The production values of this picture are excellent. You can tell from the sets and costumes a lot of money was spent. The great weakness of this film is the script and acting technique. The script is straight 19th century maudlin melodrama. Unfortunately, the acting technique is the same. Lines are delivered in a stilted, formal manner common to the stage of an earlier era instead of the more natural technique we are accustomed to seeing in film today. The 30's was indeed a transition period in acting technique: the over wrought melodramatic technique of the silent pictures and stage in the early thirties to the natural technique finally adopted in the late 30's. Of course, the plot itself is implausibly melodramatic "love conquers all" for "world peace" kind of thing. Still, for a film student its still worth watching for the fine directing.
Reviews
43 Reviews
Hell on Wheels
(2011–2016)
compelling, dramatic, worth watching
2 January 2013
This show is excellent. One thing I like about it is that it is as good as Deadwood but without the profanity and bare boobies. It is just as authentic, the characters are just as well drawn and compelling and the drama just as good. It sometimes disturbs me that Hollywood thinks that shows like Deadwood or Sparticus succeed because they are so vulgar and profane when, in fact, they succeed in spite of it. The profanity in Deadwood often detracted from the characters and the drama rather than adding to it. There was so much of it that it was obvious that it was sometimes forced. Sparticus and Rome, too, could have succeeded quite easily with half the nudity and vulgarity. I am no prude. My objections are artistic. I think that Hollywood is denigrating its art and talent unnecessarily. There is a place for that at times, when the art demands it. But that place is much smaller than Hollywood thinks.
No, I cannot praise this show highly enough. Like the afore mention shows, I am addicted and cannot keep from watching it. Nor am I easy to please. I do not watch television and have not for years, neither broadcast nor cable. I am quite choosy about what I watch and few shows make it over the bar. This one has.
Also, as a historian I have noted this show is dead on in accuracy: weapons, clothes, tools, food, etc. Altogether, I highly recommend this show.
No, I cannot praise this show highly enough. Like the afore mention shows, I am addicted and cannot keep from watching it. Nor am I easy to please. I do not watch television and have not for years, neither broadcast nor cable. I am quite choosy about what I watch and few shows make it over the bar. This one has.
Also, as a historian I have noted this show is dead on in accuracy: weapons, clothes, tools, food, etc. Altogether, I highly recommend this show.
Command Decision
(1948)
Superb film
31 August 2010
My uncle was a 19 year old bombardier in 1943 flying B-17s in the 8th AF. He was shot down over Kastle bombing the factory that made FW 190s. He was shot down on the 2nd bomb run over the target, the first was scrubbed because a smoke screen shrouded the target. The air commander ordered an abort and a 2nd go around. This was considered suicidal because now the AA gunners would have the planes zeroed in. My uncle was shot down on the 2nd run. It was his 24th mission. One more and he would have gone home.
So this movie was very striking to me. Not just an old history film. A 'command decision' got my uncle shot down, but it was the right decision. They were there to win the war and that was how you did it.
As a film, this movie is excellent, Gable is great and the rest of the cast is very good. The insertion of stock footage was smoothly done and kept the film from being a studio stage play. Altogether a good film worth watching.
So this movie was very striking to me. Not just an old history film. A 'command decision' got my uncle shot down, but it was the right decision. They were there to win the war and that was how you did it.
As a film, this movie is excellent, Gable is great and the rest of the cast is very good. The insertion of stock footage was smoothly done and kept the film from being a studio stage play. Altogether a good film worth watching.
End of Days
(1999)
Almost, but not quite
22 December 2008
This movie could have been better than it was. For the first ¾ it was a good picture, depending more on drama than action. But the last third it decided to become 'Die Hard with a Vengeance 2". If they had shortened this some what it would have stayed a very good picture. I guess the film makers felt they had to go BIG because we were, after all, fighting the Devil.
Unfortunately, this was their undoing. It became just too much: too graphic, too violent. And this was unnecessary because they had done a good job of establishing the evil of Satan previously. Turning Schwarzenegger into a Christ figure was a stretch, to say the least. The profanity, such as it was, added nothing to drama, character, or conflict. It, too, was unnecessary. Also, if you know anything about theology, well, let's just say you'll do a little squirming in your seat. But then, Hollywood has never been too interested in theology .. just utility.
Lastly, although a good idea, Jericho's story of struggle, redemption and salvation didn't quite work too dramatic.
Some very good themes here. Good solid writing, especially, the one liners. The film makers almost made it, but, they just went a little bit over the top and dropped the ball.
Still, a good picture worth watching, just disappointing because, with a little restraint, it could have been much better.
Unfortunately, this was their undoing. It became just too much: too graphic, too violent. And this was unnecessary because they had done a good job of establishing the evil of Satan previously. Turning Schwarzenegger into a Christ figure was a stretch, to say the least. The profanity, such as it was, added nothing to drama, character, or conflict. It, too, was unnecessary. Also, if you know anything about theology, well, let's just say you'll do a little squirming in your seat. But then, Hollywood has never been too interested in theology .. just utility.
Lastly, although a good idea, Jericho's story of struggle, redemption and salvation didn't quite work too dramatic.
Some very good themes here. Good solid writing, especially, the one liners. The film makers almost made it, but, they just went a little bit over the top and dropped the ball.
Still, a good picture worth watching, just disappointing because, with a little restraint, it could have been much better.
