal means? "Well, we cannot get
Goliath on unpaid parking tickets, so I guess that's that, right?"
But Goliath's guilt was really obvious, for he did what he did in
the sight of all. (Did O.J. Simpson really do it? And why do
newspaper articles omit the periods in his name?)

To shed blood, and to shed innocent blood, how abhorrent is
that, to you? A student once asked a rabbi why it was that a
cow had to be slaughtered the way it is slaughtered, rather
than a swift chop to the back of the neck, severing the spine
immediately, and avoiding the sight of much blood... And the
rabbi replied, "That is precisely the point - we have to see the
blood. We have to know that this is how we get our food". Was
the LORD more pleased with David, then they who wondered what
to do about Goliath? But then, it is written that the LORD was with
David that day. He selected five stones from a brook, as opposed
to from the ground that God had cursed. He only used one...
A hand : 4 fingers, and one more, called a thumb. After Goliath
fell down dead, David cut off his head using Goliath's own sword...
I think when he did that, it was like a prayer. He did not need to
do it, for Goliath was already dead, but by cutting off Goliath's head,
it was as if he was saying, Behold, he repenteth, I hope.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 10:42:37 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 4, 2012 10:45:28 AM PST
I have to say, I feel ambivalence towards this film,
Mercury Rising. The reason is, the kid is simply not very
sympathetic. I often wondered if he got hit by a car, or an
assassin's bullet, would I feel for him, anymore than
say the villains in the movie, 'True Lies'?
Remember the scene where Art Malik's character ends up on
the tail end of the fighter jet?
I think I felt more sympathy for that guy than this kid.

Sorry. I know how horrible that must sound to some.
What next? Loves cats, hates puppies?
But seriously, check out a movie called,
D.A.R.Y.L. - the kid is totally sympathetic.

D.A.R.Y.L. -
Everytime another child, or an adult, approaches him, you feel for Daryl, and
cannot help but think, "Look out Daryl, he is attempting to brain-poison you".
And sure enough, his first (and perhaps only childhood friend,
turtle) brain-poisons Daryl by teaching him to say the word, Hooker.
Later, Daryl asks Turtle's sister, What does hooker mean?,
and she throws a pillow at him, no doubt thinking he is making
fun of her. But we know intuitively, that a hooker,
is a fisherman, for when Turtle spoke to Daryl, he did so beside a lake, where perchance persons come to fish.

But this kid - very annoying. I also had little sympathy for the kid who would grow up
to be Darth Vader in the first of the Star Wars prequels - he was annoying to.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012 12:48:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 8, 2012 1:34:29 PM PST
Star Bux says:
Assburger kids (see, Asperger syndrome) - What they call, a 'thong',
(pronounced "thong" and NOT pronounced "tongue" - or better yet,
not pronounced at all - "the unmentionables"),
we call, a 'spanky'...

Something about 'horizontal stripes' - wish this movie was released
in a 'full screen' format. But "they" wish to promote illiteracy - widescreen
brain mentality - see "the barcode"? English is read in a horizontal fashion.
They who like to read, are more interested in persons than in landscape.
The Church is a She ; The world is a he.

Before books were invented, a person would hold up and read from, a scroll...
Something about horizontal lines of code.
And some code is necessary, whereas poetry, slang, etc. is not.

Bad robots need good code.
Imagine if somebody went around killing others
who called him a "shopping bag" and left a note
explaining why. Would people stop accusing him,
and others, without evidence to support their
accusations? Would they stop "her ass ing" that
person - seeking to "know him"? Would such
arguably violent actions (violence is the immoral use
of force) create a society where such labels were
no longer used? This word 'homosexual' does not
appear in the Bible (kjv) - so why should it be allowed
to exist in dictionaries, especially given the pain such
words have caused many? 90% of all "suicide fatalities"
are male. Why is that fact not generally known? An
"attempted suicide" is NOT a "suicide", but another way
of saying, "I'm depressed, and want attention". Beware
of sodomites and feminazis. That said, Mel Gibson's movie,
The Man Without A Face, is far better than this movie.
So, if you are on a budget, get that one, and D.A.R.Y.L.
instead of 'Mercury Rising'... And, no, it is not nice to make
fun of "the mentally different" - they who process information
differently than others.

D.A.R.Y.L. : Data Analyzing Robot Youth Lifeform.

The purpose of organized religion, what is called "Christianity"
has been for about two thousand years to legitimize what the
Bible (kjv) calls abomination - namely the act of a man lying down
with mankind as with womankind. Catholic priests are sodomites,
and Protestant pastors abuse women. They are "racists" who have
been preaching that "white" men are to use "black" men as slaves,
or kill them, while "breeding with" coloured women - to further "the
kingdom". THAT is their religion, their "useful falsehoods", their lies -
murder, and thievery has been their intent. To evildoers, that which
enables them to do evil, they call useful... And they who wake up,
especially children, are immediately targeted by them, so that the
Truth might not be heard... Beware of man-made words, such as
'apology' or 'sorry' - for such are as "rorshach tests", meanings unknown.
Are they full of remorse? Do they repent? No - consider how no "white"
politician condemns what is called 'ebonics' as a policy of child abuse,
which is what it truly is.

From an episode of 'The X-Files' :
"They're drones, Mr. Mulder. They have
no need for language." - Jeremiah Smith.

And if these wicked rulers should say to the mountains,
Cover us, so that we may be hid from the Wrath of LOVE,
do you think the mountains will comply with their request,
and not rather say, "Why should we, for ye have it coming"?

