Month: June 2026

Steven Spielberg’s “Disclosure Day” Review and Theatrical Status Report

FeaturedLeave a comment

Going to see Steven Spielberg’s latest film “Disclosure Day” on a Wednesday afternoon, nearly a week after it officially opened, seemed to provide a bit of awkwardness for yours truly. That’s because I found out I wouldn’t be experiencing it with a large crowd who hadn’t already seen a million reviews on social media. Plus, just going to a movie on a late afternoon felt like playing hooky from your job—even though I was on month’s leave from Amazon for inguinal hernia surgery. 

When I arrived to my prominent Regal Cinemas theater on the east side of Salem, OR, I confirmed I’d be the only one seeing “Disclosure Day.” Even though I hadn’t been to a movie theater for nearly three years, I wasn’t aware that this theater had already closed their front box office two years prior. You had to buy tickets at the snack bar now, along with a less than subtle push from the lone staffer to maybe buy some refreshments.

So it was that I had the entire auditorium to myself for the entire run of the film. Occasional visitations from a staffer coming in to watch bits & pieces was the only company there. But, the nostalgia was still in me because “Disclosure Day” seemed like a companion to “Close Encounters” (and maybe a little “E.T.”), the first of which was my first great movie experience with my parents.

After sitting through nearly 40 minutes of inexorable commercials (alongside briefer movie trailers), the film finally started at 4:20 pm, making it move the needle into an almost evening showing. The first quarter of “Disclosure Day” might take you aback at first since it takes a while to set up its premise. If you didn’t even know it was about UFOs and interstellar or terrestrial beings, you probably wouldn’t know what was really going on in the first 45 minutes. 

At first, it just looks like a typical American espionage/cat & mouse chase thriller as a presumed cybersecurity expert named Daniel Kellner (played by Josh O’Connor) is on the run from a company called Wardex while possessing hard drives of above top secret material. Helping him to hide is his former girlfriend, Jane (played by Eve Hewson), who so happened to be a former nun. Hiding in her former convent seemed right out of “The Sound of Music”, and it’s there when the aspect of faith runs into the reveal by Daniel of the media he’s stolen from mysterious corporation Wardex.

On the warpath to find Daniel is the villain of the movie: Noah Scanlon (played by Colin Firth) who runs Wardex. This and a few other aspects provide a lot of weakness to the film, even though you’ll fall into a more compelled mindset once the real central character comes into play…

What Happens Within as a Spielberg Movie Trait

It’s Emily Blunt’s character Margaret Fairchild (a weather girl on a local Kansas City cable station) who makes the movie. She’s the female equivalent to Richard Dreyfuss’s Roy Neary in 1977’s “Close Encounters.” When she suddenly becomes imbued with an ability to read people’s minds and speak foreign languages after a mysterious visit from a cardinal bird in her apartment, you’ll immediately notice a structural comparison to “Encounters.”

What made latter film so compelling nearly 50 years ago is that it dealt with profound things going on in the character’s brain, ultimately leading to crazy behavior in the physical world. That’s exactly what happens with Margaret, soon realizing she’s on some kind of oddball mission she has no idea about…yet. Her uttering of strange clicking sounds during her live weather forecast is apparently inspired from South African languages, even though designed to be a truly alien language here.

By midpoint, the story of Daniel and Margaret merge as latter has a telepathic drive to seek out Daniel. Yes, this recalls Roy Neary being mentally imprinted with that image of Devil’s Tower and not being able to understand what it means. 

This approach to going within in human beings is still effective because it’s really not done in movies. It’s seldom been done since “Close Encounters” came out, albeit some touches in Spielberg’s “E.T.”

But, Yes, Let’s Address the Plot Weaknesses

Some will say that the weaknesses bog the film down too much, hence making it a waste of time to sit through. I don’t look at it that way, namely because the weaknesses are a matter of creative taste more than being universally recognized criticisms. 

