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: CHUM – Assignment X

Published

on

Movie Review: CHUM – Assignment X


By ABBIE BERNSTEIN / Staff Writer


Posted: June 5th, 2026 / 09:01 PM

CHUM movie poster | ©2026 IFC

Rating: Not Rated
Stars: Alice Eve, Eric Michael Cole, Elle Haymond, Sarah Siadat, Johnny Gaffney, Lisa Yaro, Jim Klock, Vince Jolivette, Stephen Oliver
Writers: Jonathan Zuck and Joe Leone, story by Dick Grunert and Ryan R. Johnson and James Kondelik
Director: Jonathan Zuck
Distributor: IFC
Release Date: June 5, 2026

CHUM is the latest entry in the shark-obsessed-psycho-with-a-boat subgenre. It also meshes, perhaps coincidentally, with the 2024 sharks-but-no-psycho-ruin-a-Mediterranean-destination-wedding SOMETHING IN THE WATER.

Advertisement

Our narrator is Roy (Jim Klock) who, in the opening sequence, loses his wife to an enormous Great White in the sea off Malta. He begins by saying in voiceover, “You took her from me.” This is followed by a monologue about how much Roy loves his wife and includes the line, “Her scream lost in the roar of the sea.”

There isn’t anything particularly wrong with the line, except that we see the whole incident and then some – CHUM is very gore-friendly in all its shark attacks – and the woman is already underwater when the attack occurs. There’s no scream.

So, are we supposed to think that Roy’s imagination is playing tricks, or that director Jonathan Zuck and his co-writer Joe Leone, working from a story by Dick Grunert and Ryan R. Johnson and James Kondelik, aren’t paying close attention to what they’re doing? 

Roy says he spent his life on the ocean, but “when you took her, I learned something new.”

Then we cut to a wedding banquet, where proud father Reginald (Stephen Oliver) is toasting his daughter the bride Tina (Alice Eve) and her groom Tom (Eric Michael Cole). Also in attendance are Tina’s irritable younger sister Sadie (Elle Haymond), bridesmaids Rachinda (Sarah Siadat) and Britney (Lisa Yaro), and Eric’s bro-ish best man Rick (Johnny Gaffney).

Advertisement

It’s a beautiful setting and a good-looking group, but it doesn’t take long for us to realize this union may not last. Tina and Tom have had a bitter fight about something that they seem unable to resolve. Tom winds up sleeping on the beach near the tide line, while Tina passes out on their hotel room bed in her wedding gown.

The nature of the dispute turns out to be one of the best aspects of CHUM. It’s real, it’s not the clichés that we too often get about onscreen marital disputes, and it’s wholly plausible that the timing is such that the couple haven’t had to confront it earlier.

Unaware of trouble in paradise, Rick has arranged a boat outing for the wedding party (sans Dad). Tina and Tom don’t want to go, but Rick guilts them into it – renting the boat for the day cost him a fortune.

The proprietor of The Tipsy Mermaid, Captain Mackey (Vince Jolivette), welcomes the six passengers aboard. He assures shark-averse Britney that there have never been attacks in these waters.

This again makes us wonder what’s happening on a meta level. We can see that The Tipsy Mermaid is out by the same coastline that we saw in the opening, so we know there’s been at least one shark attack here. Is Captain Mackey uninformed or lying?

Advertisement

A little later, we see that the microphone on the communications panel is severed. Our minds leap toward sabotage, but – spoiler alert – no, it’s just shoddy upkeep on The Tipsy Mermaid.

In reality (and easy to Google for Mackey or anyone in the group to who knew they’d be going out to sea that day), while they are rare, there have been shark attacks off Malta.

Furthermore, Tom, who is meant to be an expert on these matters, asserts that Great Whites are strangers to these waters, but are being driven north by climate change. It’s laudable that CHUM makes climate change part of the plot (and not just because of where the shark is), but again, there is a whole actual (albeit declining) subspecies of Great Whites in the Mediterranean.

We’re trying to figure out how all this will link up with Roy and what he’s learned, and we get to that, although perhaps not the way we expect, which is another CHUM asset.

