A real winner. I lived through WWII and worked at the Los Alamos Laboratories after WWII. Colin Murphy's acting was superb. Unfortunately, the unnecessary nudity tarnished the film, appealing to the prurient, but adding nothing to the story. Also, the vulgarity in the movie was unrealistic. People didn't talk that way during that period. I worked with the scientist during that time and the only swear word I ever heard was "damn it" The film did not accurately depict Los Alamos. The engineers ensured the security of Los Alamos by building the facility on a high plateau with steep walls, approximately 1,000 feet high, allowing access only through one road. Pine forests covered the entire plateau. No one was allowed in unless they had a Secret Clearance, and if one worked in the Labs, they needed at least a Top-Secret Clearance or higher , depending on what they were working on.
Reviews
119 Reviews
World on Fire
(2019–2023)
WORSTE SHOW I HAVE EVER SEEN ON PBS
20 April 2020
I have been wathing shows on PBS for 50 years and World on Fire is the worst show that PBS has ever broadcast. I am a veteran of WWII and very familar with its history starting with 1938. World on Fire is so historically inaccurate that it laughfable, more of a comedy of errors. It does not even qualify as historical fiction.
Although I am a great fan of Helen Hunt, her role as an American Radio Reporter is just nonsense. There were no women reporters in radio during WWII. The scene showing the Germans killing Polish soldiers trying to surrender after the capture of Danzig is another fiction. During the early stages of WWII, the German Army respected prisoners and generally did so until after Germany invaded Russia. The Army particularly respected women and the scene where a German soldier shoots a mother is absolutely ridiculous.
That a member of the British Embassy smuggled a child out of Poland is nonsense. He could only have taken his wife. The child would have been taken off the train before it went into Germany.
After watching just three episodes, I ain't watching no more. It is too ridiculous to waste time.
Although I am a great fan of Helen Hunt, her role as an American Radio Reporter is just nonsense. There were no women reporters in radio during WWII. The scene showing the Germans killing Polish soldiers trying to surrender after the capture of Danzig is another fiction. During the early stages of WWII, the German Army respected prisoners and generally did so until after Germany invaded Russia. The Army particularly respected women and the scene where a German soldier shoots a mother is absolutely ridiculous.
That a member of the British Embassy smuggled a child out of Poland is nonsense. He could only have taken his wife. The child would have been taken off the train before it went into Germany.
After watching just three episodes, I ain't watching no more. It is too ridiculous to waste time.
Midway
(2019)
A BAD REMAKE OF THE ORIGINAL MOVIE OR AS HAMMY AS THEY CAN GET!!
30 March 2020
This film should win the Raspberry Award for the worst film of the year. It is a cheap remake of the 1976 movie of the same name but which had real actors in the cast which this film did not. The cast consisted of would bes that probably were extras in high school dramas. The original film had a cast of Charlton Heston, Henry Fonda, Glen Ford, Hal Holbrook, Robert Mitchum. James Coburn , Cliff Robertson, Robert Wagner, Eddie Albert just to name a few. The best this film could come up with was a hamWoody Harellson who never could act his way out of a wet paper bag and is horribly amatuerish in this film.
I have a special interest in the Battle of Midway. As a youngster, my father was stationed on Midway when the war broke out. He survived a shelling on December 7 which was nothing compared to the pasting Midway took during the Battle of Midway while he was there. It was a very tense time for my mother and her children at this time.
About all the makers of the film achieve is some degree of accuracy in the details of the equipment shown in the film. The film uses a lot of special effects that were not available in the original film but the original film depicts the events more accurately and it was much easier to understand. One of the problems with this film, is it tries to go to far back to tell the story by trying to make an intelligence officer seem more prescient than he actually was. The film also tends to exaggeration in trying to make its heroes bigger heroes than they were. That was unnecessary because they were great heroes without any exaggeration.
One inaccuracy was the depiction of the Japanese killing a captured American aircraft crewman by throwing him off a ship tied to an anchor. In fact, the Japanese would never have wasted a useful anchor and actually tied him to water filled fuel cans. Except for the execution, the scene like many in the film, is fiction because the only record of the execution was a brief entry in a ship's log. All three of the captured American airmen were similarly executed.
While the Battle of Midway was the beginning of the end of the war, one thing that is ignored in the film is as decisive as it was, it still could have been disastrous for the U.S. in that after the carrier warfare ceased, the Japanese had a very strong armada that could have easily taken Midway even though the Japanese no longer had any carriers. Even though the U.S. had two carriers left, neither had enough aircraft or crews to do anything to deter the Japanese had they chosen to continue their attack on Midway.
My recommendation is that people who want to watch a movie about the Battle of Midway should watch the 1976 version.
I have a special interest in the Battle of Midway. As a youngster, my father was stationed on Midway when the war broke out. He survived a shelling on December 7 which was nothing compared to the pasting Midway took during the Battle of Midway while he was there. It was a very tense time for my mother and her children at this time.
About all the makers of the film achieve is some degree of accuracy in the details of the equipment shown in the film. The film uses a lot of special effects that were not available in the original film but the original film depicts the events more accurately and it was much easier to understand. One of the problems with this film, is it tries to go to far back to tell the story by trying to make an intelligence officer seem more prescient than he actually was. The film also tends to exaggeration in trying to make its heroes bigger heroes than they were. That was unnecessary because they were great heroes without any exaggeration.
One inaccuracy was the depiction of the Japanese killing a captured American aircraft crewman by throwing him off a ship tied to an anchor. In fact, the Japanese would never have wasted a useful anchor and actually tied him to water filled fuel cans. Except for the execution, the scene like many in the film, is fiction because the only record of the execution was a brief entry in a ship's log. All three of the captured American airmen were similarly executed.
While the Battle of Midway was the beginning of the end of the war, one thing that is ignored in the film is as decisive as it was, it still could have been disastrous for the U.S. in that after the carrier warfare ceased, the Japanese had a very strong armada that could have easily taken Midway even though the Japanese no longer had any carriers. Even though the U.S. had two carriers left, neither had enough aircraft or crews to do anything to deter the Japanese had they chosen to continue their attack on Midway.
My recommendation is that people who want to watch a movie about the Battle of Midway should watch the 1976 version.
1917
(2019)
NOT A BET FILM - HITORICALLY INACCURATE
28 January 2020
While 1917 may have its attributes, it has a serious problem. Although based on a true story, it deviates so much from the story that the film is more fiction than fact. As a combat veteran of two wars and a military historian, I find the deviations ridiculous and misleading. If viewers believe that the film is realistic reenactment of a battle during WWI, they are badly mistaken.
As the reviews stated, the story was about two soldiers who were ordered to send a message to a regimental commander whose Brigade was deep behind enemy lines and was about to lead his troops into an ambush that would have caused the loss of 1,600 men. The messengers were to tell the commander to call off the attack. One of the two messengers was the brother of an officer belonging to the endangered regiment.
In fact, there was only one messenger and he was not a brother of any of the attackers. Furthermore, the actual orders given to his company commander were,"Should the enemy counter-attack, go forward to meet him with fixed bayonets." Nothing about calling off an attack. The messenger's task was to locate three other companies and pass on the order. That necessitated him traveling through no-mans land which at most was a mile deep.
As the film tells it, the Germans withdrew to set up a trap. In fact they withdrew to eliminate a large bulge in their lines. From Feb. 23 to April 5 of that year, the Germans were moving their troops to the Hindenburg Line. The Germans withdrew along a 27 mile front and caught the British completely by surprise. As a result, the British were very cautious in moving forward which negates the film storyline that the Brigade was isolated. In fact, the entire British line moved forward, not just one Brigade. The story of 1917 takes place on April 6 (which incidentally us the day the Americans entered the war.)