Modern Marvels
(1993– )
Manhatten Project episode
10 July 2008
The first ¾ of this film is factual and useful. However, at the end it provides the usual moral distortion currently popular about America's use of the atomic bomb to end WWII. First, the main motive for dropping the bomb was not Russia but American casualties.
The American leadership was not indifferent to the spread of Soviet domination. However, at the time of decision the battle of Okinawa was still going on and Truman was looking at casualty reports of 5,000 a week and had been seeing those reports for weeks. In all, there were over 72,000 American casualties in this battle. So high was the casualty rate that congress called for an investigation. Over 200,000 Japanese died on Okinawa. It is not known how many were wounded.
Over 30 American ships were sunk and 164 were damaged. By comparison, only 9 ships were sunk and 14 damaged at Pearl Harbor. Several thousand American and Japanese aircraft were lost, far more than were lost in the Battle of Britain. In fact, more aircraft were lost at Okinawa than the entire June, 1940 combat strength of the RAF and Luftwaffe combined.
Thus, the small island of Okinawa was one of the largest battles of World War II.
It was estimated that there would be up to 1,000,000 American casualties if we had to invade and conquer Japan. Japanese casualties were estimated to be ten times higher. So many Purple Heart Medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties from the invasion that to this day wounded soldiers are awarded Purple Hearts from this WWII stock.
Ship losses were expected to be greater because a new form of Kamikaze, besides 10,000 remaining aircraft, in the shape of suicide attack boats, would also be met in the Home Islands. Aircraft losses were expected to be high because many more would be lost to ground fire. Thus, the invasion of Japan was going to be perhaps the largest and most horrendous battle in world history.
The second and little known reason was Japan had a secret biological weapons research program. They had also been bombarding America with balloon bombs that drifted across the Pacific to America on the jet stream. (In fact, it was a Japanese scientist, using balloons, that discovered the jet stream in the 1920's. It is used to this day by commercial airline flights from Tokyo to L.A. to save fuel.)
However, a strict news blackout kept the Japanese from knowing the success of this program, named "fūsen bakudan", and so they did not combine their biological weapons with these balloon bombs. Over 9,000 of these balloons were launched and about 1,000 reached the United States. They fell all over North America, as far north as Alaska, as far east as Detroit and as far south as Mexico.
As late as 1955 one with live ordnance was found in Alaska. Another was found in 1992, its ordnance too corroded to explode. Thus, only because of the news blackout were American and Canadian civil populations were spared widespread attack from biological weapons.
This was no small menace and the American leadership had to weigh it in the balance.
This film episode fails to mention either of these facts.
It is also a moral perversion to have the testimony of 'victims' of the atomic bomb without the moral balance of testimony of the victims of the true atrocities of the Japanese.
Such as: the victims of the Rape of Nanking where hundreds of thousands of Chinese were brutally raped, murdered and abused. Some were tied to posts and used for bayonet practice. Others were used for karate practice, 'practiced' on until they died.
The American and Philippine soldiers who were victims of the Bataan Death March who were brutalized, shot, stabbed, starved and given no water on their tragic march to their prison camps. Thousands died.
Or the Korean 'comfort'women who were enslaved and sent into prostitution by Japan to 'comfort' Japanese soldiers. Or the American captives who were sent to Manchuria where Japan conducted their secret biological weapons program. American G.I.'s were the guinea pigs. Or the U.S. Marines who were all beheaded after they were forced to surrender after defending Wake Island. Etc., etc.
It is a moral imbalance to present only the tearful testimony of a Japanese present at Hiroshima without providing a larger moral context of the war in general. Such an imbalance is a distortion to the point of moral perversion.
NOTE: This criticism is for the "Manhatten Project" episode only. The 'Modern Marvel" series in general is good to excellent and I recommend it.
The American leadership was not indifferent to the spread of Soviet domination. However, at the time of decision the battle of Okinawa was still going on and Truman was looking at casualty reports of 5,000 a week and had been seeing those reports for weeks. In all, there were over 72,000 American casualties in this battle. So high was the casualty rate that congress called for an investigation. Over 200,000 Japanese died on Okinawa. It is not known how many were wounded.
Over 30 American ships were sunk and 164 were damaged. By comparison, only 9 ships were sunk and 14 damaged at Pearl Harbor. Several thousand American and Japanese aircraft were lost, far more than were lost in the Battle of Britain. In fact, more aircraft were lost at Okinawa than the entire June, 1940 combat strength of the RAF and Luftwaffe combined.
Thus, the small island of Okinawa was one of the largest battles of World War II.
It was estimated that there would be up to 1,000,000 American casualties if we had to invade and conquer Japan. Japanese casualties were estimated to be ten times higher. So many Purple Heart Medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties from the invasion that to this day wounded soldiers are awarded Purple Hearts from this WWII stock.
Ship losses were expected to be greater because a new form of Kamikaze, besides 10,000 remaining aircraft, in the shape of suicide attack boats, would also be met in the Home Islands. Aircraft losses were expected to be high because many more would be lost to ground fire. Thus, the invasion of Japan was going to be perhaps the largest and most horrendous battle in world history.
The second and little known reason was Japan had a secret biological weapons research program. They had also been bombarding America with balloon bombs that drifted across the Pacific to America on the jet stream. (In fact, it was a Japanese scientist, using balloons, that discovered the jet stream in the 1920's. It is used to this day by commercial airline flights from Tokyo to L.A. to save fuel.)