Except for when the shark needs to interact with humans and/or vessels, the animal looks realistic, like footage of a genuine Great White. We also get a variety of fish in the underwater shots, which is a nice touch.

Advertisement

But there are the common-to-the-subgenre tropes of the shark looking way too big every time she breaches and eating way too much. Also, sharks do not growl.

One key aspect of this subgenre is how intrigued we are by the human villain. Here, the link between motivation and action doesn’t stack up well against that of comparable characters (e.g., Quint in JAWS or Bruce Tucker in DANGEROUS ANIMALS).

As these kinds of movies go, CHUM is moderately diverting, but it’s easy to see where it could have been better.

Related: Movie Review: CAROLINA CAROLINE
Related: Movie Review: THE SUMMONING
Related: Movie Review: BACKROOMS
Related: Movie Review: SPEED DEMON
Related: Movie Review: PRESSURE
Related: Movie Review: PASSENGER
Related: Movie Review: I LOVE BOOSTERS
Related: TV Review: GREAT PERFORMANCES: STAGEBOUND
Related: Movie  Review: OBSESSION
Related: Movie  Review: LIFEHACK
Related: Movie  Review: IS GOD IS
Related: Movie  Review: AFFECTION
Related: Movie  Review: ITCH!
Related: Movie  Review: HOKUM
Related: Movie  Review: ANIMAL FARM
Related: Movie  Review: OVER  YOUR DEAD BODY
Related: Movie  Review: LEE CRONIN’S THE MUMMY
Related: Movie  Review: HAPPY HALLOWEEN
Related: Movie  Review: NORMAL
Related: Movie  Review: FACES OF DEATH
Related: Movie  Review: EXIT 8
Related: Movie  Review: READY OR NOT 2:  HERE I COME

Follow us on Twitter at ASSIGNMENT X
Like us on Facebook at ASSIGNMENT X

Advertisement
Article Source: Assignment X
Article: Movie Review: CHUM

Related Posts:

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Masters of the Universe Has Something to Say About Masculinity

Published

on

Masters of the Universe Has Something to Say About Masculinity

It just isn’t sure what, exactly.
Photo: Giles Keyte/Amazon MGM Studios/Everett Collection

There’s a maybe half-hour stretch of Masters of the Universe that takes place in the real world, and I have no idea why. It isn’t something the original He-Man and the Masters of the Universe cartoon felt compelled to do. The ’80s TV show, which was conceived of as an elaborate commercial for a Mattel action-figure line, was about the adventures of Adam, a brawny pageboy’d prince who transformed into the equally brawny hero of the title when he held his special sword aloft and intoned some magic words. Adam may have been half-Earthling on his mother’s side, but that was just a biographical footnote — he was an avowed citizen of Eternia, a planet where sword and sorcery elements exist alongside sci-fi ones like fighting robots and flying ships. It’s a setting made up of a bunch of shit a kid might like, mashed up together with no concern for internal logic, and the new movie can’t help but start there, too, even though that messes up its whole premise. Masters of the Universe kicks off with an introduction to Eternia in all of its kid–safe–Frank Frazetta glory, summarizing lore about the Sword of Power and its osteal resting place, Castle Grayskull, before exploring the angst of young Prince Adam (played as a child by Artie Wilkinson-Hunt), who’s small for his age and easily pushed around during weapons training. Then it flings Adam off to Oklahoma City as a refugee from the attacks of perpetual villain Skeletor (Jared Leto, allegedly), and it becomes clear that no one involved in this project has a clue how to make a tolerable product out of this aging IP.

That’s the bar everyone involved in this movie was aiming to clear, and I’m not just saying that because the “fan screening event” I attended began with a heartwarming speech from a Mattel executive about how “Masters of the Universe was one of the most important brands we wanted to bring to life” (he mentioned Travis Knight only after a long ode to their corporate producing partners). The script for the movie, which is credited to Chris Butler, Aaron Nee, Adam Nee, and Dave Callaham, feels overwhelming, like something hastily patchworked together from different passes at the story over the years, rendering some aspects repetitive and others nonsensical. Take that sojourn in Oklahoma, in which we see a grown Adam, played by Nicholas Galitzine, go on a failed date, go to his job in human resources, and go home to the apartment he shares with a roommate. There was obviously an earlier version that started here, presenting Adam as either the exiled prince of a fantastical kingdom or an office drone who made up a grandiose backstory for himself to cover up the trauma of his parents’ death. But because the movie leaves no question about our hero’s identity, the Earth interlude is not just pointless but confusing. Like, what happened when a 10-year-old dropped out of the sky with no record of previously existing? Was he adopted, and does he have any investment in the people who raised him? And why does it take him so long to find a sword that appears to have been right down the block the whole time?