The first noticeable flaw in the film is that the messengers are told to proceed southeast to find the Brigade. That would have sent them behind their own lines. Because the messengers had to travel westerly through their own trenches to reach the point that they jumped off into no-mans land, they had to be at a point at the easterly end of the bulge in the German lines. So they had to travel in a northerly direction. Also, they figured it would take them at least a day to get to the Brigade so the Brigade had to be located a considerable distance from the front lines. The day was cloudy and there was no sun or landmarks to guide the messengers and that was compounded when nightfall fell. However, in the true story, the messenger was in fact, much closer to the missing companies.
Otherwise, the film realistically depicts the WWI battlefield conditions and it does the best job of depicting a man dying from a wound that I have seen in any film. But what keeps this film from being a best film is its failure to realistically depict the manuevers involved. It could have been told better.
As the reviews stated, the story was about two soldiers who were ordered to send a message to a regimental commander whose Brigade was deep behind enemy lines and was about to lead his troops into an ambush that would have caused the loss of 1,600 men. The messengers were to tell the commander to call off the attack. One of the two messengers was the brother of an officer belonging to the endangered regiment.
In fact, there was only one messenger and he was not a brother of any of the attackers. Furthermore, the actual orders given to his company commander were,"Should the enemy counter-attack, go forward to meet him with fixed bayonets." Nothing about calling off an attack. The messenger's task was to locate three other companies and pass on the order. That necessitated him traveling through no-mans land which at most was a mile deep.
As the film tells it, the Germans withdrew to set up a trap. In fact they withdrew to eliminate a large bulge in their lines. From Feb. 23 to April 5 of that year, the Germans were moving their troops to the Hindenburg Line. The Germans withdrew along a 27 mile front and caught the British completely by surprise. As a result, the British were very cautious in moving forward which negates the film storyline that the Brigade was isolated. In fact, the entire British line moved forward, not just one Brigade. The story of 1917 takes place on April 6 (which incidentally us the day the Americans entered the war.)
The first noticeable flaw in the film is that the messengers are told to proceed southeast to find the Brigade. That would have sent them behind their own lines. Because the messengers had to travel westerly through their own trenches to reach the point that they jumped off into no-mans land, they had to be at a point at the easterly end of the bulge in the German lines. So they had to travel in a northerly direction. Also, they figured it would take them at least a day to get to the Brigade so the Brigade had to be located a considerable distance from the front lines. The day was cloudy and there was no sun or landmarks to guide the messengers and that was compounded when nightfall fell. However, in the true story, the messenger was in fact, much closer to the missing companies.
Otherwise, the film realistically depicts the WWI battlefield conditions and it does the best job of depicting a man dying from a wound that I have seen in any film. But what keeps this film from being a best film is its failure to realistically depict the manuevers involved. It could have been told better.
The Post
(2017)
Great Movie
16 July 2019
The acting is superb, the movie is well directed, the photography is outstanding, and the story well told. The only reason I don't give the movie the highest rating is because of the profane and vulgar language which contributed nothing to the movie and was superfluous and inserted only for the purpose of avoiding a G rating.
Personally speaking, Daniel Ellsburg was a traitor. Ironically, my wife and he were both working for Rand at the same time. I do not believe that the publication of the Pentagon papers at that time contributed in anyway to the ending of the war which was already in progress. If anything, it may have slowed the ending but indeed it made it much more dangerous for our military then in Vietnam.
I strongly agree that once the Americans were out of the war, publication of the Pentagon papers was in order. And I don't disagree with the decision of the Post publishing the papers once another news source began publication.
As a note based on my own experience, the US should never entered the Vietnam War the way it did because it was doomed to failure. When my battalion was pulled out of Korea in 1953 and put on ships headed for Viet Nam but then returned to Korea a week later, I began to suspect that Viet Nam and not Europe sooner or later would be our next battleground and I began to closely follow events there.
By 1955, the Communist (Viet Cong) were engaged in guerilla warfare in South Viet Nam and I saw this as the next threat that would involve the US, particularly because the South Vietnamese Army was but a shell. So I began studying up guerrilla warfare tactics, particularly the success of the British in defeating the guerrillas in Malaysia, and how the Philippine and American Army succeed against the HUK guerrillas in the Philippines. I began working on developing tactics to defeat guerrillas. Because of my interest and because I spoke French, I was sent to South Viet Nam as a military adviser in 1957.
Based on what I observed there, it was clear that the South Vietnamese Army was at least 10 years away from being ready to fight even a guerrilla war, much less an invasion by a battle tested and well trained North Vietnamese Army. Moreover, I also observed that the Viet Cong were being supplied by the North Vietnamese. This was important because one reason that my units were able to defeat North Korean guerrillas was because they were isolated from any resupply or assistance from the North.
Thus, I concluded that the only way to defeat the Viet Cong was to completely isolate South Viet Nam from the North. To do that meant putting more than a million ground troops and establishing a fortified line along the border between the two countries from the sea and across the Mekong River in Laos and it would be necessary for at least ten years until the Viet Cong was wiped out and the South Vietnamese Army fully combat ready, something it never achieved.
In 1962, I wrote a detailed report setting forth my recommendations, particularly that unless the U.S. and its allies were committed to this plan, the U.S. should stay out of Viet Nam. I submitted my report to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Unfortunately, the U.S. government was committed to a policy of containment which began with Pres. Truman and followed by subsequent Presidents. I don't criticize the policy and to a certain extent, the fall of South Vietnam led to the communist takeover of Laos and Cambodia, but these nations had always been in the Vietnamese sphere of influence. Fortunately, the domino effect stopped there and had no impact on Thailand or Malaysia which the American government had feared would happen if South Vietnam fell.
The irony is that in the end I was right - that the U.S. could not win without a full commitment to defeating the North Viet Nam. It had to be all out war or no war at all. The war was instead fought piece-meal and in the wrong way. So I feel badly for all my comrades who were thrown into that mess.
Personally speaking, Daniel Ellsburg was a traitor. Ironically, my wife and he were both working for Rand at the same time. I do not believe that the publication of the Pentagon papers at that time contributed in anyway to the ending of the war which was already in progress. If anything, it may have slowed the ending but indeed it made it much more dangerous for our military then in Vietnam.
I strongly agree that once the Americans were out of the war, publication of the Pentagon papers was in order. And I don't disagree with the decision of the Post publishing the papers once another news source began publication.
As a note based on my own experience, the US should never entered the Vietnam War the way it did because it was doomed to failure. When my battalion was pulled out of Korea in 1953 and put on ships headed for Viet Nam but then returned to Korea a week later, I began to suspect that Viet Nam and not Europe sooner or later would be our next battleground and I began to closely follow events there.
By 1955, the Communist (Viet Cong) were engaged in guerilla warfare in South Viet Nam and I saw this as the next threat that would involve the US, particularly because the South Vietnamese Army was but a shell. So I began studying up guerrilla warfare tactics, particularly the success of the British in defeating the guerrillas in Malaysia, and how the Philippine and American Army succeed against the HUK guerrillas in the Philippines. I began working on developing tactics to defeat guerrillas. Because of my interest and because I spoke French, I was sent to South Viet Nam as a military adviser in 1957.