It is written, Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Your neighbour... How close to God are you?
You might covet something that belongs to your enemy.
However, it is written : Thou shalt not steal.
When one nation-state asks another to disarm, that is not
stealing, but it may be coveting those "weapons of mass destruction".
But how close to God is that nation-state which makes such a request?
And if all the nation-states be "secular", how should a Believer behave
toward what is called "government"? There is always an angelic government
to answer to - a minister of wrath, for example, who wields a sword. Trust
in things invisible. A sword you may not see, yet feel, pressing upon your
neck, on occasion, admonishing you : Are you one of us?

Only True Believers are able to say that
Jesus is THE Lord : "Jesus Christ is Lord".
The letter 't' in 'Christ' is NOT a "silent letter"
as it is in 'castle'.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 11:19:48 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 5, 2012 11:23:14 AM PST
Well Starbux, as David Letterman might say,
Stop breaking the pill in half; swallow it whole.

But seriously, lying is a serious offense. As it is written,
Lying lips are abomination unto the LORD, but they that
deal truly are his delight. See, Proverbs 12:22, kjv.

So, some are terrified of making a false statement, confusing poetry with legalese.
Intent, matters, perhaps more so than spoken words.
Many science teachers say to their students that "the earth" is flat,
when in fact, it is composed of hills and valleys. And neither is it a giant "orb" or "sphere" floating in "outer space".
But that is what they tell their students. And though their statements be false,
that does not mean that they have lied. Indeed, science is a collection of useful falsehoods. The square root of negative one is an imaginary number,
but electrical engineers (and perhaps others) find it useful.

More to the point, I do not wish to convey the notion that it is OK to tell a lie,
or to make false statements. Accounting fraud is a serious offense, and financial markets can (and will) devolve into casinos,
if statements of ownership, or record of assets and liabilities can be altered with a keyboard entry.
Do you wish to see 'American Capitalism' disappear? For the enemies of America do.

Again, I do not wish to be seen as providing a course of action to take to them who wish to
commit acts of accounting fraud, deception, or other acts of "terrorism".
But what godly person has not wondered what he would say if the SS
showed up at his door to ask, Are you hiding Jews in the attic? Knowing that the LORD abhors
lying lips? Nevertheless, if you give some permission to do evil,
they will do it. It is not always a question of, Would you do it for 4 scooby snacks? How about for "free parking for a month"?
No, some will simply do evil when given the freedom to do so.

That said, asking myself that question : It is a time and place of great darkness - Nazi Germany...
I would look upon that SS solider as if he was an ATM machine, and give the response
(or punch in the code) that would get me what I seek : "There - are - no - Jews - here." Five words, do not
necessarily constitute a sentence.

... Lips that deal truly. Again, see Proverbs 12:22, kjv.
... Judas Iscariot (was that his last name?),
betrayed the master with a kiss.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 6, 2012 2:51:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 6, 2012 3:21:11 PM PST
Star Bux says:
I remember reading a 'Superman' comic book, #301,
where Superman is confronted with an angry Solomon Grundy
(was that guy, "white", or what?).
Grundy has escaped from Earth 2, and is searching for his counterpart, the Solomon Grundy
of earth 1 - because he is lonely, knowing not another, and would like a friend.
But people on earth 1 get in his way, and he begins to demolish things ; Enter, Superman.

Superman disguises himself as Solomon Grundy (of earth 1) and convinces Solomon Grundy
(of earth 2) to go to the moon with him, where the two will no longer be alone, and despised
(or threatened) by others. And then having got there (Solomon Grundy cannot fly, but
Superman can), Superman removes his disguise and leaves Grundy there.

It is for the public good, this deception, but Superman hates how he has deceived Grundy,
that simpleton, a child's mind in a monster's body.

So, the question is, Did Superman lie? I think he did, for he hurt Solomon Grundy's chances to find
his brother, the other Solomon Grundy. Sure, the others, the members of the public are better off
now that Grundy is on the Lunar surface, that prison.

But is that just? If only one person is hurt by deception,
does that deception then not become a lie,
rather than a "useful falsehood"?
Was Grundy really threatening anybody, or were they simply frightened of him?
Was Grundy a victim, or a victimizer?

2 Grundys? : That is not love if one encourages another to do evil.
Though it be called "consensual", or "unanimous", a decision arrived through
a democratic process to do evil, is yet evil. Sometimes, the collective,
whether it be 2 Grundys, the Legion of Doom, or the Blue Cross, has a lower
IQ than an individual who joins such an organization. If Grundy by himself
had difficulty discerning between good and bad, would "hanging out" with
another Grundy have helped him? I think it was Satre who said, "Hell is other
people". And since Satre did not believe in an "after life" it seems safe to
conclude that what he meant was that we choose our own hell by our
decisions to "hang out" with the persons we do : OK, that is not my thought,
but that is how I remember Rita Summers (Alyssa Milano) explaining Satre's
comment in the movie, 'Confessions of a Sorority Girl'... Cannot see Superman
and Solomon Grundy, ever being friends.

Superman #301, an interesting read.

Y'know, the only time the moon is spotless, is during an eclipse, when it is "all-black".
And the number of sand by the seashore should not be confused with the colour of
sand by the seashore... The point being, they use language as a weapon, to do much
evil. Words, language, ought to be used to heal. And yes, sometimes a surgeon needs
to cut, in order to heal, it would seem. Who is, A good physician? "Use the Force Luke,
the Force" ... Umm, that could mean anything.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›

Review Details