However, a strict news blackout kept the Japanese from knowing the success of this program, named "fūsen bakudan", and so they did not combine their biological weapons with these balloon bombs. Over 9,000 of these balloons were launched and about 1,000 reached the United States. They fell all over North America, as far north as Alaska, as far east as Detroit and as far south as Mexico.
As late as 1955 one with live ordnance was found in Alaska. Another was found in 1992, its ordnance too corroded to explode. Thus, only because of the news blackout were American and Canadian civil populations were spared widespread attack from biological weapons.
This was no small menace and the American leadership had to weigh it in the balance.
This film episode fails to mention either of these facts.
It is also a moral perversion to have the testimony of 'victims' of the atomic bomb without the moral balance of testimony of the victims of the true atrocities of the Japanese.
Such as: the victims of the Rape of Nanking where hundreds of thousands of Chinese were brutally raped, murdered and abused. Some were tied to posts and used for bayonet practice. Others were used for karate practice, 'practiced' on until they died.
The American and Philippine soldiers who were victims of the Bataan Death March who were brutalized, shot, stabbed, starved and given no water on their tragic march to their prison camps. Thousands died.
Or the Korean 'comfort'women who were enslaved and sent into prostitution by Japan to 'comfort' Japanese soldiers. Or the American captives who were sent to Manchuria where Japan conducted their secret biological weapons program. American G.I.'s were the guinea pigs. Or the U.S. Marines who were all beheaded after they were forced to surrender after defending Wake Island. Etc., etc.
It is a moral imbalance to present only the tearful testimony of a Japanese present at Hiroshima without providing a larger moral context of the war in general. Such an imbalance is a distortion to the point of moral perversion.
NOTE: This criticism is for the "Manhatten Project" episode only. The 'Modern Marvel" series in general is good to excellent and I recommend it.
The Red Siren
(2002)
Oedipus action thriller
5 July 2008
This could have been a far better film than it was. It had a number of strengths: good script, excellent directing, good score and sound editing, good character development, etc.
However, it had one glaring fault that kept it from reaching its potential: the two leads couldn't act. If an actor's emotional range is say an octave, these two could only sing two notes. The supporting actress (detective) had about three. Together they had the dynamism of drying paint.
Despite this failure in casting this is still a good movie worth watching. It just could've been better. Its other strengths both redeem and save it. Even the Oedipal moment that was obviously coming, and one secretly cringed at its coming, when it finally came seemed a natural and just denouement.
One last observation: some may criticize the military tactics, i.e. speed of the attack; remember, this is make believe, not a training film. One might as well criticize the magic Hollywood guns that have far more bullets than any single clip will ever hold.
However, it had one glaring fault that kept it from reaching its potential: the two leads couldn't act. If an actor's emotional range is say an octave, these two could only sing two notes. The supporting actress (detective) had about three. Together they had the dynamism of drying paint.
Despite this failure in casting this is still a good movie worth watching. It just could've been better. Its other strengths both redeem and save it. Even the Oedipal moment that was obviously coming, and one secretly cringed at its coming, when it finally came seemed a natural and just denouement.
One last observation: some may criticize the military tactics, i.e. speed of the attack; remember, this is make believe, not a training film. One might as well criticize the magic Hollywood guns that have far more bullets than any single clip will ever hold.
La question humaine
(2007)
too many messages, badly written
18 June 2008
First, this film is very morally flawed. It equates rounding up illegal aliens and deporting them with rounding up Jews and gassing them. This is, itself, a moral perversion.
Second, there are too many 'moral' messages. The director/producers tried to address too many issues: corporate fascism, impersonal government technocracy, the murder of the Jews, illegal aliens, etc. Rather than make one point well, they made many points poorly.
Third, it is badly written, produced, and directed. You could eliminate the protagonist's girlfriend altogether and not only not harm the movie but actually improve it. There were scenes, like the rave, that made no sense at all. There were other relationships, like the protagonists involvement with the blonde, that also made no sense. In other places, character development is flawed as is plot development. In all, you could cut over an hour from this film and have a better film.
Example: there is one excruciatingly awful singing episode that you sit through thinking the director would not torture you with this unless it was important. Alas, it is merely torture....
And that is the great weakness of this film. There are many scenes that do not enlighten, inform, educate, entertain or move the plot forward. They seem to be there for no reason at all. The producer's thinking seems that the more you ignore plot development and dramatic tension the more 'artsy' your film is.
If painfully boring is great art this picture belongs in the Louvre.
The pretense of a 'moral message' is no excuse for bad film making. This film is over rated at 6 stars.
Second, there are too many 'moral' messages. The director/producers tried to address too many issues: corporate fascism, impersonal government technocracy, the murder of the Jews, illegal aliens, etc. Rather than make one point well, they made many points poorly.
Third, it is badly written, produced, and directed. You could eliminate the protagonist's girlfriend altogether and not only not harm the movie but actually improve it. There were scenes, like the rave, that made no sense at all. There were other relationships, like the protagonists involvement with the blonde, that also made no sense. In other places, character development is flawed as is plot development. In all, you could cut over an hour from this film and have a better film.
Example: there is one excruciatingly awful singing episode that you sit through thinking the director would not torture you with this unless it was important. Alas, it is merely torture....
And that is the great weakness of this film. There are many scenes that do not enlighten, inform, educate, entertain or move the plot forward. They seem to be there for no reason at all. The producer's thinking seems that the more you ignore plot development and dramatic tension the more 'artsy' your film is.
If painfully boring is great art this picture belongs in the Louvre.