Based on what I observed there, it was clear that the South Vietnamese Army was at least 10 years away from being ready to fight even a guerrilla war, much less an invasion by a battle tested and well trained North Vietnamese Army. Moreover, I also observed that the Viet Cong were being supplied by the North Vietnamese. This was important because one reason that my units were able to defeat North Korean guerrillas was because they were isolated from any resupply or assistance from the North.
Thus, I concluded that the only way to defeat the Viet Cong was to completely isolate South Viet Nam from the North. To do that meant putting more than a million ground troops and establishing a fortified line along the border between the two countries from the sea and across the Mekong River in Laos and it would be necessary for at least ten years until the Viet Cong was wiped out and the South Vietnamese Army fully combat ready, something it never achieved.
In 1962, I wrote a detailed report setting forth my recommendations, particularly that unless the U.S. and its allies were committed to this plan, the U.S. should stay out of Viet Nam. I submitted my report to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Unfortunately, the U.S. government was committed to a policy of containment which began with Pres. Truman and followed by subsequent Presidents. I don't criticize the policy and to a certain extent, the fall of South Vietnam led to the communist takeover of Laos and Cambodia, but these nations had always been in the Vietnamese sphere of influence. Fortunately, the domino effect stopped there and had no impact on Thailand or Malaysia which the American government had feared would happen if South Vietnam fell.
The irony is that in the end I was right - that the U.S. could not win without a full commitment to defeating the North Viet Nam. It had to be all out war or no war at all. The war was instead fought piece-meal and in the wrong way. So I feel badly for all my comrades who were thrown into that mess.
Woman Walks Ahead
(2017)
Interesting but flawed historiclly.
26 November 2018
This movie is to me as part American Indian enjoyable as it is told. I disagree with Roger Ebert's comments that it is too violent. However, I do not give it a high rating because it fictionalizes the story. The woman, Catherine Weldon, had an unsavory past which is not disclosed in the movie. She had been married but ran away with another man with whom she had a child. He also left her and her husband divorced her. She had a dream of living with Sioux. She joined the National Indian Defense Assn. and contrary to what is stated in the movie, it was on behalf of the Assn. that she traveled to the Dakota Territory. She did not go there for the purpose of painting Sitting Bull. And her son accompanied her on the journey and actually lived with the Sioux. When the Ghost Dancers became active, she warned Sitting Bull against them and warned him as to what would happen if he supported them. As a result, Sitting Bull rejected her and because of that and that her son was ill, she left him. Her son died on the way as she moved to Kansas City. She had a small inheritance which funded her trip but she never had any political influence as she asserted in the movie.
Aside from these discrepancies, the picture is a lesson in what happened to the Sioux and the acting is good. Setting aside the involvement of the artist, the overall story is informative and the scenery is grand.
Aside from these discrepancies, the picture is a lesson in what happened to the Sioux and the acting is good. Setting aside the involvement of the artist, the overall story is informative and the scenery is grand.
Dunkirk
(2017)
Has its moments but definately not worth an Oscar
20 February 2018
Given all the fluff about the movie, it was disappointing. It has its virtues but not enough to win any awards, It shows only a very small portion of the battle for Dunkirk and it doesn't always get it right. The battle for Dunkirk is seared in my memory. As a boy, I first heard of Dunkirk on the radio news but when I saw the newsreel footage and the photos in Life magazine, it became indelibly impressed in my memory. While a professional military and battle experienced officer stationed in Europe, I spent a weekend in Dunkirk and the surrounding countryside studying the battle.
If anyone wants to really learn about what happened at Dunkirk they should watch the PBS NOVA program "Great Escape at Dunkirk." In one hour, a viewer will learn far, far more about Dunkirk than depicted in the movie and have a much better understanding.
Unfortunately, the movies shortchanges the viewers by not taking a few minutes to provide the setting. Inaccurate.y, the film begins with the French and British defending against the German attack only a few hundred yards from the beach when in fact, the German lines were still 20KM from the beach on May 27 which is about when the film begins and a 1,000 KM from the beach when the British and French surrendered on June 4.
The story about the Spitfire crash landing on the beach is incorrect. To begin with, the pilot gliding his plane without fuel and shooting down a German bomber is nonsense. Then he crash lands his plane on the beach and burns the plane and surrenders to the Germans. In fact, a Spitfire did land on the beach but the pilot was not taken prisoner nor was the plane burned. In fact, it was eventually recovered long after the war and restored and it is flying today.
What was bothersome, is that the story starts out by focusing on a Britsih deserter and follows him through the film. That does not do justice to the real heroes of Dunkirk, the soldiers in the rear guard to fought valiantly to hold back the German advance until the rest of the Army escaped, and then surrendered and were put in German prison camps for the remainder of the war.
The ending doesn't tell the story. We find the British Admiral in charge of the evacuation saying he is staying for the French. In fact,123,000 French troops were evacuated. But the story is not clear when Commander Bolton at the end says "I'm staying. For the French." But most of the French had already been evacuated so what he probably was referring to over 26,000 French soldiers that were evacuated on the last day.
The story was fuzzy at times, even confusing. That was in part due to poor editing which switched back and forth and scenes often were not in chronological order. Often switching back and forth between night and day and back again. Some like that style but I found it annoying. At times the story was not told well. Apparently, the reason the story focused on the deserter is because the story of how he survived was unique. He survives a shipwreck in the movie the significance of that incident is not clear - until I saw the NOVA version.
A plus for the film was its realism. The scenes were real. The dialog was real. The acting was very good. It did not get maudlin. Nothing romantic. No gore and it could easily have been gory. It is the type of movie I don't mind children watching. But not it is not a history lesson.
If anyone wants to really learn about what happened at Dunkirk they should watch the PBS NOVA program "Great Escape at Dunkirk." In one hour, a viewer will learn far, far more about Dunkirk than depicted in the movie and have a much better understanding.
Unfortunately, the movies shortchanges the viewers by not taking a few minutes to provide the setting. Inaccurate.y, the film begins with the French and British defending against the German attack only a few hundred yards from the beach when in fact, the German lines were still 20KM from the beach on May 27 which is about when the film begins and a 1,000 KM from the beach when the British and French surrendered on June 4.
The story about the Spitfire crash landing on the beach is incorrect. To begin with, the pilot gliding his plane without fuel and shooting down a German bomber is nonsense. Then he crash lands his plane on the beach and burns the plane and surrenders to the Germans. In fact, a Spitfire did land on the beach but the pilot was not taken prisoner nor was the plane burned. In fact, it was eventually recovered long after the war and restored and it is flying today.
What was bothersome, is that the story starts out by focusing on a Britsih deserter and follows him through the film. That does not do justice to the real heroes of Dunkirk, the soldiers in the rear guard to fought valiantly to hold back the German advance until the rest of the Army escaped, and then surrendered and were put in German prison camps for the remainder of the war.
The ending doesn't tell the story. We find the British Admiral in charge of the evacuation saying he is staying for the French. In fact,123,000 French troops were evacuated. But the story is not clear when Commander Bolton at the end says "I'm staying. For the French." But most of the French had already been evacuated so what he probably was referring to over 26,000 French soldiers that were evacuated on the last day.
The story was fuzzy at times, even confusing. That was in part due to poor editing which switched back and forth and scenes often were not in chronological order. Often switching back and forth between night and day and back again. Some like that style but I found it annoying. At times the story was not told well. Apparently, the reason the story focused on the deserter is because the story of how he survived was unique. He survives a shipwreck in the movie the significance of that incident is not clear - until I saw the NOVA version.
A plus for the film was its realism. The scenes were real. The dialog was real. The acting was very good. It did not get maudlin. Nothing romantic. No gore and it could easily have been gory. It is the type of movie I don't mind children watching. But not it is not a history lesson.