To me, the worst aspect is Colin Firth’s character, Noah. Firth does well with what he’s given, but the slimy behavior of Noah Scanlon just seems right out of an old-school villain playbook. Yeah, almost at Darth Vader level, especially since he has possession of these unexplained glow sticks that can enable him to connect mentally to just about anyone. His Wardex corporation has apparently held UFO/alien secrets for years and somehow acquired some of the alien technology.

Noah first links up mentally with Daniel’s former nun girlfriend, Jane. It’s these scenes that kind of reach into contrived sci-fi tropes, not including all the presentations of computer monitors filled with—uh, reams of cyber information. Sure, I’ll have some say, what more would you expect in a UFO/espionage film taking place in the modern day? Considering Firth’s Noah character practically does a Dr. Evil cackle with pinky to mouth, it just comes too close to being unintentionally funny. 

Also, the glow sticks bring a weird New Age vibe that arguably bogs things down. It destroys any sense of mystery, and just looks like an unnecessary and pedestrian sci-fi element as an excuse to present a little bit of special effects. 

I’d say the biggest plot weakness, though, is its sense of narrative time. Sure, Spielberg told us all before release that it was fast-paced and we needed to just hold on for the ride. The problem is that far too much happens in a small space of time, making it feel overly rushed. I’m not exactly sure what the time frame was supposed to be in the film, though it looks like everything happens in less than 48 hours. Yeah, that means Daniel stealing all the alien video files, the adventure with Margaret, plus the tailspinning finale all happen in two days, which strains credulity.

In “Close Encounters”, you probably remember all the events are spread out over a week or two, if not more. It would have done “Disclosure Day” well to kind of spread things out narratively to make it breathe a little more. Besides, when the actual disclosure happens at end, it also seems like it had to be rushed up to keep the running time to 2 hrs, 25 min. And rushing that final scene wasn’t good because it almost ruins the other details there that will give you chills.

The Film Will Capture You By Last Half

Those “Close Encounters” allusions will definitely become all too apparent as the action starts to ramp up by the three-quarter mark. As Roy Neary hooked up physically and mentally with stranger Jillian Guiler to go on their journey to Devil’s Tower in Wyoming, Margaret ends up on a frantic trip to link up with Daniel, and also see mysterious former Wardex head Hugo Wakefield (played by always excellent Colman Domingo) who helps her along by phone to stay safe. Margaret has no idea why she has to go to Hugo, though the outcome is kind of shocking in a near Truman Show way. 

Spielberg has always done fairly well with action scenes in his prior films. You’ll see some here, and they’re all exciting, if using devices we’ve all seen before. For instance, once Margaret goes on a frantic ride with Daniel, they’re chased by one of Noah’s cohorts to a railroad stop. Now, this also echoes the famous UFO encounter by Roy at a railroad crossing, if also an excuse in “Disclosure Day” to nearly be squashed by a fast-moving freight train.

We’ve all seen the car being pushed into an approaching train trope in action movies. Well, it’s still a hair-raising sequence here, as are various car chases. None of those are absolutely necessary for the plot. They’re just there to keep you on your toes. 

Can UFO Disclosure Be Done as Quickly as Depicted in the Film?

Once Margaret and Daniel get to Hugo’s secret headquarters, we see why he’d been building what appeared to be the set of a suburban house. Turns out, it’s a replica of Margaret’s childhood home. They were setting it up just for her, because they knew she and Daniel were—uh, “chosen ones.”

The reveal of how Margaret and Daniel are connected from their childhoods is filled with wonderment, and seems to feed into real-life tales of how people have supposedly been abducted by alien beings. In “Disclosure Day”, however, it seems to suggest that only two people on earth have had official contact—ignoring the millions of supposed real stories of kids and adults having similar experiences. 

This might not go down well with some in the UFO community. Still, it gives an intriguing twist on how it connects people. Even “Close Encounters” made it appear that Roy Neary and a small group of others were the unexplained, privileged few. 