The pretense of a 'moral message' is no excuse for bad film making. This film is over rated at 6 stars.
13 Tzameti
(2005)
Yes, its b&w. Yes, its foreign. Yes, its low budget. Yes, its worth watching.
30 April 2008
First: this movie starts slow. Stick with it no matter what! The film makers aren't wasting your time. They're taking you someplace you never would have guessed, not in a hundred years.
Second it is a superb film. Great story well told. A low budget film that does not seem at all low budget.
Also, a good film for a student of film. A very good example a minimalist approach. The director very much lets the story tell itself. The camera is very unobtrusive. There is no artificial manipulation of the emotions by music, sound or special fx. Every thing is low key, just a little excitement by some key actors, just as it would be. Great film making? Yes; taught, tense, exciting, nerve racking.
Also, a great example of how you can still make a great film without a lot of blood, gore or sex. What?..... your thinking.... how can you do that? Watch the film and find out.
How low budget is this? One suspects it was shot in b & w more for budgetary reasons than style. However, this director demonstrates such a mastery of his craft that it may be intentional. For which ever reason, it works.
Good casting, too, even though there was a little nepotism. Even the fat guy was well cast.
Last, as another critic advised: the less you know going into this film, the better. However, I give this one piece of information: Tzameti means '13' in Georgian (as in the Caucasus's not the United States....). So, the title reads: "13 .13". Even this makes sense if you note three things ..
Sit back and enjoy.... although later you'll be on the edge of your seat.
Second it is a superb film. Great story well told. A low budget film that does not seem at all low budget.
Also, a good film for a student of film. A very good example a minimalist approach. The director very much lets the story tell itself. The camera is very unobtrusive. There is no artificial manipulation of the emotions by music, sound or special fx. Every thing is low key, just a little excitement by some key actors, just as it would be. Great film making? Yes; taught, tense, exciting, nerve racking.
Also, a great example of how you can still make a great film without a lot of blood, gore or sex. What?..... your thinking.... how can you do that? Watch the film and find out.
How low budget is this? One suspects it was shot in b & w more for budgetary reasons than style. However, this director demonstrates such a mastery of his craft that it may be intentional. For which ever reason, it works.
Good casting, too, even though there was a little nepotism. Even the fat guy was well cast.
Last, as another critic advised: the less you know going into this film, the better. However, I give this one piece of information: Tzameti means '13' in Georgian (as in the Caucasus's not the United States....). So, the title reads: "13 .13". Even this makes sense if you note three things ..
Sit back and enjoy.... although later you'll be on the edge of your seat.
A Very Long Engagement
(2004)
a fine bottle of smooth wine
19 April 2008
This movie has become one of my very favorite movies. I have watched it four times and every time I get something new from it. Each time my heart swells with admiration at this perfect example of the film makers art. It is a joy to watch.
Where to begin to sing its virtues? The scrupulously accurate sets, circa 1917? The magnificent vistas, whether the Brittany coast or the trenches of northern France? The attention to detail: the wagons & autos on the Place de l'Opéra; the one man shelters dug into the sides of the trench; the broken Christ and Cross in the opening shot and the later reference to a church? The passing shot of a WWI military hospital, exact in every detail?
Depth of meaning? "Bingo Crepuscule". Before the War 'Bingo' was the nickname for the French national lottery.
'Crepuscule' is French for "twilight". Twilight: the 'no-man's-land' between day and night. War? What is war but a national lottery of life and death? The draft is even conducted by chance by pulling numbers at random....and you need five numbers to get 'bingo'.....five prisoners condemned to no-man's-land; some live - some die in the game of chance called war ..... "Bingo Crepuscule".....
Which brings us to why you can watch this film several times: there is absolutely nothing wasted in this film. Every piece of information the film maker gives you is needed. Tuck it into your sleeve, you'll need it later. Example? The tuba: sometimes Matilda plays a distress call, sometimes music..... but.... do you note when she plays what? It's not at random.
The acting? Ah, such good casting. And the acting! Such an evenness of excellence, it is like fine smooth wine. You're not even aware how good it is, it goes down so easily every actor, every part; great and small.
Even the small little dramas are deftly done, like mini operas: the whore killing the fat Colonel or the man in the tunnel (the hard Thouvenal). Ah, and how well all the little dramas are so skillfully woven into the fabric of the larger drama!
Even the sound track gives important information: it wasn't until the third time I watched it that I realized the metallic 'thunk' was a dud bomb.... which drove a character into a crypt beneath a church.....(remember the dog in a mustard field)....
There are so many little jewels in this film including the rich and lush cinematography throughout. It is a true pleasure to watch ..again and again.......each time you come back a little richer.
Where to begin to sing its virtues? The scrupulously accurate sets, circa 1917? The magnificent vistas, whether the Brittany coast or the trenches of northern France? The attention to detail: the wagons & autos on the Place de l'Opéra; the one man shelters dug into the sides of the trench; the broken Christ and Cross in the opening shot and the later reference to a church? The passing shot of a WWI military hospital, exact in every detail?
Depth of meaning? "Bingo Crepuscule". Before the War 'Bingo' was the nickname for the French national lottery.
'Crepuscule' is French for "twilight". Twilight: the 'no-man's-land' between day and night. War? What is war but a national lottery of life and death? The draft is even conducted by chance by pulling numbers at random....and you need five numbers to get 'bingo'.....five prisoners condemned to no-man's-land; some live - some die in the game of chance called war ..... "Bingo Crepuscule".....