The Killing of a Sacred Deer
(2017)
Flick doesn't make any sense despite good acting
3 November 2017
I went to see the movie because it stars Nicole Kidman. With her and Colin Ferrell, how could anything go wrong? But it did. The flick seemed pointless - meandering without any direction or sense of finality. It seemed as if it was going one way and then stopped and went a different direction. I saw a clip on an interview of Nocole and she was asked what the scene was all about. She answered that she didn't know. Now if she didn't know, then how is the audience to know? The only reason I gave this flick 3 stars was because the cast did the best they could with it but otherwise I can't recommend anyone watch the flick.
Wonder Woman
(2017)
If you watched the Carter original, you will be sadly disappointed.
2 June 2017
Anyone who saw the original Wonder Woman movie, as bad as it was,wlll find the original far superior to this piece of crap even though the newer version is full of cinematic gimmicks which the original did not have.Lind Carter was not the greatest actress but compared to Gal Godot, Carter was by far the best Wonder Woman. Besides Carter is beautiful, Gadot is very unattractive. I suspect that those who exalt this film are feminists.
And compared to the original movie, this one is badly directed. It lacks cohesiveness and credibility. It is as others have noted, a badly flawed flick. If you go to watch it, don't have high expectations because you will really be disappointed. The flick got a lot of undeserved praise.
The only reason I went to see this flick was to take my 14 yr. old granddaughter and my 17 yr. old grandson. My granddaughter loved the movie, my grandson was bored by it, thought it was a waste of time. But I can understand why anyone who is still a juvenile at heart might enjoy this fantasy. Also, why viewers who were not old enough to watch the original Wonder Woman had nothing to compare the latest flick with the original. It is like the James Bond movies. The original Sean Connery versions were by far the best but as the movies went on and new actors became James Bond, they couldn't match Sean Connery. Likewise Gadot is no Lynda Carter. And I don't mean to compare the James Bond movies with the DC movies because the DC movies including the latest Wonder Woman are not even close to being in the same class as the James Bond movies. It is like comparing the Untouchables with the Brahmans.
Another thing that one has to wonder. Wonder Woman was not released until June 2, yet there were so many reviews written prior to that date. So is someone stacking the deck in order to get people to watch the flick?
And compared to the original movie, this one is badly directed. It lacks cohesiveness and credibility. It is as others have noted, a badly flawed flick. If you go to watch it, don't have high expectations because you will really be disappointed. The flick got a lot of undeserved praise.
The only reason I went to see this flick was to take my 14 yr. old granddaughter and my 17 yr. old grandson. My granddaughter loved the movie, my grandson was bored by it, thought it was a waste of time. But I can understand why anyone who is still a juvenile at heart might enjoy this fantasy. Also, why viewers who were not old enough to watch the original Wonder Woman had nothing to compare the latest flick with the original. It is like the James Bond movies. The original Sean Connery versions were by far the best but as the movies went on and new actors became James Bond, they couldn't match Sean Connery. Likewise Gadot is no Lynda Carter. And I don't mean to compare the James Bond movies with the DC movies because the DC movies including the latest Wonder Woman are not even close to being in the same class as the James Bond movies. It is like comparing the Untouchables with the Brahmans.
Another thing that one has to wonder. Wonder Woman was not released until June 2, yet there were so many reviews written prior to that date. So is someone stacking the deck in order to get people to watch the flick?
Philomena
(2013)
Terrible story, terrible movie
25 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The only redeeming quality about this movie is the excellent acting. Otherwise it is very mediocre. Supposedly it is based on a true story but it probably took a lot of liberties with the story to sell messages that never were in the original story. And the foul language used too frequently in the movie probably never happened in real life because it is completely out of character. The movie is not PG-13. It should have been rated as "R".
I am not a Catholic and I have a lot of issues with the Catholic church but this movie is a vicious and undeserved attack on the Church. It really takes things out of context. That the Church took in unwed pregnant mothers, helped deliver the babies, raised the children and put them up for adoption is very commendable and charitable. That they charged adopting parents a $1000 was justifiable. Charity doesn't come free.
But the main point of the movie was to condemn the Nuns for refusing to help the mother find her child after it was adopted. There is a good reason for that and in many countries and states, that is the law. Once the mother gives up her child for adoption, the adopting agency is forbidden from disclosing any information about the whereabouts of the adopted child. There is a very good reason for that. It provides stability both for the adopted child and the adoptive parents. But primarily it is for the benefit of the child.
That also explains why the mothers while in the convent were only allowed to visit their child for an hour a day. While it provided an opportunity for the mothers to see their children, it did not allow enough time for the children to become bonded to their mothers which would have complicated their adoptions. It was a wise move.
Having said that the nuns could have treated the mothers much better. It was not Christian of the nuns to condemn the mothers because they had engaged in extramarital sex. It would have been much better if the nuns had followed Jesus' example and teachings. Jesus loved and forgave sinners telling them o and sin no more." Had the nuns did that, they would have really helped the women.
But as much as I have admired Judi Dench as an actress, it is a shame she took on this role and it doesn't speak well of her.
I am not a Catholic and I have a lot of issues with the Catholic church but this movie is a vicious and undeserved attack on the Church. It really takes things out of context. That the Church took in unwed pregnant mothers, helped deliver the babies, raised the children and put them up for adoption is very commendable and charitable. That they charged adopting parents a $1000 was justifiable. Charity doesn't come free.
But the main point of the movie was to condemn the Nuns for refusing to help the mother find her child after it was adopted. There is a good reason for that and in many countries and states, that is the law. Once the mother gives up her child for adoption, the adopting agency is forbidden from disclosing any information about the whereabouts of the adopted child. There is a very good reason for that. It provides stability both for the adopted child and the adoptive parents. But primarily it is for the benefit of the child.
That also explains why the mothers while in the convent were only allowed to visit their child for an hour a day. While it provided an opportunity for the mothers to see their children, it did not allow enough time for the children to become bonded to their mothers which would have complicated their adoptions. It was a wise move.
Having said that the nuns could have treated the mothers much better. It was not Christian of the nuns to condemn the mothers because they had engaged in extramarital sex. It would have been much better if the nuns had followed Jesus' example and teachings. Jesus loved and forgave sinners telling them o and sin no more." Had the nuns did that, they would have really helped the women.
But as much as I have admired Judi Dench as an actress, it is a shame she took on this role and it doesn't speak well of her.
Saving Mr. Banks
(2013)
Marvellous Movie
5 February 2015
Delightful story perfectly told by Disney - a show suitable for everyone. Not a great movie fan but this was top notch. Didn't even recognize Emma Thompson and though not her fan, she did a superb job. Hanks was also great but occasionally, he sounded like Forest Gump and that may have cost him the Oscar. But all the actors and actresses in the movie were tops and contributed to the film's success.
Perhaps it is the Disney magic. Mary Poppins was a stellar motion picture so it made "Saving Mr. Banks" even more interesting. But it wasn't just a story about Mary Poppins - it was a story not only about its author but also a story about Walt Disney and it told a lot about the man and why he was so successful. That in itself made the movie a winner.
This is a movie I would like to see again and again. It is a classic.
Perhaps it is the Disney magic. Mary Poppins was a stellar motion picture so it made "Saving Mr. Banks" even more interesting. But it wasn't just a story about Mary Poppins - it was a story not only about its author but also a story about Walt Disney and it told a lot about the man and why he was so successful. That in itself made the movie a winner.
This is a movie I would like to see again and again. It is a classic.