Advertisement

It’s possible to make a real movie out of the most dire of corporate circumstances — even a toy line, the way Greta Gerwig did with Barbie, and the way that Knight himself, best known for heading up the stop-motion studio Laika, did with the improbably charming Transformers spinoff Bumblebee. But Masters of the Universe isn’t a real movie. It’s a bunch of half-realized, semi-contradictory ideas accrued over years. It takes the rough shape of a comedy without ever really landing a joke, up to and including the potentially great one that Eternia warriors “Fisto” and “Ram Man” aren’t actually named that, that those are just the childish labels given to them by Adam as a kid. It never decides whether it’s fan service for nostalgic adults who’ll get some juice out of a cameo from Dolph Lundgren, star of the notorious 1987 Masters of the Universe movie, or an action-adventure for kids (Alison Brie, as henchwoman Evil-Lyn, is the only cast member who seems consistently aware she’s in a comedy). It cast Leto as its big bad, despite his reputational baggage and the character’s computer-generated skull for a face, then excised the actor from all promotional events. What was the point of shelling out for his participation in the first place? (He does trill his “Rs” impressively, I guess.)

Its action sequences are marked by endless pratfalls as Adam sorts out his He-Man powers and also endless pratfalls as his former weapons teacher Duncan (Idris Elba) tries to recover from his years as a depressed drunk. This gives their scenes together the feel of two different drafts that were document merged incorrectly. (As Duncan’s hypercompetent daughter Teela, Camila Mendes is left to roll her eyes.) The movie never really decides whether its source material is to be mocked or to be approached with a more wry affection. Worst of all, Masters of the Universe is under the impression it has something to say about masculinity without deciding what that is, exactly. It’s not difficult to see how Knight and company arrived at this thesis, when working with a main character who transforms into a bulgy warrior in a loincloth wielding, as Skeletor himself points out, an incredibly phallic weapon. But it’s exasperatingly impossible to sort out how the movie delineates good masculinity from the toxic kind. The movie wants to free up its hypertough characters to talk about their feelings but also has a clear contempt for the HR speak it presents as the alternative. In his regular-guy garb, Adam acts humiliatingly out of place at the gym and then weird on a date with a model-beautiful woman, despite looking like a handsome if charmless actor who’s been training intensely for months. In his He-Man form, Adam makes a show of reluctance about embracing brute force, then rips his foes’ arms off and beats them to death.

Masters of the Universe ends by making fun of the blunt moral lessons the original animated series punctuated its episodes with but couldn’t come up with even a joking conclusion of its own if pressed. There’s something appropriate about the movie coming out in the wake of two horror movies from 20-something YouTubers that have been setting box-office records. Obsession and Backrooms may not be perfect, but they are both, thrillingly, the visions of their respective young auteurs, while Masters of the Universe belongs to no one — a project engineered at enormous cost from the needs of IP.

See All

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Parimala and Co’ movie review: Jayaram, Urvashi’s trite comedy drama is hard to sit through

Published

on

‘Parimala and Co’ movie review: Jayaram, Urvashi’s trite comedy drama is hard to sit through

An innocent family ends up killing an unwelcome guest and has to escape the wrath of law enforcement. Ever since George Kutty walked out of that under-construction police station, a slew of films capitalising on the Drishyamwave have made their way to our screens. Titles like Bharathanatyam 2: Mohiniyattam, Revolver Rita and last week’s release, Blast, ruminate on the basic throughline of a family that has inadvertently or has been forced to commit murder. Director Pandiraaj’s latest flick, Parimala and Co., starring Jayaram and Urvashi, also follows suit. Except, here, the one murdered isn’t just the unwanted visitor, but also screenwriting, the anticipation of watching comedy films, and your patience.