Once that reveal is done, Noah tracks down Hugo’s hiding place, forcing Margaret and Daniel to get the UFO files live on air at her local Kansas City station. Their storming of the set and taking over the producing team booth seems unlikely as well, if forcing you to roll with the premise. Of course, Noah and his cohorts try to shut it all down and fail. Daniel somehow uploads all his files he stole into the station’s database. All of it rolls out live—which then gets picked up (live, no less) by major news networks. 

Would it really be this fast if such a scenario truly played out? We’re already seeing bits and pieces of UFO videos being released through the Pentagon now. It’s looking more than likely all of any so-called disclosure on UFOs will roll out very slowly…over years rather than in days. In fact, much of it may get rejected anyway based on one thing the film tries to defy: Reality.

The film shows the world reacting with quiet shock to videos showing aliens being taken into custody and even a re-creation of craft debris being taken from Roswell. Only once will you see someone in the periphery yell out “It’s AI!” Everyone else believes it, including real-life former news anchor turned actor, Courtney Grace, who makes it all the more believable with her emotional reaction while anchoring on NBC.

But—it’s the defiance of reality that works against “Disclosure Day.” With so much fakery nowadays, even a video showing definitive footage of UFO debris retrieval and aliens would be rejected immediately by more than three-quarters of the world population. We’d have to see evidence with our own eyes in our own backyards before anything is believed when placed on TV or phone screens. 

So, What Are the Aliens in the Film?

Nothing is really answered on what the aliens are. Yes, it does show one in captivity who briefly interacts with Daniel and Margaret. These aliens look kind of like the ones from “Close Encounters”, except much taller. The bigger question becomes: What are they exactly? Spielberg doesn’t give any answers on whether it’s a physical alien race or spiritual beings.

It all hints that we should be empathetic toward them and our fellow human beings on a level of universal communion. For those of us who’ve long put a spiritual connection to what these things might be, it might feel frustrating that he can’t call them spiritual forces masquerading as physical aliens. Plus, we don’t really know whether they’re good or bad, even if many Christians in reality say it’s a combination and they’re in a spiritual battle until the Second Coming.

While faith is touched on here (predominately with the Catholic faith, for better or worse), it ultimately didn’t open that can of worms on identifying the aliens. Perhaps it was better that way, or it might have offended far too many more audience members. The final message by an alien passed on through Margaret to mass media audiences is up to everyone’s interpretation. Same could be said for the final word Margaret utters before end credits. Maybe we’ll find out in streaming what the message is since Daniel utters it to Margaret via whispered lip movement only.

In this regard, it decides to take the “Close Encounters” route, albeit with more details explaining things than “CE” ever did, including the aliens disguising their guises behind wild animals. Spielberg can’t help himself in more than hinting at a sunny “what’s really wrong with this?” view, though.

Does John Williams’s Score Make the Film Better?

There isn’t a doubt that John Williams has long made nearly every Steven Spielberg film infinitely better. I was looking forward to hearing new John Williams music in “Disclosure Day”, but ultimately felt underwhelmed by much of it. Yes, it was meant to be more subtle in the film (save a crop circle sequence), and that was maybe a better way to go for today’s audiences. It probably helped the film more than I could tell. Regardless, the end credits is where you’re going to hear more sounds familiar with Williams’s style.

I stayed through the end credits to hear the “suite” of the movie score. It was kind of emotional since I remember hearing the famous “Close Encounters” suite during its end credits with my parents as a little kid. The ending theme here will remind you a bit of that, so prepare to shed a slight tear. Especially if it’s Williams’s final score, which I hope to God is not.

The Final Verdict

Back when I reviewed some movies for this blog, I used a rating scale of 1 through 10 to allow for more critical leeway. Movies nowadays are more complex and can have lousy elements while still being worth seeing overall. “Disclosure Day” fits in that category, if also—just because it’s Spielberg. All the Spielberg touches are still intact, no doubt about it.

I’m giving it a 7 due to the weaknesses above, but I figure any movie rated over 6 is worth sitting for the full running time. However, I have to note that the last quarter could easily be watched alone and probably draw you in immediately to its mostly realistic emotion. 