Exodus: Gods and Kings
(2014)
A Very Distorted View of the Biblical Story of Exodus
13 December 2014
The movie is a very distorted view of Moses and the exodus of the Jews from Egypt through the wilderness to Palestine. A wise old sage once told me that if you can't tell the story right, don't tell it all. There is only one story as it is told in the Bible Chapter Exodus and that is the story. The way it is told in this movie about Moses, it ain't the way it was written. It is a mockery of the original story It is pure blasphemy and nothing but an attack on the Bible and religion. No right thinking Jew or Christian should watch this movie. It is obvious that its producers do not understand in the least the spiritual message the story the Bible tells.
For example, where "a snarky, querulous 13 year old boy" becomes the voice of God rather than "an unseen voice in the clouds." This shows the producer's lack of understanding of the Scripture. Moses was praying in a very humble and unselfish way for guidance from God and his prayer was answered. When God answers our prayers, the answer comes out of nowhere and the clouds simply were a metaphorical way of stating that. Anyone that has had that experience knows this but obviously the producers of the movie have not, so not believing in that that God's voice could come out of nowhere, they substitute a boy.
Not only that, the movie adds to the story and in so doing becomes quite silly at times and that is another reason not to watch the movie because it is just another effort to undermine and distort the story of the exodus.
For example, where "a snarky, querulous 13 year old boy" becomes the voice of God rather than "an unseen voice in the clouds." This shows the producer's lack of understanding of the Scripture. Moses was praying in a very humble and unselfish way for guidance from God and his prayer was answered. When God answers our prayers, the answer comes out of nowhere and the clouds simply were a metaphorical way of stating that. Anyone that has had that experience knows this but obviously the producers of the movie have not, so not believing in that that God's voice could come out of nowhere, they substitute a boy.
Not only that, the movie adds to the story and in so doing becomes quite silly at times and that is another reason not to watch the movie because it is just another effort to undermine and distort the story of the exodus.
The Butler
(I) (2013)
It could have been much better
19 August 2013
Although the movie is based on a true story, a story that is very interesting, the producers couldn't leave it alone. Instead, they tampered with it so much that they made such an interesting story, uninteresting.
The only bright spot in the movie is Forest Whitaker. Given what he had to work with, he did a superb job of playing Eugene Allen. Allen was a humble man and Whitaker captures that humility. Originally, Denzel Washington was selected to play the part but it is unlikely that Washington, as good an actor as he is, could portray a humble man.
One of he big weaknesses in the film was the supporting cast. Oprah Winfrey was miscast as the butlers wife. That really distracted from Goines. Oprah came across as much too strong a personality as if the film was centered around her instead of Goines and her acting was mediocre. In real life, the story was about Allen, and not about his wife, but Oprah made the film as much about her as Allen. There are two explanations for writing the story to include Oprah. Either, the producers wanted her star power, or more likely, they needed her money to produce the film and had to cast her in the movie to get it.
Other than the strong performance by Whitaker, about the redeeming thing about the movie is that at least viewers are aware of the basic theme of the story, as fictionalized as it is, is that there was a butler of color that served eight presidents, was invited by one president to an official dinner, and got to see a man of color elected president. But we all could have learned that if it had been made a TV documentary rather than a crappy movie.
The only bright spot in the movie is Forest Whitaker. Given what he had to work with, he did a superb job of playing Eugene Allen. Allen was a humble man and Whitaker captures that humility. Originally, Denzel Washington was selected to play the part but it is unlikely that Washington, as good an actor as he is, could portray a humble man.
One of he big weaknesses in the film was the supporting cast. Oprah Winfrey was miscast as the butlers wife. That really distracted from Goines. Oprah came across as much too strong a personality as if the film was centered around her instead of Goines and her acting was mediocre. In real life, the story was about Allen, and not about his wife, but Oprah made the film as much about her as Allen. There are two explanations for writing the story to include Oprah. Either, the producers wanted her star power, or more likely, they needed her money to produce the film and had to cast her in the movie to get it.
Other than the strong performance by Whitaker, about the redeeming thing about the movie is that at least viewers are aware of the basic theme of the story, as fictionalized as it is, is that there was a butler of color that served eight presidents, was invited by one president to an official dinner, and got to see a man of color elected president. But we all could have learned that if it had been made a TV documentary rather than a crappy movie.
The Lone Ranger
(2013)
Big disappointment TWO thumbs down
9 July 2013
My granddaughter wanted to go to the movies. Despicable 2 was sold out so we went to watch the Lone Ranger, who always was a favorite of mine. What a waste of money. It had none of the charisma that the original series had. Those who like it probably never grew up with the Lone Ranger.
Casting Johnny Depp as Tonto was the biggest mistake the producers made. Everyone knows he ain't no Indian. And he is not built like the traditional Tonto. The only role that Depp could play in this movie would be that of a villain.
The movie got away from what made the Lone Ranger successful. But the producers probably afraid that if Tonto played the traditional role, some of my Indian brethren would be offended so they tried to make him the hero instead of Lone Ranger's buddy. Hey, I always loved the fact that Tonto was the Lone Ranger's sidekick. He was playing a hero. Movie just proves that when a successful formula is abandoned, it is usually a disaster. Silversrone might have pulled it off but Depp never had a chance.
It was one of the worst Westerns I ever watched. I made a mistake in not reading the reviews before I went but that is what you get when you go on the spur of the moment. This movie deserves a razz berry.
Casting Johnny Depp as Tonto was the biggest mistake the producers made. Everyone knows he ain't no Indian. And he is not built like the traditional Tonto. The only role that Depp could play in this movie would be that of a villain.
The movie got away from what made the Lone Ranger successful. But the producers probably afraid that if Tonto played the traditional role, some of my Indian brethren would be offended so they tried to make him the hero instead of Lone Ranger's buddy. Hey, I always loved the fact that Tonto was the Lone Ranger's sidekick. He was playing a hero. Movie just proves that when a successful formula is abandoned, it is usually a disaster. Silversrone might have pulled it off but Depp never had a chance.
It was one of the worst Westerns I ever watched. I made a mistake in not reading the reviews before I went but that is what you get when you go on the spur of the moment. This movie deserves a razz berry.
The Great Gatsby
(2013)
Don't Waste Your Money or Your Time
9 May 2013
The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite novels. It was required reading in American Lit. However, the movie is mockery of F. Scoot Fitzgerald's novel. The novel left much for the imagination with its powerful imagery. This movie sucks. It is like a comic book version of the original novel leaving nothing to the imagination. It is only what the movie maker imagines, not what Fitzgerald had in mind. As for the cast, the last person that should have been cast as Gatsby is Leonardo DiCaprio. He not only doesn't fit the image of Gatsby, trying to make him Gatsby is like trying to drive a square peg through a round hole. And he doesn't even come close to acting like Gatsby.
If a viewer had read Fitzgerald's book and then walked into this movie without knowing that it was supposed to be based on the novel, one would not have recognized the movie. Perhaps a viewer would have believed it was some sort of sequel.
While the earlier Great Gatsby with Robert Redford was not perfect, at least it strongly resembled the novel, which this last version does not. So if someone wants to see a movie version of the Great Gatsby, watch the Redford version. Don't waste either your money or your time on this wacky version. Best yet, go read the book which I am doing again. That is the only benefit I got from watching the movie. It got me to read the book again which after this stinking movie, made me realize how good a writer, F. Scott Fitzgerald was.
If a viewer had read Fitzgerald's book and then walked into this movie without knowing that it was supposed to be based on the novel, one would not have recognized the movie. Perhaps a viewer would have believed it was some sort of sequel.
While the earlier Great Gatsby with Robert Redford was not perfect, at least it strongly resembled the novel, which this last version does not. So if someone wants to see a movie version of the Great Gatsby, watch the Redford version. Don't waste either your money or your time on this wacky version. Best yet, go read the book which I am doing again. That is the only benefit I got from watching the movie. It got me to read the book again which after this stinking movie, made me realize how good a writer, F. Scott Fitzgerald was.
True Grit
(2010)
Original True Grit a better movie
30 December 2010
After reading all the rave reviews of this movie, I decided to see it. It did not live up to the reviews and it certainly is only a poor copycat of the John Wayne version which won the Academy Award.
I never was a fan of John Wayne. Never impressed me as an actor (although I do have his autograph which I obtained when I was young) nor did nor did I like his politics. Nevertheless, I found that he was perfect for the role of Rooster Cogburn in True Grit and played the role masterfully. That movie was extraordinarily entertaining as was the followup "Rooster Cogburn."
The entire cast of the original movie is far superior to that of its copycat. If you know Rooster Cogburn, you know that Jeff Bridges ain't no Rooster Cogburn. If you watched Kim Darby play "Mattie Ross" you know that Hailee Stein field ain't no Mattie.
The original movie could be shown to children. I would not show the copycat to anyone under 17 years of age. Some feel the movie is a very authentic Western, however, I grew up in the old West and in those times you would not hear some of the language used in the copycat version. Also some of the scenes are unnecessarily gruesome despite their realism. The original version shows that a great Western movie can be made without overdoing the language and the gruesome scenes, which are added for shock value rather than to enhance the reality.
The only reason that I can find for the copycat movie to get such rave reviews is that most screen critics hated John Wayne because of his right wing politics and they are pumping Bridges and the copycat movie in order to diminish John Wayne.
I never was a fan of John Wayne. Never impressed me as an actor (although I do have his autograph which I obtained when I was young) nor did nor did I like his politics. Nevertheless, I found that he was perfect for the role of Rooster Cogburn in True Grit and played the role masterfully. That movie was extraordinarily entertaining as was the followup "Rooster Cogburn."
The entire cast of the original movie is far superior to that of its copycat. If you know Rooster Cogburn, you know that Jeff Bridges ain't no Rooster Cogburn. If you watched Kim Darby play "Mattie Ross" you know that Hailee Stein field ain't no Mattie.
The original movie could be shown to children. I would not show the copycat to anyone under 17 years of age. Some feel the movie is a very authentic Western, however, I grew up in the old West and in those times you would not hear some of the language used in the copycat version. Also some of the scenes are unnecessarily gruesome despite their realism. The original version shows that a great Western movie can be made without overdoing the language and the gruesome scenes, which are added for shock value rather than to enhance the reality.
The only reason that I can find for the copycat movie to get such rave reviews is that most screen critics hated John Wayne because of his right wing politics and they are pumping Bridges and the copycat movie in order to diminish John Wayne.
Away from Her
(2006)
Great Acting, poor screenplay
9 March 2009
It is often said that a picture is worth a 1000 words. In some ways that is true about this movie, and in other ways it is not.
For those unfamiliar with Alzheimer Disease (AD), it was educational. For anyone who has had to care for a close relative afflicted with Alzheimer Disease or Parkinson's Disease, the movie depicted the hopelessness one feels when having to care for the afflicted persons, who know how devastating these diseases are, and for which there is no cure. In this sense the picture is worth a 1000 words but the picture distorts time in that the progressive deterioration caused by AD takes place over a period of several years while in the picture it happens in a period of about four months.
The screenplay begins and ends in a winter. There are no other seasons depicted. It may have been that because the film was shot on a tight budget, which did not allow the filming to include the other seasons, and that may be why the time line was so unreal.
This screenplay written by Sarah Polley was based on a short story "The Bear Came Over the Mountain" by Alice Munro, published in the New Yorker Magazine in December 27, 1999. Unfortunately, Polley butchered the story, which was tightly written and very interesting, and for this she was unjustly nominated for an Academy Award. She also did a horrible job directing the picture, One can read the short story in about 15 minutes. The movie lasts 110 minutes and yet leaves out some of the most important parts of the short story so that the viewer never knows the complete story and it makes the movie disjointed. Polley often uses quotes from the short story in the screenplay but they lose their meaning when the material from the story on which the quotes are based is omitted. For example, the dialog that ends both the movie and the short story, was based on events that occurred earlier in the marriage between Fiona (Julie Christie) and her husband Grant Anderson (Gordon Pinsett) which were vaguely alluded to in the movie but much more explicitly detail in the story. Thus, the conclusion lacks any punch. It was the same earlier events which set up a discussion between a nurse (Kristy) at the nursing home and Grant, in which she tries to explain the close relationship between his wife and Audrey, another elderly patient at the nursing home. If one had read the story, the explanation had real meaning but in the context of the movie in which the material supporting the explanation was omitted, it had little impact.
Making the movie harder to follow was the decision to use flashbacks, jumping back and forth between a conversation Grant had with Marian and other parts of the story, leaving the viewer disjointed and confused. Flashbacks would have been more effective had they been used to tell about earlier events between Grant and Fiona that set up the story as was done in the short story.
There are also two sex scenes in the movie that were not in the short story. The first is unreal and the second one detracts from the whole theme of the story which is Grant's absolute devotion to Fiona at the stage of their marriage. It really detracted from the secondary message which depicted AD. It was "off message."
The movie has a very confusing ending which leaves a viewer bewildered. It left too many loose ends. It leaves the characters (and the viewers) in a predicament. The predicament was in part a result of a gratuitous sex scene, and partly because much of the last part of the movie was a gross departure from the short story so that the movie ending made no sense at all. Had not. The parts of the short story Polley chose to omit could have been included in the screenplay without lengthening the movie had not Polley wasted so much time on meaningless diversions from the short story.
Another problem with the movie is that the nursing home is rather luxurious. It is not the type of nursing home that one would find for patients with ordinary income. Grant and Fiona were not wealthy. Grant was a retired professor who was forced to retire early on a reduced income and they lived in a home that Fiona's parents had left Fiona. So there was no explanation as to how Grant was able to afford the cost. Yet we know that it was expensive because Marian, the wife of Audrey, who Fiona befriended, took Audrey out of the nursing home because of the high cost.
While Polley used much of the dialog from the short story, she added some of her own. At one point Grant meets Marian, the wife of Audrey. When they departed in the movie, Marian says to herself, "What a jerk!" referring to Grant. That is not what happened in the short story. When he departed he felt depressed that he had not succeeded in persuading Marian to send Audrey back to the nursing home and he said to himself "What a jerk, she would be thinking now." In the short story, that ended his relationship with Marian but that is not what happened in the movie. What followed in the movie ruined the movie.
That does not take away from the superb acting performances of both Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsett, which for no other reason, makes the movie worthwhile watching. It is unfortunate that Sarah Polley did such a miserable job writing the script and directing the movie so that a 1000 pictures were not worth the last three words which are the essence of the story. Which proves that film making often is unable to project the power of the written word.
For those unfamiliar with Alzheimer Disease (AD), it was educational. For anyone who has had to care for a close relative afflicted with Alzheimer Disease or Parkinson's Disease, the movie depicted the hopelessness one feels when having to care for the afflicted persons, who know how devastating these diseases are, and for which there is no cure. In this sense the picture is worth a 1000 words but the picture distorts time in that the progressive deterioration caused by AD takes place over a period of several years while in the picture it happens in a period of about four months.