Which brings us to why you can watch this film several times: there is absolutely nothing wasted in this film. Every piece of information the film maker gives you is needed. Tuck it into your sleeve, you'll need it later. Example? The tuba: sometimes Matilda plays a distress call, sometimes music..... but.... do you note when she plays what? It's not at random.
The acting? Ah, such good casting. And the acting! Such an evenness of excellence, it is like fine smooth wine. You're not even aware how good it is, it goes down so easily every actor, every part; great and small.
Even the small little dramas are deftly done, like mini operas: the whore killing the fat Colonel or the man in the tunnel (the hard Thouvenal). Ah, and how well all the little dramas are so skillfully woven into the fabric of the larger drama!
Even the sound track gives important information: it wasn't until the third time I watched it that I realized the metallic 'thunk' was a dud bomb.... which drove a character into a crypt beneath a church.....(remember the dog in a mustard field)....
There are so many little jewels in this film including the rich and lush cinematography throughout. It is a true pleasure to watch ..again and again.......each time you come back a little richer.
He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not
(2002)
good idea, poor execution
8 April 2008
With better execution this could have been a good movie. As it was, it veered from confusion to the obvious to the needless. Casting was not good in a picture where casting was critical.
One critical flaw is we do not clearly understand when we jump from the viewpoint of the insane back to reality. This is a 'clever' idea if properly executed but leads merely to confusion if not.
There is a kernel of a good story here but it is poorly told. The effort is worthy of a day time soap episode rather than a feature film.
Character development leaves something to be desired, especially the Doctor and his wife. The 'boyfriend' is especially confusing as one is never really sure if he is anyone's boyfriend and, if so, who's? The final scene starts another story rather than giving a clear ending to a rather confused story.
In better hands with better writing this could have been a good movie. As it is, it's rather disappointing.
One critical flaw is we do not clearly understand when we jump from the viewpoint of the insane back to reality. This is a 'clever' idea if properly executed but leads merely to confusion if not.
There is a kernel of a good story here but it is poorly told. The effort is worthy of a day time soap episode rather than a feature film.
Character development leaves something to be desired, especially the Doctor and his wife. The 'boyfriend' is especially confusing as one is never really sure if he is anyone's boyfriend and, if so, who's? The final scene starts another story rather than giving a clear ending to a rather confused story.
In better hands with better writing this could have been a good movie. As it is, it's rather disappointing.
A film that is enjoyable at every level that a film can be enjoyed
30 March 2008
"The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" is one of the all time great dramas of cinema. A great love story of pomp and circumstance and its greatness rests on every aspect of cinema.
First, this was a big budget film and the money shows. The costumes are gorgeous and sumptuous and historicly authentic in every detail. Even the magnificent jewelry is true to the time. And, in this earliest of Technicolor films, the costumes are all the brilliant colors of the rainbow.
In the sets, too, no money was spared. Look carefully at some passing scenes. You quickly realize how much money was spent on something the eye would set upon but for a few seconds. All these sets were purpose built for this film only, indoor or out. And, they too, are carefully researched and authentic.
The direction is excellent in every detail. The blocking, cinematography, framing, etc, are competent and professional. However, what stands out the most is the lighting. None mastered light and dark, shadow and bright, than these directors of old who worked in black and white. How often their scenes recall the greatest master, Rembrandt, in the passions their lighting evokes.
The last scene in the Tower throne room is a perfect example: Essex coming up the dungeon stairs in light that evokes the golden red fires of Hades. Elizabeth in light surrounded by shadow, a tiny island of womanhood surrounded by loneliness.
Dialogue!! Listen carefully to some of these lines! Shakespeare is mentioned off hand and the dialogue evokes the master Bard: intense and exciting, yet thoughtful and provoking, like his own plays. Even better, its language evokes the courtly grace of Elizabethan England yet carries no want of passion nor difficulty in understanding.
The cast? Bette Davis gives, I believe, the best performance of her life, and she gave many great ones. She was but the same age as Flynn in this movie, yet we doubt not she is the older of the two.
Flynn? First, he never looked more handsome or manly in any of his films. He was at the peak of his manhood and beauty. His acting? He much admired Davis and did his best to rise to her talents in this picture. He never quite achieved it, but he did not fail it. However, his gift as a physical actor served him well, his facial expressions and body language carried him when is talent could not.
The music wants nothing, it well supports the players in their efforts.
This is not one of the great costume dramas of the 30's, or even of classic film. It is, and shall remain, one of the great dramas of cinema of anytime or era. And such is its greatness it can be enjoyed by young or old yesterday, today or tomorrow.
First, this was a big budget film and the money shows. The costumes are gorgeous and sumptuous and historicly authentic in every detail. Even the magnificent jewelry is true to the time. And, in this earliest of Technicolor films, the costumes are all the brilliant colors of the rainbow.
In the sets, too, no money was spared. Look carefully at some passing scenes. You quickly realize how much money was spent on something the eye would set upon but for a few seconds. All these sets were purpose built for this film only, indoor or out. And, they too, are carefully researched and authentic.
The direction is excellent in every detail. The blocking, cinematography, framing, etc, are competent and professional. However, what stands out the most is the lighting. None mastered light and dark, shadow and bright, than these directors of old who worked in black and white. How often their scenes recall the greatest master, Rembrandt, in the passions their lighting evokes.
