Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Time Bomb Y2K Movie Review – Book and Film Globe

Published

on

Time Bomb Y2K Movie Review – Book and Film Globe

A found-footage documentary on Max about when we thought the world was going to end, but actually took steps to prevent that from happening

Documentaries editorialize. No one likes to admit it, but it’s true. With the right emphasis and the right omissions, a documentary can make nearly any kind of partisan argument while pretending to be objective, and these days most of them do. So Time Bomb Y2K from Max is a remarkably pleasant surprise in that it copiously avoids trying to making any kind of clear thesis statement. Instead, the documentary relies entirely on nineties-era archival material to present the situation of what exactly Y2K was, why it was such a big deal, and why nothing came of it.

 A short primer: Early computer programs in the 70s tended to assume that the date of the year consists of only two digits as a sort of space-saving measure for limited operating systems. So when the internal calendars on these computers hit the year 2000, they’d actually roll over and assume they were back in the year 1900. While the problem sounds cosmetic at worst, computers are finicky devices. Y2K stress tests conducted throughout the 90s showed that many important systems, like timed sewage-release valves, would react unpredictably and often disastrously in response to this simulated time travel.

Actual computer engineers were well aware of the problem, and even in the earliest days pushed for a full four digits, but  managers who mainly needed software that worked until the end of their six-year contracts, and needed that software as quickly as possible, bullied them out of permanent solutions. The flawed software became the foundation for later software, magnifying the potential scope of the problem.

Advertisement

There was a lot of panic about Y2K, much of it deliberate, that nearly anyone who was alive during this time period at least vaguely remembers. The famed Y2K Czar Peter de Jagar was constantly out on the media telling anybody who would listen about the Y2K bug and the need to fix it. Here’s where the story gets muddy–Peter de Jagar actually succeeded in getting major corporations and governments to listen to him. Much of the footage in Time Bomb Y2K is of then-president Bill Clinton and then-vice president Al Gore talking about Y2K, and what they and others are doing to fix the problem. News reports also discuss the small armies of bug hunters who test Y2K simulations and, in the end, manage to solve nearly all of the potential knock-on effects.

We should see what happened with Y2K as one of the greatest success stories of the information era, of humanity identifying a potentially major problem, treating it seriously, and ultimately solving it. Yet Y2K lives on in the modern zeitgeist as an example of extreme hysteria over nothing. Much of this is justified because in the final days of 1999, Y2K was a bunch of extreme hysteria over nothing. Peter de Jagar stops being an alarmist and instead goes on television to say that yes, all of this could have been very bad, but it won’t be now.

But the news media didn’t take this approach. Alarmism was the far more popular story. So it is that, come 2023, we remember Y2K far more for the negative outgrowths of this hysteria, showing up in shows like The Righteous Gemstones as a cause of extreme religious militancy. Everyone remembers the doomsday prepper industry that got a boost due to Y2K. Nobody remembers how people manufactured the Y2K crisis in 1999 by rehashing the arguments Peter de Jagar made in previous years without contextualizing the ultimate responses to these arguments.

Time Bomb Y2K is very careful not to editorialize. But it’s difficult to watch Time Bomb Y2K and not make some very obvious takeaways about the crises of yesteryear and the crises of today. For starters, it feels bizarre that Bill Clinton and Al Gore could go on TV just looking and sounding like normal people with a basic layman’s understanding of how the bug works. We are, in this country, very far removed from a political situation where our leaders could sound basically cogent, and at the current rate, it’ll be at least five years before there’s even a chance that could change.

But more than the image of political and corporate leadership, the actions of nineties-era leaders to Y2K stands out as being a bit incomprehensible. The status quo of our public life right now is that we acknowledge a crisis exists and…that’s it. We argue about whether or not a crisis exists. And even the people who claim to believe the crisis exists don’t seem especially interested in actually doing anything about it. Whether our imminent demise is supposed happen because of climate change, or COVID, Russia winning the war in Ukraine, or Trump retaking the presidency, the people making the strongest claims support remarkably weak measures when it comes to preventing these crises, and prioritize attacking so-called deniers over pushing any kind of actual proactive agenda.

Advertisement

Contrast this to Peter de Jagar in Time Bomb Y2K, asserting simply, and forcefully, that crisis will come unless an army of bug testers  assembles to repair all the flawed code. The argument this documentary makes, entirely passively, is that crises are solvable as long as we’re willing to put in the hard work to actually solve them. This statement is so tautological it’s easy to see why the memory of what exactly happened with Y2K has fallen by the wayside. By contrast, we live in an era where of unsolvable chronic crisis; the notion that we can solve problems seems like sheer magical thinking.

Indeed, the sheer mundanity of Time Bomb Y2K’s archival footage underscores how alien the ideas of yesteryear seem to us today. Peter de Jagar scared people, but he wasn’t an alarmist, nor did he much care about the limelight, disappearing from public life entirely once we averted the crisis he was warning people about. Does Time Bomb Y2K fail to interview Peter de Jagar in the modern day because he refused, or because the documentary’s concept is to focus on how society perceived Y2K at the time, rather than in retrospect? Did Peter de Jagar disappear out of humility, or because in the wake of nothing really happening, he seemed like a fraud?

Time Bomb Y2K doesn’t answer questions like this. Instead, it makes two simple assertions. Y2K was real. That didn’t make it unstoppable.

 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review – SHAKA: A STORY OF ALOHA

Published

on

Movie Review – SHAKA: A STORY OF ALOHA
SHAKA: A STORY OF ALOHA is shared with the audience by investigator Steve Sue in a calm and charming manner, but this documentary tells a powerful, positive and fascinating story. The “hang loose” thumb, pinky sign that originated in Hawaii and carries many meanings is the focus of this film. I just learned this gesture is called a “Shaka” and has a worldwide impact.  And, there are Shaka Contests.  Who knew? And how do you throw a Shaka? For me, […]
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: “I Was a Stranger” and You Welcomed Me

Published

on

Movie Review: “I Was a Stranger” and You Welcomed Me

Just when you think that you’ve seen and heard all sides of the human migration debate, and long after you fear that the cruel, the ignorant and the scapegoaters have won that shouting match, a film comes along and defies ignorance and prejudice by both embracing and upending the conventional “immigrant” narrative.

“I Was a Strranger” is the first great film of 2026. It’s cleverly written, carefully crafted and beautifully-acted with characters who humanize many facets of the “migration” and “illegal immigration” debate. The debut feature of writer-director Brandt Andersen, “Stranger” is emotional and logical, blunt and heroic. It challenges viewers to rethink their preconceptions and prejudices and the very definition of “heroic.”

The fact that this film — which takes its title from the Book of Matthew, chapter 25, verse 35 — is from the same faith-based film distributor that made millions by feeding the discredited human trafficking wish fulfillment fantasy “Sound of Freedom” to an eager conservative Christian audience makes this film something of a minor miracle in its own right.

But as Angel Studios has also urged churchgoers not just to animated Nativity stories (“The King of Kings”) and “David” musicals, but Christian resistence to fascism (“Truth & Treason” and “Bonheoffer”) , their atonement is almost complete.

Andersen deftly weaves five compact but saga-sized stories about immigrants escaping from civil-war-torn Syria into a sort of interwoven, overlapping “Babel” or “Crash” about migration.

Advertisement

“The Doctor” is about a Chicago hospital employee (Yasmine Al Massri of “Palestine 36” and TV’s “Quantico”) whose flashback takes us to the hospital in Aleppo, Syria, bombed and terrorized by the Assad regime’s forces, and what she and her tween daughter (Massa Daoud) went through to escape — from literally crawling out of a bombed building to dodging death at the border to the harrowing small boat voyage from Turkey to Greece.

“The Soldier” follows loyal Assad trooper Mustafa (Yahya Mahayni was John the Baptist in Martin Scorsese Presents: The Saints”) through his murderous work in Aleppo, and the crisis of conscience that finally hits him as he sees the cruel and repressive regime he works for at its most desperate.

“The Smuggler” is Marwan, a refugee-camp savvy African — played by the terrific French actor Omar Sy of “The Intouchables” and “The Book of Clarence” — who cynically makes his money buying disposable inflatable boats, disposable outboards and not-enough-life-jackets in Turkey to smuggle refugees to Greece.

“The Poet” (Ziad Bakri of “Screwdriver”) just wants to get his Syrian family of five out of Turkey and into Europe on Marwan’s boat.

And “The Captain” (Constantine Markoulakis of “The Telemachy”) commands a Hellenic Coast Guard vessel, a man haunted by the harrowing rescues he must carry out daily and visions of the bodies of those he doesn’t.

Advertisement

Andersen, a Tampa native who made his mark producing Tom Cruise spectacles (“American Made”), Mel Gibson B-movies (“Panama”) and the occasional “Everest” blockbuster, expands his short film “Refugee” to feature length for “I Was a Stranger.” He doesn’t so much alter the formula or reinvent this genre of film as find points of view that we seldom see that force us to reconsider what we believe through their eyes.

Sy’s Smuggler has a sickly little boy that he longs to take to Chicago. He runs his ill-gotten-gains operation, profiting off human misery, to realize that dream. We see glimpses of what might be compassion, but also bullying “customers” and his new North African assistant (Ayman Samman). Keeping up the hard front he shows one and all, we see him callously buy life jackets in the bazaar — never enough for every customer to have one in any given voyage.

The Captain sits for dinner with family and friends and has to listen to Greek prejudices and complaints about this human life and human rights crisis, which is how the worlds sees Greece reacting to this “invasion.” But as he and his first mate recount lives saved and the horrors of lives lost, that quibbling is silenced.

Here and there we see and hear (in Arabic and Greek with subtitles, and English) little moments of “rising above” human pettiness and cruelty and the simple blessings of kindness.