The screenplay begins and ends in a winter. There are no other seasons depicted. It may have been that because the film was shot on a tight budget, which did not allow the filming to include the other seasons, and that may be why the time line was so unreal.
This screenplay written by Sarah Polley was based on a short story "The Bear Came Over the Mountain" by Alice Munro, published in the New Yorker Magazine in December 27, 1999. Unfortunately, Polley butchered the story, which was tightly written and very interesting, and for this she was unjustly nominated for an Academy Award. She also did a horrible job directing the picture, One can read the short story in about 15 minutes. The movie lasts 110 minutes and yet leaves out some of the most important parts of the short story so that the viewer never knows the complete story and it makes the movie disjointed. Polley often uses quotes from the short story in the screenplay but they lose their meaning when the material from the story on which the quotes are based is omitted. For example, the dialog that ends both the movie and the short story, was based on events that occurred earlier in the marriage between Fiona (Julie Christie) and her husband Grant Anderson (Gordon Pinsett) which were vaguely alluded to in the movie but much more explicitly detail in the story. Thus, the conclusion lacks any punch. It was the same earlier events which set up a discussion between a nurse (Kristy) at the nursing home and Grant, in which she tries to explain the close relationship between his wife and Audrey, another elderly patient at the nursing home. If one had read the story, the explanation had real meaning but in the context of the movie in which the material supporting the explanation was omitted, it had little impact.
Making the movie harder to follow was the decision to use flashbacks, jumping back and forth between a conversation Grant had with Marian and other parts of the story, leaving the viewer disjointed and confused. Flashbacks would have been more effective had they been used to tell about earlier events between Grant and Fiona that set up the story as was done in the short story.
There are also two sex scenes in the movie that were not in the short story. The first is unreal and the second one detracts from the whole theme of the story which is Grant's absolute devotion to Fiona at the stage of their marriage. It really detracted from the secondary message which depicted AD. It was "off message."
The movie has a very confusing ending which leaves a viewer bewildered. It left too many loose ends. It leaves the characters (and the viewers) in a predicament. The predicament was in part a result of a gratuitous sex scene, and partly because much of the last part of the movie was a gross departure from the short story so that the movie ending made no sense at all. Had not. The parts of the short story Polley chose to omit could have been included in the screenplay without lengthening the movie had not Polley wasted so much time on meaningless diversions from the short story.
Another problem with the movie is that the nursing home is rather luxurious. It is not the type of nursing home that one would find for patients with ordinary income. Grant and Fiona were not wealthy. Grant was a retired professor who was forced to retire early on a reduced income and they lived in a home that Fiona's parents had left Fiona. So there was no explanation as to how Grant was able to afford the cost. Yet we know that it was expensive because Marian, the wife of Audrey, who Fiona befriended, took Audrey out of the nursing home because of the high cost.
While Polley used much of the dialog from the short story, she added some of her own. At one point Grant meets Marian, the wife of Audrey. When they departed in the movie, Marian says to herself, "What a jerk!" referring to Grant. That is not what happened in the short story. When he departed he felt depressed that he had not succeeded in persuading Marian to send Audrey back to the nursing home and he said to himself "What a jerk, she would be thinking now." In the short story, that ended his relationship with Marian but that is not what happened in the movie. What followed in the movie ruined the movie.
That does not take away from the superb acting performances of both Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsett, which for no other reason, makes the movie worthwhile watching. It is unfortunate that Sarah Polley did such a miserable job writing the script and directing the movie so that a 1000 pictures were not worth the last three words which are the essence of the story. Which proves that film making often is unable to project the power of the written word.
Sweet Land
(2005)
Great Love story
6 February 2008
I usually don't watch love stories but this was an exception and it is an exceptional film. Even my wife enjoyed it. I wonder how I never heard of it when it first came around. Set in the upper Mid-West just after World War I, it is the tale of a German mail order bride who speaks no English, and of her heartfelt struggles to be accepted in the community, which is still suffering from a War spawned hatred of Germans, and to get married. It is a period piece which accurately describes conditions as they were at that time, except we never see the outhouse, a common fixture on farms until running water became available.
If the picture has any shortcomings, it is that if you don't understand German, you never know what she is saying. Sub-titles would have been helpful but then perhaps viewers would not grasp the difficulty of the situation if they knew what was being said. Another one, is that the story, which is told in flashbacks, just doesn't go far enough with the part just before she is to get married. But the beginning and the endings mesh together very well and leaves a viewer with a sense of completeness.
If the picture has any shortcomings, it is that if you don't understand German, you never know what she is saying. Sub-titles would have been helpful but then perhaps viewers would not grasp the difficulty of the situation if they knew what was being said. Another one, is that the story, which is told in flashbacks, just doesn't go far enough with the part just before she is to get married. But the beginning and the endings mesh together very well and leaves a viewer with a sense of completeness.
Fracture
(2007)
Exccellent suspense
27 January 2008
A very well done piece of suspense. Anthony Hopkins plays a brilliant wealthy man who murders his wife and then goes to trial, brilliantly defending himself. The plot is very clever. Only a person who is well versed in criminal law could have guessed the ending. Being a former prosecutor, I successfully guessed how it would end about 2/3s of the way through. However, Ryan Gosing plays the role of a hot shot Young DA. At first, I wanted him to lose the case but during the trial he did something that made him a hero. I think that it was written that way on purpose. In the beginning, the audience sympathizes with Hopkins even though he shots his adulterous wife. But Gosing has to make a very hard choice during the trial and he shows great courage, which at least to me made him the hero. It was the high point of the movie for me.
Black Book
(2006)
Sex, sex, and more sex.
23 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This maybe an interesting movie to the mindless but it has some serious problems. It is supposedly based on true events but the story itself is a combination of a number of different events that occurred during the occupation of the Nehterlands during WWII, which were unrelated. There was a story of a Jewish woman who became the mistress of a Gestapo officer. There is a story about how the Gestapo stole from Dutch Jews, and there are stories about the Dutch Underground. This movie attempts to tie all these stories together but it just makes the story a bad piece of historical fiction. The connections don't always work and appear to be fabricated. For example, the house in which the Jewish refugee is hiding is blown up by an American bomb while she away from the house with a man in a sailboat. Supposedly, the Gestapo find her Jewish identity card in the house wreckage. But in reality, if she was a Jewish refugee, she would have destroyed her identity card. And secondly, the Gestapo nor the police are going to investigate a house blown up by an American bomb. And because the house was in the countryside, it was unlikely that a firetruck would arrive at the house at all, much less within five minutes of the bombing as depicted in the movie.
Another flaw is that nothing happens to the heroine's girl friend after the war. She was a prominent collaborator and instead of being punished, she celebrates the end of the war. These are only two of the inconsistencies in the movie.
The movie is more about setting up a platform to depict nudity and sexual activity. It is more porn than truth.
Another flaw is that nothing happens to the heroine's girl friend after the war. She was a prominent collaborator and instead of being punished, she celebrates the end of the war. These are only two of the inconsistencies in the movie.
The movie is more about setting up a platform to depict nudity and sexual activity. It is more porn than truth.
The Queen
(2006)
Splendid film
23 May 2007
When I first heard that Helen Mirren was playing the role of Queen Elizabeth, I shuttered. Mirren has had a very sleazy career and certainly her abominable life style is far beneath that of the Queen, who I have admired since she was a child. However, despite my reservations about Mirren, she did a superb job of playing the Queen and looked remarkably like her. Her performance was really a highlight of 2006 and the performance was hands down the best of the year The movie only briefly touches on Queen Elizabeth's illustrious reign and that is the period immediately following Princess Diana's death. The story has been so exhaustively reported on and in our recent movie, that the story is very familiar. For many there are no surprises. In reality, the movie is really just a docu-drama.