The last scene in the Tower throne room is a perfect example: Essex coming up the dungeon stairs in light that evokes the golden red fires of Hades. Elizabeth in light surrounded by shadow, a tiny island of womanhood surrounded by loneliness.
Dialogue!! Listen carefully to some of these lines! Shakespeare is mentioned off hand and the dialogue evokes the master Bard: intense and exciting, yet thoughtful and provoking, like his own plays. Even better, its language evokes the courtly grace of Elizabethan England yet carries no want of passion nor difficulty in understanding.
The cast? Bette Davis gives, I believe, the best performance of her life, and she gave many great ones. She was but the same age as Flynn in this movie, yet we doubt not she is the older of the two.
Flynn? First, he never looked more handsome or manly in any of his films. He was at the peak of his manhood and beauty. His acting? He much admired Davis and did his best to rise to her talents in this picture. He never quite achieved it, but he did not fail it. However, his gift as a physical actor served him well, his facial expressions and body language carried him when is talent could not.
The music wants nothing, it well supports the players in their efforts.
This is not one of the great costume dramas of the 30's, or even of classic film. It is, and shall remain, one of the great dramas of cinema of anytime or era. And such is its greatness it can be enjoyed by young or old yesterday, today or tomorrow.
Les Misérables
(1998)
Don't judge a film by its cover......
11 October 2007
I am a student of literature and a student of film. I am also a writer. As a student of literature I must admit to being disappointed with some films because "they were not like the book". On rare occasions I have been surprised when the film is better than the book ("Ragtime" comes to mind). On the other hand, when a book is a thousand pages long, as a writer I understand one must whittle away from the original and hopefully capture the essence of the original work using much less for film is brutally insistent on time constraints novels are not. You have two hours and not much more.
This being said I encourage viewers to approach this film on its own merits and not judge it by the details of the book but by its spirit or essence.
The script is tight and focused and still captures Hugo's original drama, pathos, tragedy and hope. The acting, sets, costumes and direction are also equally good. (one amusing but telling attention to detail: horse manure on the streets of Paris. How many cowboy movies have you seen with spotless streets?) Judging strictly as a film you are sure to enjoy it. Judging it as literature you are judging it by what it is not.
By any standard it is a good film worth seeing.
This being said I encourage viewers to approach this film on its own merits and not judge it by the details of the book but by its spirit or essence.
The script is tight and focused and still captures Hugo's original drama, pathos, tragedy and hope. The acting, sets, costumes and direction are also equally good. (one amusing but telling attention to detail: horse manure on the streets of Paris. How many cowboy movies have you seen with spotless streets?) Judging strictly as a film you are sure to enjoy it. Judging it as literature you are judging it by what it is not.
By any standard it is a good film worth seeing.
Captain Blood
(1935)
action, romance and - sweet - revenge : 30's pic worth a look
16 September 2007
As a boy I loved all the Errol Flynn / Olivia de Haviland movies shown on Saturday morning. Viewing this today, many years older, I still think they are good actors. Alas, though, I am unable to view this movie with yesterday's youthful and innocent eyes. Today my eyes are more jaded and cynical.
I see the special effects, which once thrilled me, and think, "ah, how phoney", compared to today's sophisticated realism. I view the violence and think, "ah, how phoney" compared the realistic blood and gore to which we have become accustomed. I view the directors tricks to keep the blood and violence to a minimum, his blocking of the actors, camera movement so the final killing is out of sight, and I sneer ..
So, is there something wrong with this movie, or the age in which I live and in which I have grown?
I'm afraid it is the age in which I have grown. An age that has hardened my taste and accustomed me to gore, violence and blood. I remember being shocked at the first car jackings in the 80's .. and now... I am no longer shocked at anything.
It saddens me because this is still a perfectly good movie, still worth watching, by both young and old. But I think, today, only the young, very young, would enjoy it. Our youth become jaded so soon now
The special effects actually are still good, considering they are circa mid 30's. The only thing one wonders is why the director didn't make more use of the real ships he had at his disposal. Probably a budget thing and the custom at the time of shooting almost everything in the studio.
The script is well written and taught. The story line moves right along and scenes that need to be brief are kept so. The costuming is excellent and the sets are very good.
I also noted that this is Flynn's first film and...he looks magnificent, just like a movie star should. Olivia? Equally stunning and glamorous. Two great actors in the prime of their beauty and talent.
No, it is still a good movie worth watching. I just hope that you, unlike I, are not too jaded or sophisticated. It would be sad for others to fail to enjoy this movie for such poor reasons.
The black and white? The least reason not to enjoy this. Give this movie a shot and see what you think. After all, before Spielberg began his "Indiana Jones" series he watched only one picture this one.
NOTE: of little importance to most viewers is the absolutely absurd dubbing of the French dialogue. How bad is it? It switches BACK AND FORTH between English and French - often in the same scene! Why did they bother?
I see the special effects, which once thrilled me, and think, "ah, how phoney", compared to today's sophisticated realism. I view the violence and think, "ah, how phoney" compared the realistic blood and gore to which we have become accustomed. I view the directors tricks to keep the blood and violence to a minimum, his blocking of the actors, camera movement so the final killing is out of sight, and I sneer ..
So, is there something wrong with this movie, or the age in which I live and in which I have grown?
I'm afraid it is the age in which I have grown. An age that has hardened my taste and accustomed me to gore, violence and blood. I remember being shocked at the first car jackings in the 80's .. and now... I am no longer shocked at anything.