The story follows the murder of Varghese (Sandy Master), a crooked goon who has been eve-teasing a young woman named Madhumitha (Ananthika Sanilkumar), and has been a cause of trouble to her sister, Parasakthi a.k.a Sakthi (Sanjana Krishnamoorthy), mother Sudhandhiram (the ever-impressive Urvashi), and father Parimala (an underserved Jayaram). The twist here is that nobody really knows who killed Varghese. While the members of the Parimala family are busy pointing fingers at each other, Inspector Empurumaan (Mysskin gives his all, as always) begins to investigate the case.

A still from ‘Parimala and Co.’

A still from ‘Parimala and Co.’
| Photo Credit:
Think Music India/YouTube

The chinks in armour appear much earlier, in how the writer fails to even convince us that one of these seemingly innocent members of the family is the killer. Even the first major narrative step in the story — the decision to murder Varghese — feels rushed and unconvincing. Parimala goes to great lengths, including approaching the police, to save them from the troublemaker, but what leaves you scratching your head is how instantly this innocent middle-class family (and a UPSC trainer father) broach the idea of killing off a human being. And how calmly they take the idea that one of them could have killed off someone.

But it is with a heavy heart that I say that these initial portions feel like great writing when compared to what is to follow. With every following scene, Parimala and Co. only ends up more trite, bafflingly amateurish, and outright yawn-inducing. Much of the film moves in a routine pattern. Show a scene at the Parimala house that vexingly tries to make you laugh. Now cut to introduce some random detail about the gangster world. Yogi Babu rags the Parimala family; now a minister threatens Mysskin. Parimala does this; a new potential villain does that. And collectively, the film feels like a mash-up of already ill-conceived scenes glued together like pulled hair on a rag doll.

Parimala and Co.

Director: Pandiraaj

Cast: Jayaram, Urvashi, Sanjana Krishnamoorthy, Mysskin

Advertisement

Runtime: 138 minutes

Storyline: After a notorious gangster is mysteriously murdered, a middle-class family finds itself entangled in a web of suspicion, secrets, and a police investigation

Nothing makes any sense, and you stop caring about what would happen to any of these characters. What was the whole point of the trip to Palakkad? What does Varghese’s mother, Sengamalam, have to do with the story? What’s the point of the siblings of Parimala and Sudhandhiram? Firstly, what was the point of any of the character-specific details, like the love-hate equation between the sisters or the fact that a housewife is named Sudhandhiram, when they don’t get sentimental pay-offs or find a callback in the plot? Well, the biggest curveball the director throws is that even the titular Parimala family eventually ends up feeling inconsequential to the story.

Given how many details — like the water tank being full all the time due to overuse of the motor, or a girl drinking wine for cosmetic reasons, or how Sakthi always forgets to switch on the switch while charging her mobile — never find any utility in the thriller narrative, it makes one wonder if this was an attempt at imbuing the story with real quirks. If that’s the case, Pandiraaj has chosen the most ill-fitting project to do so. At the end of the day, what really bothers one is how incredible performers like Urvashi, Jayaram and Mysskin end up getting the raw end of the deal. While Mysskin has truly grown to become one of the most sought-after character artists, Jayaram and Urvashi offer a few glimpses of comedy gold (like a scene set in the living room that also features Mysskin), further making one wonder the potential Pandiraaj had in his hand.

Urvashi in a still from the film

Urvashi in a still from the film
| Photo Credit:
Think Music India/YouTube

Parimala and Co. ends with a dull stretch about the horrors of drug abuse that screams tokenism, and if anything, this is a film that would make you want to drink, either a hot cup of coffee or a shot of vodka, to forget and forgive.

Advertisement

In life, sometimes, all that can go wrong will go wrong, and we are bound to think of Murphy. You might end up in a place where anything you touch turns for the worse, and this is precisely what happens to the Parimala family and Varghese — but I am also sad to report that this is what has happened to the Pandiraj-directed film as well.

Parimala and Co is currently running in theatres

Published – June 05, 2026 11:00 am IST

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending