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

Nouvelle Vague

Published

on

Nouvelle Vague

Netflix delivers a black-and-white biopic of famed French New Wave director Jean-Luc Godard and the making of his first feature film, Breathless. The movie delivers a compelling look at the filmmaking process. But harsh (if limited) language, suggestive moments, some spiritual fumbling and constant smoking could make this a tricky film to navigate.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

“Sentimental Value” Lacks the Focus to Cut Deep – The Wesleyan Argus

Published

on

“Sentimental Value” Lacks the Focus to Cut Deep – The Wesleyan Argus
c/o The Hollywood Reporter

The pre-release screening of “Sentimental Value,” which played on Saturday, Nov. 8 at the Goldsmith Family Cinema, was both confusing and simple. A collection of vaguely assorted scenes with a lack of focus, the movie was also an interesting exploration into a troubled family desperate to improve. Although I understand why a lot of people like this movie, I think “Sentimental Value” could’ve been much better.

There were some elements I just didn’t understand. I’m not knowledgeable about the film industry or film production, so there were some references that I didn’t get. I wonder if I would like the movie more if I understood the film buff references and the jokes related to Norwegian culture, both of which flew over my head. I mean, this is quite literally a film about filmmaking. I feel similarly whenever an author focuses on their craft so directly: It detracts from the movie. It’s like a writer writing about writing; it feels almost redundant. 

The movie has a relatively simple plot that’s filled in with a lot of character scenes. In short, the film focuses on the lives and journeys of two sisters, Agnes and Nora. Their father, Gustav, was a film director, but he left them both. Agnes has a child, while Nora remains single and focuses on her acting career. The general plot structure is fine, and I actually think Gustav is a really chilly character, in an unsettling way. His very presence brings an air of unease into every scene he’s in. The character of Gustav is really intriguing and shines far above most of the other characters in the film. 

The central flaw of the movie is how unfocused it is. There are a lot of scenes that seem to be there to show off cinematography more than anything else. The film employs swift cuts to black between scenes, which is quite jarring and leaves little room for cohesion. It makes it seem like the director doesn’t know how to transition between scenes and is just throwing them together. I think there should’ve been a clearer sense of temporality to the movie with the past and present divided into separate worlds because right now, the flashback scenes look and feel basically the same as the modern-day scenes. I will say the camera quality and minute-to-minute cinematography is well crafted, but it’s not perfect.

I will give a huge amount of praise to the music, which is rich and fulfilling. I almost wonder if “Sentimental Value” would be better as a playlist than as a movie. The soundtrack is warm and comforting, fitting right into the movie and enhancing each scene. 

Advertisement

We also get a slight hint of WW2 and Nazi elements in the movie, with Nora and Agnes’ family being victims. This is more of a backdrop than a main focus, which is a bit unfortunate. I wonder how the movie would be different if they made this historical context a primary focus. They could’ve explored the impact of wartime trauma destroying families across generations. 

Also, speaking of missed opportunities…

It’s both interesting and sad how Agnes’ child, Erik, is the least boring part of “Sentimental Value.” He almost feels like the emotional center here, in a subplot where Gustav wants to have his grandchild play a role in his movie. Gustav wants to relive his golden years and connect with his grandchildren, but Agnes is still wary of him and doesn’t want to. I was quite invested in this conflict across three generations, and I wanted to see more of it. Sadly, it doesn’t go anywhere. It reminds me of another film, “Happyend” (2024), where there’s a balanced sibling-like relationship with two characters, done much better than “Sentimental Value.” Here, the focus is primarily on Nora, and Agnes really doesn’t have much screen time. I think the storyline with Agnes and Erik should’ve been a major part of the story. This plot could’ve ended many ways: either with Agnes realizing her child should bond with their grandpa, or Gustav realizing not to control his family.

The lack of this conclusion makes me wonder if there was a practical consideration about the difficulty of working with child actors. Even then, there were better ways to end that story! This brings me back to the lack of structure within the movie; it needed to have better pacing to make the story work. As it stands, the ending of “Sentimental Value” falls flat.

“Sentimental Value” is a film with a lot of room for improvement, if only the filmmaker had sorted out the disorganized nature and lack of focus within the movie. In the end, however, I can somewhat appreciate what it went for. Even if the execution wasn’t the best, the atmosphere, characters, and music made for a pretty fascinating movie. 