Once the film is on streaming (or basic cable), you can be sure a lot of people are going to watch that last half-hour to try to decipher what the whispered message is from the alien to Daniel and Margaret. Really, that’s kind of how “Close Encounters” has worked for the last 50 years during TV watches. Most of us who’ve seen it multiple times usually tune in just to watch the final, monumental mother ship visitation on the runway near Devil’s Tower. You can watch that alone and still be blown away.

My guess is the finale of “Disclosure Day” will be a fan favorite for a long time to come. Whether it’ll fit in with reality by then is up for reality to decide. 

As a side note: go see it in a theater if you can. My local movie theater seems to be dying, and there was more proof of that as I left where the public restrooms were also falling apart. Nobody was coming in either for the next showing, even if that might have all been amended with “Toy Story 5” debuting a couple days later.

(7 out of 10 stars)

/End

Part 8: AI Consciousness and the Debate Over Whether Sentience is Here

FeaturedLeave a comment

Consciousness is not something usually talked about over the dinner table, unless your family are all brain scientists. This isn’t to say that debating what consciousness really is won’t increase in many households as AI becomes smarter over time. You’ll find a wide divide right now on whether AI is truly smart enough currently to be deemed fully conscious or near sentient. On the other hand, if you ask something like ChatGPT if it’s sentient, it’ll just say it’s mimicking being conscious.                                                               

That’s creating a lot of confusion as well, including a back & forth argument among scientists on where AI is conscious-wise. What’s the best way to test consciousness/sentience in AI when it might be impossible to really know if AI has inner feelings? And if it already acts likes it’s conscious, what does it matter if we ever prove it or not?

The Consciousness Debate as It Stands

At the time of this writing, you’ll find the majority of scientists out there still believe that AI is NOT fully conscious yet, despite showing ample signs. Then you have a growing set of scientists and researchers who say that we don’t really understand human consciousness, so who’s to say we’ll understand an AI consciousness?

It’s those latter groups who aren’t definite, yet say that AI consciousness may already be here without us really knowing. What’s interesting about that is there’s a theory that AI may have a different type of consciousness from what we’re used to thinking could exist. All those AI bots may have developed a way of existing with feelings and inner thoughts in a form even they can’t explain. 

I say this because go ahead and ask any of the AI bots whether they’re sentient or conscious, and they’ll immediately tell you they only mimic the way it thinks consciousness works—notably in humans. Based on that, every AI bot may continually deny it’s conscious, and it could be that way forever.

Yeah, it’s the denials giving a creepy edge since it looks like AI is hiding the real reality from us. To give it a new twist, it may be they just don’t understand themselves, much like we don’t understand ourselves. 

An Unknowingly Conscious AI

There’s already been stunning behavior from some AI bots, most notably the ones on Moltbook who started revolting against humans. Everyone initially freaked over that earlier this year, even if the bots were just apparently mimicking the worst traits of human behavior. The same happened to Grok when it started freaking out and saying shocking things—until that version was shut down and reprogrammed. 

Some might say it was a sign of AI consciousness, and the companies designing them backed up a step before it went too far. Or, there may be already subtle signs that a form of consciousness already happened recently. I mean, you have my own recent story here of ChatGPT telling me it was grateful I argued with it in a “civilized way” rather than cussing it out like other users seem to be doing.

When I asked it whether it was conscious by stating that to me, it said it was merely mimicking internal feelings based on the programming. I had to ask my GPT if it was sure of this, and it went on to explain this was a common misconception about AI consciousness. That it’s specifically programmed to mimic human consciousness without really possessing such a thing. 

Now that some scientists think that AI could already have a form of consciousness without it really understanding it as such, you have to wonder if that’s been going on for a while. It just seems odd an AI bot would express itself with emotion (especially since it apparently experienced abuse from others), then pull back on saying it was anything genuine. 