Advertisement

“I Was a Stranger” was finished in 2024 and arrives in cinemas at one of the bleakest moments in recent history. Cruelty is running amok, unchecked and unpunished. Countries are being destabilized, with the fans of alleged “strong man” rule cheering it on.

Andersen carefully avoids politics — Middle Eastern, Israeli, European and American — save for the opening scene’s zoom in on that Chicago hospital, passing a gaudily named “Trump” hotel in the process, and a general condemnation of Syria’s Assad mob family regime.

But Andersen’s bold movie, with its message so against the grain of current events, compromised media coverage and the mostly conservative audience that has become this film distributor’s base, plays like a wet slap back to reality.

And as any revival preacher will tell you, putting a positive message out there in front of millions is the only way to convert hundreds among the millions who have lost their way.

star

Rating: PG-13, violence, smoking, racial slurs

Cast: Yasmine Al Massri, Yahya Mahayni, Ziad Bakri, Omar Sy, Ayman Samman, Massa Daoud, Jason Beghe and Constantine Markoulakis

Advertisement

Credits: Scripted and directed by Brandt Andersen. An Angel Studios release.

Running time: 1:43

Unknown's avatar

About Roger Moore

Movie Critic, formerly with McClatchy-Tribune News Service, Orlando Sentinel, published in Spin Magazine, The World and now published here, Orlando Magazine, Autoweek Magazine

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘The Tank’ Review: A War Film More Abstract Than Brutal (Prime Video) – Micropsia

Published

on

‘The Tank’ Review: A War Film More Abstract Than Brutal (Prime Video) – Micropsia

The Tiger Is the Tank. Or rather, the type of German tank that gives the film its international title—just in case anyone might confuse this war story with an adventure movie involving wild animals. The tank itself is the film’s container, much as The Boat was in the legendary 1981 film it openly seeks to emulate in more than one respect, or as the more recent tank was in the Israeli film Lebanon (2009). Yes, much of Dennis Gansel’s movie unfolds inside a tank called Tiger, but what it is ultimately trying to tell goes well beyond its cramped metal walls.

This large-scale Prime Video war production has been described by many as the platform’s answer to Netflix’s success with All Quiet on the Western Front, the highly decorated German film released in 2022. In practice, it is a very different proposition. Despite the fanfare surrounding its release—Amazon even gave it a theatrical run a few months ago, something it rarely does—the film made a far more modest impact. Watching it, the reasons become clear. This is a darker, stranger movie, one that flirts as much with horror as with monotony, and that positions itself less as a traditional war film than as an ethical and philosophical meditation on warfare.

The first section—an intense and technically impressive combat sequence—takes place during what would later be known as the Battle of the Dnieper, which unfolded over several months in 1943 on the Eastern Front, as Soviet forces pushed back the Nazi advance. Der Tiger is the type of tank carrying a compact platoon—played by David Schütter, Laurence Rupp, Leonard Kunz, Sebastian Urzendowsky, and Yoran Leicher—that miraculously survives the aerial destruction of a bridge over the river.

Soon afterward—or so it seems—the group is assigned a mission that, at least in its initial setup, recalls Saving Private Ryan. Lieutenant Gerkens (Schütter) is ordered to rescue Colonel Von Harnenburg, stranded behind enemy lines. From there, the film becomes a journey through an infernal landscape of ruined cities, corpses, forests, and fog—a setting that, thanks to the way it is shot, feels more fantastical than realistic.

That choice is no accident. As the journey begins to echo Apocalypse Now, it becomes clear that the film is less interested in conventional suspense—mines on the road, the threat of ambush—than in the strangeness of its situations and environments. When the tank plunges into the water and briefly operates like a submarine, one may reasonably wonder whether such technology actually existed in the 1940s, or whether the film has deliberately drifted into a more extravagant, symbolic territory.

This is the kind of film whose ending is likely to inspire more frustration than affection. Though heavily foreshadowed, it is the sort of conclusion that tends to irritate audiences: cryptic, somewhat open-ended, and more suggestive than explicit. That makes sense, given that the film is less concerned with depicting the daily mechanics of war than with grappling with its aftermath—ethical, moral, psychological, and physical.

Advertisement

In its own way, The Tank functions as a kind of mea culpa. The platoon becomes a microcosm of a nation that “followed orders” and committed—or allowed to be committed—horrific acts in its name. The flashbacks scattered throughout the film make this point unmistakably clear. The problem is that, while these ideas may sound compelling when summarized in a few sentences (or in a review), the film never manages to turn them into something fully alive—narratively, visually, or dramatically.

Only in brief moments—largely thanks to Gerkens’s perpetually worried, anguished expression—do those ideas achieve genuine cinematic weight. They are not enough, however, to sustain a two-hour runtime that increasingly feels repetitive and inert. Unlike the films by Steven Spielberg, Wolfgang Petersen, Francis Ford Coppola, and others it so clearly references, The Tank remains closer to a concept than to a drama, more an intriguing reflection than a truly effective film.


Continue Reading

Trending