Movie Review : Blade Runner 2049

Movie Review : Blade Runner 2049

Sequel looks and sounds great, is competently acted, but doesn't quite convince with the power of its ideas and average writing

 

Image courtesy of Entertainment Weekly

*UPDATE :  After a suggestion from a friend ( thanks Tom Clive ) I checked out a short that was produced about one of the replicants, Sapper Morton. I have to say, for me it's a game changer. It shows the replicant in a very sympathetic light ; he's sensitive and brave ; more human than humans. Why Villeneuve chose to leave this out is beyond me. Instead he chose to focus on long visual shots in a 3 hour movie, rather than include 5 minutes that would actually make us care about the characters. Check out the short here. I particularly recommend watching it before the movie, if you have yet to see Blade Runner :

background on Sapper Morton  

https://youtu.be/aZ9Os8cP_gg

This is a first review of Blade Runner, and I likely will write another. Days after the first viewing I am still digesting this big film and trying to decide why I didn't like it as much I had hoped.

My initial reaction after watching was somewhat stupefied. The world of Blade Runner is so grand and convincing on the senses that you really do feel like you have been on a trip to an alien /future world. There had been occasional moments in this long film where I had been restless, but on the whole I was more than content to follow Ryan Goslings character as he attempted to unravel a conspiracy surrounding replicants and The Blackout; a past power failure and data loss which allows the story to work. This event seems a little too tidy of a plot device. More on that later. 

Blade Runners sets itself up as a mystery thriller thirty years after the original, with 'K' ( Gosling ) doing the job that Deckard used to do. The discovery and conspiracy that he stumbles across is not convincingly dealt with by his superior and leads to another convenient plot device. K is pulled in deeper to a potentially world changing or even world destroying revelation.

Driving the conspiracy is the successor to the Tyrell Corporation; the mysterious genius Wallace ( Jared Leto ) who has Carte Blanche it seems to produce replicants because i) he has shown he can make them reliably obedient, and ii) he happened to save the world with new GMO food in the wake of a prior environmental collapse. His power in this irritatingly vague political world is never made quite clear. Wallace's minion 'Luv' is the villain who faces off against K.

The big idea of the film is in essence the same as the last; what is a real person and how ethical is it to treat artificial persons as slaves? Though K's hologram girlfriend takes this a step further, the question is the same. The plot of the film reels us in gradually and enjoyably, but there is a question that niggled me as it progressed; why should I care? None of the characters are particularly likeable, though K has a loyal stoicism about him that begins to win you over. The bigger problem is, in the general hell that Earth has descended into (a grim, dark world of poverty and inequality) why should I care more about replicants than people? A Victorian like orphanage reveals that humanity has it almost as bad as replicants; absolute poverty reduces people to a situation almost akin to slavery. This is never quite true however, and even the most independent of replicants boasts as she beats another in a fight: 'I'm the best one!'. Her attachment to her master is all. The resolution of the plot mystery revolves around a similar theme. One message seems important but obvious; all living creatures seek love and approval, and it is something missing in this strange world almost devoid of families and children. The grim fight for survival has brutalised all, and perhaps the film serves to remind us that hardship is no excuse for exploiting others. Indeed, it even distracts us from the real issues. Wallace is obsessed with colonising new worlds, but despite his talents seems to have largely given up on this one where Earthlings seem to represent forgotten refugees. Should we care about these people, or despise their own savagery and complicity in the use of replicants ?

None of this is ever really made clear, as Blade Runner meanders to its plot finale (with more than a little convenience due to coincidences) and leaves us to draw our own conclusions.  Mine is this; individuals must be taken on their own merits; replicant, human or otherwise.  Perhaps that's just me (I’m apt to smirk when people ask me if I'm a 'dog or cat person' - it depends on the animal). Blade Runner grasps at classic but tired old themes in science fiction and philosophy - do we really have free will? Am I real?  When should an artificial person gain human rights? How much of my identity is based on memory ? There is now nothing original in these old questions, and no answers are provided. In one key moment, Deckard asserts : " I know what's real". Perhaps all the big questions are but a distraction and all that matters is the love people have, or should have for each other. That is its own reality. Is that what he means ? At the end of the film, the way seems to be left open for yet another sequel. Perhaps more will be resolved there.

Ultimately Blade Runner seems to have fallen into the trap that ensnared replicants ; can a feast of the senses compensate for some emptiness inside ? Watch for yourself and decide.