Advertisement

Total rating: 3 stars

Atharv Dimri can be reached at adimri@wesleyan.edu.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Keeper review – romance goes to hell in effectively eerie horror

Published

on

Keeper review – romance goes to hell in effectively eerie horror

For the past few years, horror cinema has sometimes felt as fraught with toxic romance as a particularly cursed dating app. From manipulated meet-cutes (Fresh; Companion) to long-term codependence (Together) to the occasional success story (Heart Eyes), it’s clear that romantic relationships are mostly blood-stained hell, and a couple going to a secluded location together is a fresh level of it.

So it’s not surprising when Liz (Tatiana Maslany) starts to feel uneasy on her weekend away with Malcolm (Rossif Sutherland) early on in the new and much-concealed horror movie Keeper. Liz and Malcolm have been together for about a year, which we gather early on has marked the time Liz has bolted from past relationships. Still, she seems optimistic about this one. She thinks she knows Malcolm pretty well, and their early scenes together are neither as dotted with red flags nor as suspiciously idyllic as other recent characters in the doomed-couple genre. Liz has a wary, deadpan sense of humor, and Malcolm has a slightly slurred-together accent as he explains some oddities about his family-owned cabin in the woods (like the fact that he has a creepy cousin who lives nearby). But their awkwardness levels are complementary. They seem comfortable together.

Osgood Perkins, the director, introduces discord through his shot choices, rather than micro-aggressions or backstory. Liz and Malcolm’s faces are rarely outright hidden, but they’re often partially obscured, shown from odd angles, or framed in shots with a disconcerting amount of headroom. This establishes a pattern of disorientation that continues as Liz thinks she hears faint noises through the house’s vents. When she relaxes in the house’s posh tub, there’s an intensely memorable superimposition of the nearby river rushing all around her, as if she’s about to transcend space and time. “I feel like I took mushrooms,” she tells a friend she calls when she’s left alone at the cabin. Her friend asks if she did, in fact, take mushrooms; Liz doesn’t answer directly.

For a while, Keeper – named for Liz’s supposed status as the woman in Malcolm’s life – seems like it could go in any number of directions, its horror elements mixed together in a dreamlike jumble. Is it a ghost story, a slasher-in-the-woods movie, or just a really bad trip? Perkins, a horror specialist who has been on a prolific run for the past 18 months with another movie due out next year, makes it difficult to tell, both in-movie (so many of the creepiest early moments are moments just out of focus or in the corner of the eye) and extra-textually; his last two films were the tonally distinct serial-killer freakout Longlegs and the Final Destination-ish horror comedy The Monkey. This eclecticism, combined with Keeper’s elusive and spoiler-averse ad campaign, could make the new film feel to some like a shell game designed to dress up what is, at its core, a pretty simple horror story.

Advertisement

Maybe it is that. But part of what makes Perkins’ film so refreshing is the way it prioritizes its visceral effect on an audience over a desire to bend that story into a modern relationship parable. As clever as so many contemporary horror movies are, they often write toward theme rather than shooting toward immediacy. As a result, some are starved for original imagery, unexpected juxtapositions or a sense of genuine, uncanny mystery. Keeper has all of this, and Perkins knows just how far to push those elements without allowing the movie to become abstract woo-woo self-indulgence.

He also seems to know what a powerful grounding element he has in Maslany, who isn’t called upon to do the usual virtuoso demo reel of a woman on the verge of oblivion. Liz does get freaked out by the strange things that happen around her, and the character is written and performed with a certain directness. (She’s not one of those horror heroines who inexplicably avoids asking what the hell is going on.) Yet Maslany delivers a second level to her performance in her unguarded moments: a cynical flick of her eyes in one direction or another, the tenuousness of her more polite smiles, the shorthand of both her familiarity and quickness to irritation with her unseen friend on the phone. Though no particular skeleton key to her traumatic past awaits, the character still feels complete.

That’s true of the movie as a whole, too. It’s not as rich as Sinners nor as narratively ambitious as Weapons, two of 2025’s standard-bearers for original horror. But when Keeper finishes up, its tight confines feel satisfying, correct and unlikely to spawn a sequel. That tidiness drives home some of its themes in a way that the more overt messaging of other dating-hell stories don’t always manage: maybe it takes a fable-like horror for the messy business of relationships to stay so neatly kept.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending