Change Your Image
kentbeuchert
Reviews
Midnight in Paris (2011)
Please retire, Woody
Woody's personality, and his films, have a powerful ability to irritate. This one, although casting as bland a set of actors as one can assemble, strikes out into territory where Allen simply hasn't a clue, leading to yet another example of Allen's misguided belief that one can "figure out" love. Allen's view of love is so ridiculously inane that it can only lead to what we have here - an inanely stupid romantic comedy. The jokes are second grade material, as usual, and the supposedly non-comedic part is just plain gooey trash, which tries unsuccessfully to avoid the goo by promoting his brainless "lesson" about life. Allen doesn't live life - he spends all his time trying to understand what it is. Ditto for love. So far, few have ever been so unsuccessful at doing so. I expect another dozen films from this serial filmmaker before he finally either goes totally senile, or passes away. Either would be welcomed news for theatergoers.
Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006)
Fictional history and dishonest producer
It's seldom that I see a documentary that so thoroughly distorts and misrepresents what is a very simple story - the history of several automakers to produce an electric car during the 1990's. For some bizarre reason, Chris Paine concentrates on GM as his villain. Both Honda and Toyota produced cars similar to the GM EV-1 and both "killed" their cars as well, but Paine seems determined to slander GM and disregard those others who did exactly the same thing. As one electric car advocate recently remarked "Who killed the electric car? That's easy - the battery killed the electric car." Paine has all the talent of an Inspector Clouseau in his search for answers. But if he stated the obvious, he would be left with 110 minutes of empty viewtime. So Paine starts inventing villains, motives and what not. For some bizarre and unimaginable reason, Paine seems to believe that big oil companies had a hand in the murder. Exactly why Paine imagines that GM or any other automaker would ever give a damn about what oil companies want is impossible to fathom. Actually, something Paine covers up is the fact that Exxon (a big oil company) invented the first commercially viable battery suitable for an electric car. On the basis of that (and a hundred other transparent untruths in his film) I can confidently assign Paine's film to the dustbin of history and basically equivalent to the propaganda films produced by Goebbles for the Third Reich. Despite the long history of Hollywood films that more or less destroy historical truth, Paine's film stands out as an exceptionally disgusting example of disregard for facts and simple ethics. It belongs in the fiction section of the film library. And its not even good fiction - Charlie Chan movies are far more plausible.
The Conspirator (2010)
Historical nonsense
Aside from the very stilted and antique filmmaking style last seen during the silent era, Redford is spreading more or less a ton of lies. I know of no reputable historians who seriously have any doubts about Mary Surratt's guilt. Since it's obvious that Redford only cares about the story as a vehicle for pushing his political views, he would be at least, historically, not the moron that this film shows him to be if he overcame his political correctness and selected the proper vehicle : our filmmaking dim light missed the 5 ton elephant sitting right on his desk : the Civil War, certainly by far the most unjustifiable military action the Federal government ever engaged in. One can easily pin the blame almost entirely upon Abe Lincoln and the anti-slavery crew in New England. Redford shows me two things in this film of his : he doesn't know squat about history, nor much about unjustifiable wars either, which makes him totally unqualified to make this film. But simply viewing the film shows me that- the film is simply not very good - looks and feels like Law and Order, Ante Bellum style.
Executive Suite (1954)
Only Hollywood can turn the furniture business into the Mafia
One thing you an always count on from Hollywood is its innate ability to destroy reality (or history) to make an entertaining show. That's what movies are all about. Look at what they did to Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz, who ends up being a nice guy. Hitler had the more appealing personality. Or take any war/battle film. Reality simply doesn't provide enough juicy events to satisfy Hollywood's demands, so it simply makes them up. This is especially effective when the subject (like that in this film) is beyond the experiences of the audience. They'll believe anything, so that's exactly what they get. And I'd sure like to know how Tredway manages to manufacture anything using non-union workers. And believe you me, that crap about workers disappointed in the quality of their products was one complaint I've never heard coming out of a union hall. The idea that all big businesses are alike is a claim made only by the ignorant. Businesses are as different as the folks who run them, which is actually what defines the business. There are really well run companies and (at least for awhile) really poorly run outfits. Only those whose small minds can only handle simple ideas think that big business can be stereotyped. I should know, and they are ALL different, except that those that survive are either lucky or smart. The really good ones are both.
Mutiny on the Bounty (1962)
Total nonsense, historically speaking
I approach this film as I would a textual account of the events it claims to portray. As a researcher of the events of the H.M.S. Bounty, I feel confident in declaring that, while all of the Hollywood films are inaccurate, this one solidly deserve to be characterized as pure fiction. It even starts off with a howler,when Brando takes an immediate disliking of Bligh at their first meeting. In fact, Bligh took a liking to Christian and promoted him over Fryer as second in command. And as to the mutiny itself, the actions of the participants are not in the slightest doubt, and are 180 degrees at variance with the manufactured scenes in this movie. Bligh was only 34 years old, only a few years older than Christian. Nor was he, by any accounts, considered a cruel captain. The punishment he gave to the deserters on Tahiti were far milder than the usual execution prescribed by law. Nor was there any case of him denying water to a dying sailor. The entire film should be destroyed as an example of the slanderous murder of a good man's reputation. Hollywood has no ethics when it comes to historical accuracy - anything that sells they will film. They call it "dramatic license." What it is is plain old lying in order to make a buck.
Bachelor in Paradise (1961)
With Paulla Prentiss, how can you go wrong
This was one of three films, I believe, that paired Timothy Hutton and Paula Prentiss. They didn't pair up all that great, but Paula is worth watching anytime ("Man's Favorite Sport" is her best). And Bob Hope has an easygoing and easy to watch manner that always underplays (compare this to the braindead current generation's idea of humor). As for the notion that women didn't possess strong personalities before Gloria Steinem, it only exists in a fantasy world (a.k.a. the movies) of yesteryear that never existed. And they never met my aunt or sister. "Strong personality" NEVER had anything to do with gender. This is a good example of a movie that pleases, yet didn't cost the national debt to produce.
The Longest Day (1962)
The only accurate war movie ever made
As a veteran WWII historian, I always point to The Longest Day as the only war movie I've ever seen that is actually truthful and accurate.
Many war films are merely dramas or a backdrop for scriptwriter political views or to showcase a studio's stars. The Longest Day was NOT your typical Hollywood pseudo history. It contained actors from everywhere - every male actor in Hollywood wanted to be in this film, and a very large number of them were in this film. The film succeeds as history because it faithfully follows the book of the same name by Cornelius Ryan. Of course, a movie cannot come anywhere close to a book in terms of information, and thus there are necessary editing decisions as to what should be included. The biggest failure, in my opinion, is the lack of a clear exposition before the attack of exactly where the beaches were located and which units were assigned to them.
If one wants to know the full history of the landings, then the book is where to find it. Nevertheless, the movie does just about as good a job of providing the pertinent facts as is probably possible. Certainly this film makes a mockery of Private Ryan, a totally absurd piece of fiction with an absurd plot and populated by folks who never existed. That film also totally exaggerated the experience, with body parts flying all over the place. The casualty rate at Omaha Beach simply did not live up to its reputation as "Bloody Omaha." Only in comparison with the experiences of the other beaches would anyone claim a high casualty rate for Omaha. We landed over 35,000 troops on Omaha on D-Day, and the total number dead was less than 400. And A Bridge Too Far was a totally manufactured event that leaves the audience with more rather than less misinformation after viewing. It was a political movie, not a valid history of Market-Garden. The Longest Day is the real McCoy and also quite pleasant to watch. You don't need to manufacture facts to tell a good story. The story practically tells itself. And truth is always far more interesting than fiction.