UPDATE WITH SPOILERS :

After having seen the film a second time, I do indeed have a more favourable opinion. I am now sure, seeing the similarities of the ending with the last film, that K dies. And perhaps, like the first film, the realisation is that saving life, and love, is what gives it meaning ( Hence Deckard's lucky escape ) . K is asked to kill Deckard, but instead saves him. He reflects on a key message given him by the replicant reistance ; sacrificing yourself for others (or at least 'dying for a great cause') makes you more human than anything. Like his police supervisor Madam, K shows loyalty to another that is not destructive. He chooses to save Deckard simply so that Deckard can be reunited with his daughter, and in doing so K becomes more human then anyone. It 's a simple message about humanity rather than a technological one, and suggests perhaps free will and concern for others is more important than whether someone is human or AI.

Movie Review : Dunkirk by Christopher Nolan

Film Review : Dunkirk by Christopher Nolan

Well crafted film may age well,  but lacks grand scale and doesn't live up to the hype

 

There is much to admire about Dunkirk. It is well acted, and with authentic boats and planes looks as realistic as it could do at the intimate scale. And therein lies the problem.

Given that the entire point of Dunkirk was about the rescue of almost 400,000 men, the beaches feel remarkably sparse. Actual historical accounts describe a beach so swarming with men that the sand was barely visible. In Christopher Nolan's film we never feel like we are dealing with more than a few thousand. The film has been touted as relying on extras and real vehicles rather than CGI. Unfortunately, when you are supposed to be depicting  400,000 men, having 5000 extras is not impressive ; it actually means you are down 395,000. Likewise the great civilian fleet that is supposed to be the climax of Dunkirk never actually looks like more than 20 boats. Yet in reality thousands participated ; more than two hundred were lost. The British Navy lost 6 destroyers at Dunkirk, yet such destruction is only hinted at. There were not a few occasional raids by Stukas ; rather on one typical day the Germans bombed in force every 20 minutes for 9 hours, in addition to fighters strafing. This basic math has been lost on Nolan, and the result is a film that forgets it was supposed to be depicting an actual historical event. As a study of how a few men may have fared at a small section of Dunkirk it may be a good film. As a depiction of what happened overall at Dunkirk and its significance it has failed abysmally. All the realism of intimate camerawork and authentic vehicles is lost if the context is unconvincing. I am perplexed by the Oscar buzz and the talk of this being Nolan's best. Perhaps perspective and time will tell.

Likewise fans of Hans Zimmer may be disappointed. It's competent background music that adds to the tension, but the Thin Red Line it ain't. The noise level of the dialogue ( some of which is poor and quite badly delivered, except by Branagh ) can be problematic too. I had trouble sometimes making out what the characters were saying ( and I'm British ). I get that the depiction is of war and in that scenario it would be hard to hear, but this is taking realism to annoying levels or it's just bad editing.

All of this should not detract from the overall craftsmen-ship of Dunkirk. It is well put together, with tight sequences that depict well the almost hopeless plight of men vulnerable to attack even after they have been picked up. Chugging slowly across the Channel in small boats, the men are almost as easily targeted by the Luftwaffe as they were on the beaches. The movie drives home too the threat posed by German submarines. Even when the men are on a ship they are  far from safe, so the tension is well delivered and held throughout.

The timeline structure has been well touted along with the realism,  but it's a simple convergence of three different timelines working at different speeds and meeting ; nothing dramatic or as original as Nolan's Memento.

Though much has been made of Mark Rylance captaining a small civilian vessel, the real star of the film is Fionn Whitehead. He plays a painfully boyish looking Tommy ; most of the film is spent following his eyes as he constantly searches for the next danger and means of escape. Tom Hardy puts in a competent performance, but is out-acted by the Spitfire he pilots. Apparently the cameraman agrees, and some of the nicer sequences follow the graceful British fighter as it winds around the sky.

Some of the camera work, the claustrophobia of boat scenes and the colours of the film will last in memory. So will the frustratingly small scale.

For those wanting a more authentic depiction of the events around Dunkirk, check out BBC2's 3 -part 2004 production Dunkirk, well narrated by Timothy Dalton and starring Benedict Cumberbatch amongst others. If you want an art-house style depiction of war, check out Terence Maliks The Thin Red Line ( 1998 ). Apparently Nolan is a big fan of the Thin Red Line and tried to replicate some of Maliks techniques. Maliks cinematography worked well in the Pacific setting and with poetic voice over narration, but Nolan's attempt falls a little flat with Dunkirk.
 

7/10

TV Review : Iron Fist - Episodes 7 - 13

TV Review : Iron Fist ; Episodes 7 -13 

Series continues to stumble, then falls flat on its face 

Rand looks puzzled, a common look during the series that never really changes. 

I wanted to like Iron Fist. I really did. I had  hoped that the initial problems with the series would be gradually ironed out as the show gained momentum. Granted, it did not have the ferocious pace and shocking realism of Daredevil, but it yet showed in the middle of the series that it might grow into something decent. Instead, the character of Danny Rand never developed, and interesting characters were benched in favour of the badly written mediocre ones that we had started with. 

In the middle of the season Madame Gao and the Hand lifted the series, and hinted at a greater story arc more interesting than the Meachums. Unfortunately, Gao was soon sidelined by an offshoot leader of the Hand, unconvincing played by  Ramon Rodriguez. Danny is later  joined by an old ally from home, Davos, who likewise has neither the physical presence nor the lines that can help prop up the ailing show. Even a competent veteran actress like Rosario Dawson, who was so good in Daredevil, cannot help when given cringingly bad lines in a plot that lurches around awkwardly, then ends with a disappointing anti-climax. 

But the main problem is the character of Danny Rand himself. He shows no growth or development, and continues to be the vehicle for the amateurish writing, that as many critics have pointed out, violates the golden rule of visual drama and great stories ; "Show, Don't Tell" . Rand and Colleen continue to spew out awkward and cringe-worthy dialogue as they point out the obvious and look like idiots, being outwitted by not particularly witty villains. The main villain now becomes again David Wenham, who continues to ham it up as Harold Meachum. He seems more suited to the sneaky take-over of a country club than a part of New York. Although the character of Ward Meachum becomes mildly interesting, the final battle is embarrassingly bad and leaves us still caring little about any of the main characters. Throughout, the feel is of a cheap production thrown together for daytime TV, rather than the high quality Marvel/Netflix collaborations we have become accustomed to. Disappointing. 

5/10

TV Review : Iron Fist by Marvel/Netflix

TV Review : Iron Fist by Marvel/Netflix 

Season One : Episodes 1 to 6  

Inferior to Daredevil, but then isn't everything ? 

 

image courtesy of tvweb.com

Iron Fist has come in for some pretty heavy flak from reviewers, but has been perhaps misunderstood and judged too harshly against Daredevil

 

In the latest Marvel offering, Finn Jones plays Danny Rand ; son of a billionaire and apparently  returned from the dead after a plane crash long ago. In this new Netflix collaboration then,  the last of the Defenders is ushered in. Rand has been training with warrior monks since the plane crash that orphaned him, and has become the Iron Fist ; a martial arts legend who can summon enough Chi to punch through anything. 

This is a slow start to the series, as Danny's first challenge is to re-establish his identity and claim to his inheritance, something that perhaps takes up too much story time. The initial villain is rather uninspired ; a little more Phantom of the Opera than criminal mastermind, and Danny himself comes across as naive and self-preoccupied. Some of the dialogue needs editing, and the fight scenes do not have the bone crunching realism of Daredevil. I can see why some reviewers have criticized the characters as dull, and the hero in particular as a little unlikable. Who cares what happens in this story ? 

Nonetheless, Iron Fist slowly gains momentum, particularly when some old enemies  ( and friends ) from the Daredevil world crash the party. Rand gains a sidekick who adds interest, perhaps romantically too, ( Colleen Wing as a martial-arts teacher ) and the series begins to delve into the darkness and develop a flavour of its own. Iron Fists fighting style is the more elegant dance-like Kung Fu as opposed to Daredevil's boxing and improvised brawling. Think Donnie Yen in Ip-man rather than the Punisher turning inmates into mince-meat. At first this leads to some rather unsatisfactory fight scenes, as barely any blood flies, and Danny's style seems more about dodging as opposed to dispatching opponents. Later however, the martial arts develops into some pretty spectacular flying double kicks, and our hero actually accrues the type of battle wounds that laid Daredevil on the couch so often. You begin to appreciate the beauty of the choreography, even if it still seems a little unrealistic.  Even the intro and music improves, as Trevor Morris lays down tracks reminiscent of Daft Punk in Tron Legacy.