It saddens me because this is still a perfectly good movie, still worth watching, by both young and old. But I think, today, only the young, very young, would enjoy it. Our youth become jaded so soon now
The special effects actually are still good, considering they are circa mid 30's. The only thing one wonders is why the director didn't make more use of the real ships he had at his disposal. Probably a budget thing and the custom at the time of shooting almost everything in the studio.
The script is well written and taught. The story line moves right along and scenes that need to be brief are kept so. The costuming is excellent and the sets are very good.
I also noted that this is Flynn's first film and...he looks magnificent, just like a movie star should. Olivia? Equally stunning and glamorous. Two great actors in the prime of their beauty and talent.
No, it is still a good movie worth watching. I just hope that you, unlike I, are not too jaded or sophisticated. It would be sad for others to fail to enjoy this movie for such poor reasons.
The black and white? The least reason not to enjoy this. Give this movie a shot and see what you think. After all, before Spielberg began his "Indiana Jones" series he watched only one picture this one.
NOTE: of little importance to most viewers is the absolutely absurd dubbing of the French dialogue. How bad is it? It switches BACK AND FORTH between English and French - often in the same scene! Why did they bother?
The Incredibles
(2004)
Alas, the only word that comes to mind is "incredible"
3 September 2007
Wow! The cinematography, the camera angles, the action shots, the direction!!!!! This movie is "incredible". On top of that - its got a great story line and plot! It's even got good character development! And this is a kid's movie involving super heroes! Usually a setup for cookie cutter cardboard cut outs! I think Walt Disney would be proud of this movie. The digital technology in this not only rivaled the animation of his classics - but outdid it in some ways! Action, adventure? Try James Bond in 'Thunderball" and Indiana Jones meets Superman! Kids will love this and so will grown ups, the true mark of an outstanding animated feature.
Yes, it is a little more violent than Disney's classics. Unfortunetely, that age of innocence is gone forever. By today's standards, where car jackings don't make the news because they're so routine, this movie isn't bad. I would say 9 years old. On the other hand, I used to watch a kid's cartoon called "Space Ghost" whose sole attraction was that he blew up half the universe every Saturday morning.......and I was 7......
So, on that score I guess parents will have to make their own call. That aside, there are no weak points in this movie: voice casting, script, cinematography, action, plot, set direction, everything is great. A really fun movie to watch. And, about as entertaining and wholesome a family movie as these things get, today.
Yes, it is a little more violent than Disney's classics. Unfortunetely, that age of innocence is gone forever. By today's standards, where car jackings don't make the news because they're so routine, this movie isn't bad. I would say 9 years old. On the other hand, I used to watch a kid's cartoon called "Space Ghost" whose sole attraction was that he blew up half the universe every Saturday morning.......and I was 7......
So, on that score I guess parents will have to make their own call. That aside, there are no weak points in this movie: voice casting, script, cinematography, action, plot, set direction, everything is great. A really fun movie to watch. And, about as entertaining and wholesome a family movie as these things get, today.
The Iron Giant
(1999)
typical Hollywood PC movie
25 August 2007
Typical politically correct Hollywood drivel with the usual cardboard cut out good guys/bad guys. Nothing original here, just good art work. Otherwise, morally and intellectually, boringly predictable.
Guns and gun owners bad - peace and peaceniks good! Soldiers bad and artsy types good!! My god, shocking! Unpredictable! Who would think a Hollywood movie would have a message like that!! And such original, unexpected characters!! wow!
Another common observation is this is not really a children's movie, at least not younger than 10. Some of the scenes are too intense for younger children.
The cinematography is very good. The pan scene of New England in the fall is worth the price of the movie, as are the opening scenes. Some good voice over work as well.
So, predictable Hollywood drivel executed with Hollywood's usual artistic professionalism and excellence. If you love the drivel you'll like the movie.
Guns and gun owners bad - peace and peaceniks good! Soldiers bad and artsy types good!! My god, shocking! Unpredictable! Who would think a Hollywood movie would have a message like that!! And such original, unexpected characters!! wow!
Another common observation is this is not really a children's movie, at least not younger than 10. Some of the scenes are too intense for younger children.
The cinematography is very good. The pan scene of New England in the fall is worth the price of the movie, as are the opening scenes. Some good voice over work as well.
So, predictable Hollywood drivel executed with Hollywood's usual artistic professionalism and excellence. If you love the drivel you'll like the movie.
A Classic Sci-Fi - timeless
9 April 2007
Along with the original War of the Worlds it is a classic from the Golden Age of Sci-Fi from the 50's.
It has the unforgettable characters of Klaatu and Gort. Also, friendly aliens instead of the usual terrifying evil ones. It has Biblical themes: a savior who is killed by those he came to save, the earth standing still, a few faithful disciples, a misunderstood message of salvation.
Good effects, directing and acting that still looks good today, with a strong, powerful script.
All this adds up to a B&W movie of timeless quality still worth watching today with such others as King Kong, Its a Wonderful Life, Stagecoach, etc. You don't need to be a Sci-Fi fan to enjoy this, it appeals to all ages
It has the unforgettable characters of Klaatu and Gort. Also, friendly aliens instead of the usual terrifying evil ones. It has Biblical themes: a savior who is killed by those he came to save, the earth standing still, a few faithful disciples, a misunderstood message of salvation.
Good effects, directing and acting that still looks good today, with a strong, powerful script.