The movie clearly depicts the disrespect that the Royal family had for Princess Diana. She was in fact a tramp, and a glory seeker. Unfortunately, too many in the public didn't understand what was going on and they idolized her for all the wrong reasons. That is not to say that her ex-husband was any better but clearly both failed as royals in their relationship. However, her conduct was such that she did not deserve any respect as a royal.
For many, the movie gives a somewhat inside view of the life of the royals. It makes a hero out of Prime Minister Tony Blair who handled the situation in a most judicious manner. Unfortunately, because of his pushing England into the Iraq War, which has made him extremely unpopular in England, his moment in the sun will probably be forgotten although this film will certainly keep it in the spotlight.
The movie is so well done, that even though I am giving it only nine stars, it will remain a classic. The writing is just as superb as Mirren's performance and it wrings just about as much out of the story as could be done. The subtleties are magnificent and it is a movie is one I will watch again and again. My only reason for not giving it a ten was that some of the supporting acting wasn't as strong as the film deserved.
The movie clearly depicts the disrespect that the Royal family had for Princess Diana. She was in fact a tramp, and a glory seeker. Unfortunately, too many in the public didn't understand what was going on and they idolized her for all the wrong reasons. That is not to say that her ex-husband was any better but clearly both failed as royals in their relationship. However, her conduct was such that she did not deserve any respect as a royal.
For many, the movie gives a somewhat inside view of the life of the royals. It makes a hero out of Prime Minister Tony Blair who handled the situation in a most judicious manner. Unfortunately, because of his pushing England into the Iraq War, which has made him extremely unpopular in England, his moment in the sun will probably be forgotten although this film will certainly keep it in the spotlight.
The movie is so well done, that even though I am giving it only nine stars, it will remain a classic. The writing is just as superb as Mirren's performance and it wrings just about as much out of the story as could be done. The subtleties are magnificent and it is a movie is one I will watch again and again. My only reason for not giving it a ten was that some of the supporting acting wasn't as strong as the film deserved.
Little Children
(2006)
Gross trash
21 May 2007
This film went out of its way to appeal to the worst in everybody. For people who like raunchy films, they would be happy with this one. Except for Kathy Adamson, the cuckold wife played by Jennifer Connelly, the characters are all wackos, weirdos, sickos. or perverts. If Connelly had not received top billing, I wouldn't have touched this flick but her billing was a come on because she plays only a minor role.
The fact that Kate Winslett shared top billing should have been a clue to how bad this flick would be. She is an unattractive cow and that fits her role in the movie, so unattractive her husband resorts to fantasies with internet porn stars. Yet as unattractive as she is, she lures Connelly's handsome but flaky husband into a relationship. This is what is so unreal about this film. Why would any sane man married to one of the most beautiful women on earth and who is a good wife, be even tempted by an Ugly Betty? The title "Little Children" probably was derived from the fact that Brad Hamilton, the unfaithful husband, and Winslett, meet in a park while each is taking their child there. Ironically,the title could be interpreted to mean that most of the adults in the picture act like little children.
I struggled to give this picture 3 stars. But it is not sympathetic to perverts and shows that once a pervert, always a pervert. The ending is gruesome but unfortunately is not realistic. The ending is one of biggest flaws in the movie in that it is a failed effort to redeem the entire movie in that it attempts to show that sin does not pay. Unfortunately, the movie is so bad that it is doubtful anyone gets the message.
The fact that Kate Winslett shared top billing should have been a clue to how bad this flick would be. She is an unattractive cow and that fits her role in the movie, so unattractive her husband resorts to fantasies with internet porn stars. Yet as unattractive as she is, she lures Connelly's handsome but flaky husband into a relationship. This is what is so unreal about this film. Why would any sane man married to one of the most beautiful women on earth and who is a good wife, be even tempted by an Ugly Betty? The title "Little Children" probably was derived from the fact that Brad Hamilton, the unfaithful husband, and Winslett, meet in a park while each is taking their child there. Ironically,the title could be interpreted to mean that most of the adults in the picture act like little children.
I struggled to give this picture 3 stars. But it is not sympathetic to perverts and shows that once a pervert, always a pervert. The ending is gruesome but unfortunately is not realistic. The ending is one of biggest flaws in the movie in that it is a failed effort to redeem the entire movie in that it attempts to show that sin does not pay. Unfortunately, the movie is so bad that it is doubtful anyone gets the message.
Sahara
(2005)
Sorry excuse for a movie
25 April 2007
The people who made this crude imitation of an Indiana Jones movie should be ashamed of themselves. It was unbelievably corny. It bombed at the box office and the author of the book on which it is based filed a law suit so I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. No wonder the author is so upset.
The plot is so thin and preposterous. The movie gets off to such a bad start and there is never any suspense. There is never any doubt as to how it will end. The only question is how the movie got to its ending.Penelope Cruz is miscast in her role as a WHO Doctor because the way the movie goes she is too dumb to be a doctor. Matthew McConaughey is the hero but he ain't Harrison Ford, or Roger Moore
The plot is so thin and preposterous. The movie gets off to such a bad start and there is never any suspense. There is never any doubt as to how it will end. The only question is how the movie got to its ending.Penelope Cruz is miscast in her role as a WHO Doctor because the way the movie goes she is too dumb to be a doctor. Matthew McConaughey is the hero but he ain't Harrison Ford, or Roger Moore
House of Sand and Fog
(2003)
An Unmerciful Tragedy
19 April 2007
The movie has its ups and downs. It is a dark movie, somewhat typical for Jennifer Connelly, who gives a strong acting performance. But both the beginning and the ending are weak and confusing and unsatisfying. Viewers will have difficulty figuring out th beginning until they see the ending. The ending is unsatisfying because the viewers never know what happened in the end. Too many strings left untied.
One would want to empathize with Connelly's character because of her plight but she acts so stupidly and rudely, that I began to sympathize with Ben Kingsley's character more.
The moral of the story: Always open and read any letter that you receive from any government agency, particularly if it involves taxes.
One would want to empathize with Connelly's character because of her plight but she acts so stupidly and rudely, that I began to sympathize with Ben Kingsley's character more.
The moral of the story: Always open and read any letter that you receive from any government agency, particularly if it involves taxes.
The White Countess
(2005)
Delighful
19 April 2007
A wonderful story well told and well presented. It shows that Hollywood can produce a good movie instead of the trash it usually generates. Both Ralph Fiennes and Natasha Richardson give strong performances. The only problem the movie has is that it ends too soon and it leaves viewers uncertain as to how it all turned out. This will particularly bug viewers who know their history and know that the participants may be jumping from the firing pan into the fire but never find out. If I were writing a sequel, it could be written so that there is a happy ending.
Fiennes, playing a former distinguished American diplomat, who had been deeply involved in forming the League of Nations, offers some valuable insights as to what results from international meddling in other countries affairs. It was probably this subtle message that the author wanted to convey to viewers.
This is a tame movie. No violence, no sex, no vulgar language, and it made the movie that much more interesting.
Fiennes, playing a former distinguished American diplomat, who had been deeply involved in forming the League of Nations, offers some valuable insights as to what results from international meddling in other countries affairs. It was probably this subtle message that the author wanted to convey to viewers.
This is a tame movie. No violence, no sex, no vulgar language, and it made the movie that much more interesting.
Tell Your Friends