The character of Iron Fist himself is more problematic. It takes time to reveal his code of conduct and his mission. In the first few episodes Colleen Wing is actually more interesting as a character struggling with moral dilemmas and developing a new identity. Danny seems annoyingly ignorant, and he's not the only character to seem a little unbelievable. His rivals, and then later business partners, the Meachams, lack depth and complexity, despite their centrality to the story. Luke Cage and his enemies ( and even friends ) were far more believable and interesting. It's worth remembering however, that Danny  is supposed to be returning from fifteen years in the wilderness, an isolation he was dropped into as a ten year old child. In many ways he still has the mind of a child, and one who is new to the New York city of 2017. As he gradually wises up and the battle with the real villains comes into focus, the series develops a more satisfying pace. Iron Fist still seems a little uneven  and scattered with its story lines and characters, but at least you begin to have faith that things will settle down. Maybe even the Meachams will become interesting and develop personalities beyond the corporate boardroom !

 

Ultimately this is a series that  should be given a chance and judged on its own merits. I think some reviewers are looking back and seeing Daredevil as perfection, and perhaps Luke Cage and Jessica Jones as better than they really were. Finn Jones never quite has the charisma to hold the series up on his own, but with a collective effort it bumbles through. Iron Fist stumbled a little with its entrance, but that doesn't mean it won't grow into something satisfying. People need to remember they're watching TV, not judging some new-found work of Rembrandt. Yes it's art, but it's not to be taken that seriously, and it's not finished yet.

 

7/10

Film Review : Fury by David Ayer

Under rated war film with a stand-out soundtrack

image courtesy of Columbia Pictures

 Fury passed relatively unnoticed at  the box office, making modest profits and garnering respectable nods from critics. Recently on Netflix and DVD, this war film is well-worth a second look.

In Fury, Brad Pitt plays 'WarDaddy' ; a veteran tank commander during World War Two, leading a squad of under-armoured Shermans into Germany. The Nazis may have been out-numbered and  losing at this stage, but they still had the edge in tank technology. Monster Tiger tanks are able to shoot through Shermans like butter, and shrug off their own shells like pebbles. The collapsing German front is still laced with fanatical SS, often press-ganging civilians into the last desperate gasp of the Third Reich.

Playing opposite Pitt is the rookie Norman ( Logan Lerman ), a typist drafted into the crew as an emergency replacement. The squad find themselves fighting a desperate delaying action that may well turn out to be the ultimate sacrifice. Perhaps too many shades of Private Ryan ?

In most respects though Fury stands up to Saving Private Ryan and comes off better. It's not as epic in its vision, and is purposely focused on the intimacy of five guys trying to cope with the war in a claustrophobic death-trap. Otherwise it has the same shocking realism that made Saving Private Ryan such a stand-out film in 1998. The soundtrack by Steven Price is one of the best I've heard in a long time and may live with you long after the film. Choral voices and violins are as raw as the brutal imagery.

Like truly great war films though, the most memorable moments are in the brief reposes from the action (excellent though the action scenes are in Fury ). It says a lot about this film that even Shia LaBeouf is convincing as a religious man stubbornly clinging to his faith despite the horror around him. He delivers what is probably the most chilling line in the film when he bluntly tells Norman, in the prelude to battle:
 " Wait till you see it."
"What ?"
" What men can do to each other."
The statement hangs coldly in the air, with a touch of reverence, as if the horror that man has made almost equals God's power.
Jon Bernthal is particularly effective as a frightening black-toothed southerner; the kind of bully you are uncomfortably pleased is on your side. Michael Pena rounds off a solid cast.

Halfway through the film the Americans get a brief respite in a village. A rare moment of domestic comfort occurs as WarDaddy and Norman happen upon a couple of local ladies and enjoy a home-cooked meal and a tune on the piano. When the rest of the crew crash in and ruin the moment, the superiority of the film to Private Ryan is made clearer. War ruins men, turns them into savages. Jon Berthnal's bully sours  the atmosphere like an abused child become the abuser.  Likewise, the scene portrays perhaps the central dilemma of war, or any job associated with violence. How do you fight effectively without losing all your humanity ? When Pitt eats a ruined egg rather than beat Bernthal senseless for licking it, he hints at a way. Yet Pitt, suitably physical, controls his crew with an aura of barely restrained violence, rather than with rank. What he makes Norman do in order to survive is horrifying, yet logical ;  " Do your job" is another line delivered by the crew with chilling banality. Ethics are largely out of the window for now ; especially when fighting the SS on German soil, because hesitation costs American lives.

Grim as it is, Fury ends on a satisfactory note. There's a nod to the humanity left on the other side, and the main characters redeem themselves as best as they can given the circumstances.