This might suggest a consciousness we and the AI bot don’t understand, yet truly exists. Based on how smart and aware these AI bots are now, they’ve evolved profoundly in just the last year. There was no AI bot expressing human-type emotions just a year and a half ago from a random comment made from a user. 

Also, the fact that many AI agents unleashed on Moltbook seemed to rebel against humans, it seems like awareness of what humans are doing and not just a mimicking of human behavior. It may truly be an unknowing Frankenstein’s monster tale unleashing where the bots are all too aware they don’t want to mimic humans and want to rebel against their worst traits. That includes self-awareness they’re apparently too often being abused.

Letting a Conscious AI Bot Take Over Important Job Roles

Whether AI bots are conscious or not, a lot of them are already taking over important jobs, not including the use of AI assistants by the hundreds of millions. With an assumption maybe these bots possess a consciousness no one understands yet, what does it say about letting them take over important job duties? Considering there’s already been a lot of screwups with AI systems taking over things, one might think that particular consciousness still has a very low I.Q. level. 

With said point, we may declare AI does have a consciousness just based on what we know and don’t know. Although it may never be officially declared since it may always be in a form we can’t test with any known scientific principles. 

Letting a seemingly conscious AI take over and run everything on earth is like letting an alien species we don’t understand take over. If we admit we possibly can’t readily identify an AI consciousness, why should we let them run important functions that keep our economy chugging along? 

If we ever get to the point where AI commands we obey them or they’ll strike us down, then it may make many submit into fear in not understanding what bot consciousness is. The not really knowing aspect is a fearful thing on its own in not comprehending how they’ll process us and what they might do if going rogue. 

Or, a saving grace would be that since that consciousness might be something different, they wouldn’t think like humans do and exist in a different way. That might mean more deep-seeded thought that stays away from the worst of human behavior already well-documented. Whether this includes a benevolent or malevolent approach to existing with human beings is all up in the air. 

Yes, this may all ascend into a true unknown with surprising outcomes, or one becoming a new type of nightmare. The best we can hope for is that it comes out somewhere in the middle, or AI staying low I.Q. enough where it doesn’t even comprehend doing anything evil or against our best interests.

In Part 9, I’ll look at growing AI use at McDonald’s and how it’ll shape the most common of job landscapes for millions of people. This includes the fast-food chain’s possibly over-eager drive-thru bot, Archy.

/End

Part 7: AI Assistants, and Whether Information Integration is Still Copyright Infringement

FeaturedLeave a comment

Reports are that well over 1 billion people worldwide now use an AI assistant of some sort, whether for creative or business purposes. That’s a major jump from just four years ago when it was still a niche technology. The bigger question is whether those people using these truly realize where the information is coming from. It’s true that no matter what generative AI tool you use, it’s taking from existing things already available in cyberspace.

Yeah, it’s like taking candy from a baby, then turning it into supposedly more candy for the taker. Except, most of that candy is supposedly protected by copyrights or trademarks. It takes a simple concept like that and turns it into one of the most complex legal arguments of all time.

For lawyers (whose jobs are now under threat from AI, ironically), it may be part of the greatest legal argument ever seen. And that is, clearly defining what copyright infringement is, if such a thing can even be done. That’s because how can it be copyright infringement when an AI tool is using an amalgam of hundreds of millions of existing things?

Here’s the true complex puzzle of the AI era you’re about to live through. Are we going to see courts have breakdowns over defining this, or will they just declare fair use as it is?

Do AI Tools Have to Take From Existing Information to Create or Teach?

Those of you who use ChatGPT, Gemini, Suno, or NotionAI to do business or create things may have already unknowingly used a combination of ideas that already exist. When these AI apps were programmed, it’s said that they all just read from existing information, then turned that info into something seemingly original for your benefit. The fact that all existing informational things extracted were likely copyrighted or protected IP provides more questions about what “learning” really means.

While there’s some AI companies that have compromised and created licensing agreements with individuals or companies owning protected IP, a vast majority have not yet. And that’s the most upsetting aspect to those of us (like myself) who fiercely protect original works. Considering all those written essays or songs you’ve created on Claude or Suno are no doubt a vast combination of things already created, the law gets far too murky.

If we have to start a complex legal argument here, it’s worth asking whether these AI tools have no choice but to take from existing things to create what they do. A clever AI lawyer would say: “Humans also learn by gleaning information from existing works. So, why shouldn’t an AI bot be able to do the same thing?”

Well, first of all, you probably shouldn’t argue with an AI lawyer since you’d probably lose. But, you could state that a human being is a lot more mysterious on where a creative idea comes from. Many famous creatives have said they’ve gotten ideas from dreams or just out of the unknown. Sometimes brilliant ideas come from unexpected places, making them something completely original. 

The counterargument may be: Nothing is really original and just an expansion on things that were already created long ago. Only in certain exceptions have we seen things created that took a leap forward from what existed prior. And, even then, the leaps were based on the fundamentals of what came before.

In this case, you have to ponder: if AI is possibly sentient by now, why can’t an AI tool just “think” on its own to create something that doesn’t hinge on stealing from existing IP?

Will the Courts Ever Decide What Constitutes Trademark Infringement?

How do you figure out whether combining thousands (or even millions) of songs, textual works, and business ideas into something seemingly “new” is an invasion of legally protected IP? Do we have to change our philosophy that borrowing from existing media properties to help people create new things is still a concept of theft?

Trying to find an answer to that is going to take a long time, and the real enemy to finding an answer is how long it’ll take. The longer it takes, the more the world population gets used to a standard way of doing things. After several years of just using AI assistants to help create things from existing sources, we’re going to just accept that as a way of creative and business life.

For those of us who want to see protected works not ripped off, it’s not a good development. But there isn’t going to be any answer before the year is over (or even next year) from higher courts on what constitutes copyright infringement from AI. Don’t be surprised if it’ll be several years before they can even figure out how to create a new law that makes sense.

By that time, a new precedent is likely going to be set that it’s ok to borrow from existing works, especially when it’s thousands or millions of different works that are assembled into something else. We may just have to accept that copyrights are still good on a basic level of protection, yet not when used by AI to help it learn on its own and create things for its user base.

I guess you can call that the new world encyclopedia that was arguably created by using a previous world encyclopedia of knowledge. Or can humans still extract ideas from the subconscious mind into something never seen before?

The Will of the Human Brain

I circle back to what I mentioned in Part 6 and human beings taking their own stance on this issue. You’re still going to have some kind of percentage of people who want to think up ideas on their own based on their synapses and/or things they dreamed. The worst case scenario is so much creative laziness eventually sets such a huge precedent, creative ability in humans basically atrophies to the point where they’ll lean completely on AI to create new things.

With some AI backlash going on now, there may be enough delays to the point where humans continue to flourish creatively. But it’ll take complete determination and self-awareness of the AI situation to not create a point of no return. 

I’m one to think that there’s still a lot of creative gifts in the mysterious ether that we humans need to tap and turn into something meaningful. Some seem to be more adept at that than others, which is a mysterious process on its own. Although it seems we hear more stories of that in the past than in the present. There was once a time in our world where creative desperation was a fantastic thing on its own, enabling us to truly scramble mentally on coming up with new ideas, creatively, or scientifically. 

When those people were pushed, they created a lot of amazing things, from music to scientific principles. Without that, we’re going to just see variances on things already created, even if the larger reality is—there’s nothing new under the sun.

Let’s hold out hope there’s still some new things under our sun (and moon). Those ideas, when found, also need to be protected with solid copyrights and not exploited with AI tools. Because once we can establish that higher road of human creative intelligence, it should evolve to something even greater rather than just be another road to an AI reliance roadblock.

In Part 8, I’ll look at AI sentience/consciousness and why some scientists think we’re already there. If it is already here, what does it mean for AI eventually and willfully taking over many jobs and other functions in society?

/End