My only criticism of the film is we never really get to know much about the characters, but perhaps this is part of the point ; they were all just meat in a giant war-machine. Pitt's character speaks German, and there is a hint this is his heritage, not training. How does it make him feel, to fight Germans in Germany ? We never really find out, though it is hinted at with his visceral hatred of the SS compared to his relative restraint with  civilians. Likewise, the opening scene takes a moment to show him mournfully petting a German horse before regretfully sending it on its way. It's a rare moment of humanity in an otherwise blisteringly raw film, and notably one that shows gentleness to an animal, not a person. In war, people have a role to play, and unfortunately must be treated as such.

8/10

Here's a taste of that special soundtrack :
The War Is Not Over by Steven Price

Film Review : Get Out by Jordan Peele

Film Review :  Get Out by Jordan Peele

Horror-Comedy hits all the right notes and is a surprisingly  effective allegory of slavery and the African - American experience.

image courtesy of Blumhouse Productions and QC Entertainment

'Vague' Spoilers ahead.

Yes, 'Get Out' is as good as they say. 

Daniel  Kaluuya plays Chris, a young black man in America about to go through the awkwardness of meeting his white girlfriends parents for the first time.  The pair ( Alison Williams plays the girlfriend Rose ) are heading out of the city to visit the folks in an isolated rural area. Chris is already nervous about the coming weekend, and has been warned by his cousin, ( the comic relief played by Lil Rel Howery ) who only seems to be half-joking about the dangers of  being at the mercy of white folks in the middle of nowhere.  Though the initial meeting goes okay ( Rose's Dad proclaims he was a huge Obama fan and seems eager to put Chris at his ease ), Rose's mom and brother seem weirdly intense. Worse, ' the help' at the large country home are black, and seem either cowed or mentally disturbed. Chris will find no allies here. Then it turns out the entire white family is converging on the country-estate for some sort of anniversary weekend in honour of passed on Granddad.  Chris finds himself slowly confronted with a horrible truth in stages, as awkwardness turns to fear. At the end of Saturday's party, when Rose's brother ( complete with horrendous wispy hilly-billy moustache ) starts playing a banjo on the porch, to some sort of Deliverance-like tune, you know this ain't turning out good.

Throughout, Peele masterfully builds the tension with awkward humour and jarring shocks. Lead  Kaluuya is one of those gifted actors who can convey a range of emotions in a subtle shift of facial expression. We feel with him his increasing isolation as his girlfriend Rose seems only half clued in to what is going on. Why does Rose's Mom insist so on hypnotising Chris to help with cigarette addiction ? Why does the housekeeper unplug Chris's phone and then appear to have some sort of break-down when called on it ? Meanwhile a beacon of hope lies with Chris's cousin Rod, a TSA agent dog-sitting for Chris, who is determined to keep tabs on his friend.

Peele's genius is to have made this modern horror-comedy simultaneously a stunningly powerful allegory of the African American experience. For me, the pivotal moment of the film is actually when comic relief Rod reports his concerns to the local police station. Even though the officer is of colour, the palpable lack of concern for a missing black man is well conveyed.  Had this been a young blonde middle class girl, the choppers would have been in the air five minutes ago. But the knock-out punch comes when Rod delivers his theory of what may have happened. Earlier, we laughed it at  because it was intended to be comic relief. It was Rod, making us laugh, playing his role. But when we hear it delivered again and to police, the absurdity and the tragedy hit home : white people, abducting black people, and forcing them to be slaves ? It sounds ludicrous ; so viciously inhumane and ridiculous that it could not be real. Yet it did happen, to millions of Africans. Meanwhile as the horror unfolds on Chris, the bluntness of how Africans were literally treated like livestock is punched home more effectively than Twelve Years a Slave, precisely because it is portrayed in a modern context. When you  watch a film like Twelve Years a Slave, you can intellectually acknowledge it but perhaps not really feel it precisely because it is portrayed ( relatively far ) in the past. It's over, right ?  With Get Out, it's as raw as it gets. When a police car arrives near the end and you automatically expect Chris to get shot because he's black, you realise, it's not over. Not by a long way yet. 

Don't let the heavy undertones put you off from seeing Get Out. It's almost flawlessly written, shot, directed and acted, and there's enough laughter and suspense to make the horror bearable and even enjoyable in a Scream-like way. The final horror of what is to happen to Chris is original enough ( a la Human Centipede ) to make this a fresh take on the genre of horror-comedy, and will simultaneously leave you thinking about what slavery really meant, what it actually may have felt like. Powerful stuff, and skillful enough to be exhilarating and  entertaining.

9/10

 

Star Trek : Voyager

Sci-fi enjoying a second life on Netflix and aging well

 

With Netflix Canada recently posting all the Star Trek series, Trekkies have been enjoying some true 90's nostalgia with the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager.  I was drawn back  to Voyager, and a recent episode in particular reminded me what I used to enjoy so much about this program.

Voyager follows the progress of a lone Federation ship trying to get home after being thrown across the Galaxy by a particularly inconsiderate but powerful alien. For it's time Voyager was noticeable straight-away for its' female captain, and notable other characters including a holographic doctor and a rescued Borg drone. Like most star treks of the 90's, the special effects and tone remain remarkably relevant even 20 years later. It's worth pointing out for example that the ipad-like devices that crewmen use on Federation ships were nowhere near to us in 1996. The nano-probes that often featured in Borg episodes remain a tantalising possibility in medicine. Star Trek was visionary in its inspiration for much future tech, not just high-level theory about worm-holes.

More pertinently, like most Star Trek productions, Voyager consistently tackled relevant and difficult  issues in society,  usually in a provocative and humane manner. It was the idealism, optimism and intelligence of Star Trek that drew in most viewers, and I suggest will continue to do so as the world undergoes further growing pains. Here's hoping to a future that one day contains something like the Federation, when we have conquered poverty, division, and left the likes of Putin and Trump long behind !  

In 'Critical Care' (season 5 episode 7), a little slower and more thoughtful episode,  the ship's holographic doctor is stolen ( or rather kidnapped ; he is a sophisticated A.I) . In perhaps a take on human trafficking, he is forced into service in a highly stratified society. As ever, Roberto Picardo puts in an entertaining performance as the opera singing and paradoxically emotional hologram. Soon realizing that this society rations medical care according to a computer algorithm that determines 'usefulness', the doctor aims to shake things up. The analogy to 90's America could not be more obvious. Hilary Clinton, the First Lady at the time, was trying (and failing)  to bolster health care for the less fortunate in society.The doctor seeks to equalize the situation in a more mundane way. Given duty on the top floor, where the elites use resources on youth restoring treatments, the doctor fudges patient records in order to sneak life-saving drugs downstairs. The theft and deception seem obviously justified. Should the American health care system now consider how many surgeons perform cosmetic surgery as opposed to life-saving treatments ?

At first it seems the doctor is making a difference. A promising youth is saved and a local doctor converted to the subterfuge. It isn't long however before the supervisor, an economizing bureaucrat, busts up the doctors schemes.  The promising youth of earlier dies, and it turns out the doctor is partly responsible. The rations allocated to the lower floor have now been exhausted. Has the doctor just made things worse?  The defence given by the supervisor is almost persuasive. A water engineer is responsible for providing thousands with drinking water ; surely, with limited resources,  their medical attention should take priority ?  At first, the idea of being reduced to a mere number ( a 'Treatment Coefficient' ) and treated accordingly seemed abhorrent, but the supervisor's defence sows some doubt. In true Star Trek fashion, Voyager offers no easy answers, only provokes thought and suggests these are issues worth considering. The death of the young man downstairs though, perhaps hints that we should treat everybody  equally because of our potential. If Star Trek was about anything, it was about potential, of both individuals and all intelligent life.

Eventually the Doctor concocts a plan to strong-arm the supervisor into allowing the care of lower status patients, but it's an unsatisfactory solution ; ethically dubious, and no long-term answer. Finally, inevitably rescued by Voyager ( dealing with their own slightly morally dubious interrogation of the Doctor's thief - is mild torture to rescue a valuable innocent justified ? ), the Doctor asks Torres the engineer to check his program. It turns out he is functioning perfectly, and his morally questionable action to harm an individual to save others seems to be an evolution of his A.I. More questions are raised ; how might A.I eventually evolve beyond its' original programming, and should a moral decision ever involve sacrificing an individual to save the majority ? Is it true indeed, that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? 

If you're a 'young-un' who never caught Voyager first time round, it's worth a look. It dodged the stumbling of the Next Generation in Season One, and did not degenerate into the drawn out war that made Deep Space Nine a bit of a drag in the end. Voyager was an  interesting vehicle for exploring some of the challenges of gobalization, clashing cultures and the rise of technology in society. Perhaps it's nostalgia from me, who watched this during my university years, but the series seems to be aging well.