All this adds up to a B&W movie of timeless quality still worth watching today with such others as King Kong, Its a Wonderful Life, Stagecoach, etc. You don't need to be a Sci-Fi fan to enjoy this, it appeals to all ages
Jarhead
(2005)
Poor imitation of 'Apocolypse Now'
4 May 2006
Artistically I think it is very bad imitation of 'Apocalypse Now'. However, I could see how many would like it because of its intensity, drama, and vulgarity. Some may like it because they may think they are getting a taste of 'what it was really like' because of its autobiographical style.
Which brings it to the next problem: Factually Awful. So inaccurate of the United States Marine Corps and the Gulf War I don't even know where to begin. Normally this wouldn't bother me. As an historian I have long accepted Hollywood's version of history is poor at best, terrible at worst. The first thing that usually dies is accuracy sacrificed in the name of drama, which I accept, or the film makers 'point of view' (ideology) which I have more of a problem with.
More and more films from Hollywood treat history as propaganda, as much as Stalin or Hitler used film for the same purpose. The only difference is Hollywood still has to make a profit so they still pay attention to good drama. The bad part is that the majority of people today get their education, not from learned books written according to the highest scholarly standards and subject to peer review, but from Hollywood. Hollywood, who's only two standards are profit and political utility.
'Jarhead' has fallen to these twin demons and portrayed the Marine Corps as populated with a bunch of vulgar, coarse, wanton savages with little discipline or direction from their NCOs, and even less from their officers who are, for the most part, non-existent. One wonders how such a sex crazed mob could fling themselves right into the teeth of an army far larger than they with months to prepare their defense and defeat that army in an astonishing four days. A vulgar mob could not do such a thing, only highly trained & disciplined, proud professional soldiers could do so.
Alas, the average viewer won't think to ask this question.
Which brings it to the next problem: Factually Awful. So inaccurate of the United States Marine Corps and the Gulf War I don't even know where to begin. Normally this wouldn't bother me. As an historian I have long accepted Hollywood's version of history is poor at best, terrible at worst. The first thing that usually dies is accuracy sacrificed in the name of drama, which I accept, or the film makers 'point of view' (ideology) which I have more of a problem with.
More and more films from Hollywood treat history as propaganda, as much as Stalin or Hitler used film for the same purpose. The only difference is Hollywood still has to make a profit so they still pay attention to good drama. The bad part is that the majority of people today get their education, not from learned books written according to the highest scholarly standards and subject to peer review, but from Hollywood. Hollywood, who's only two standards are profit and political utility.
'Jarhead' has fallen to these twin demons and portrayed the Marine Corps as populated with a bunch of vulgar, coarse, wanton savages with little discipline or direction from their NCOs, and even less from their officers who are, for the most part, non-existent. One wonders how such a sex crazed mob could fling themselves right into the teeth of an army far larger than they with months to prepare their defense and defeat that army in an astonishing four days. A vulgar mob could not do such a thing, only highly trained & disciplined, proud professional soldiers could do so.
Alas, the average viewer won't think to ask this question.
film student's action picture
7 February 2006
There are many disappointing action pictures out there – this is not one of them. The genius of the film is there is no wasted motion. The picture starts right with the plot – no introduction or character development. The characters are allowed to develop as the plot moves along.
Which brings us to pacing – the pacing in this picture is excellent. It moves right along and never stops, never slows, never goes too fast. This is the strongest element of its success.
Another strength is its economy of motion. Many action pictures bore us with unneeded car chase scenes, shoot-em-ups, explosions and other mayhems that are used as filler when true creativity comes up short. This film needs none of that. Only that which is necessary is shown. Only that which needs speaking is spoken. This film is deftly written and crafted with great economy and this underpins the excellent pacing. It moves right along because there is no wasted motion as there is in most other action pictures.
This does not mean there is no action, there is fabulous action, but only such action as is necessary to move the plot along. There is no action simply to occupy time until the requisite 90 minutes are up.
The directing is equally economical. No fancy shots, shaky cameras, or special effects – just good, straight forward directing.
I doubt this picture could be made today for the above reasons. The script readers would reject it for 'lack of development'; 'not enough action'; 'no romantic interest'; and all the other brainless formulas script readers dole out. The producers would demand 'more action' and 'camera work' from the directors. And, of course, a romantic interest (in some state of undress) would have to be shoe horned in.
Film students should study this picture. From it they will learn that brevity is a virtue and mindless formulas are just that - mindless.
Which brings us to pacing – the pacing in this picture is excellent. It moves right along and never stops, never slows, never goes too fast. This is the strongest element of its success.
Another strength is its economy of motion. Many action pictures bore us with unneeded car chase scenes, shoot-em-ups, explosions and other mayhems that are used as filler when true creativity comes up short. This film needs none of that. Only that which is necessary is shown. Only that which needs speaking is spoken. This film is deftly written and crafted with great economy and this underpins the excellent pacing. It moves right along because there is no wasted motion as there is in most other action pictures.
This does not mean there is no action, there is fabulous action, but only such action as is necessary to move the plot along. There is no action simply to occupy time until the requisite 90 minutes are up.
The directing is equally economical. No fancy shots, shaky cameras, or special effects – just good, straight forward directing.
I doubt this picture could be made today for the above reasons. The script readers would reject it for 'lack of development'; 'not enough action'; 'no romantic interest'; and all the other brainless formulas script readers dole out. The producers would demand 'more action' and 'camera work' from the directors. And, of course, a romantic interest (in some state of undress) would have to be shoe horned in.
Film students should study this picture. From it they will learn that brevity is a virtue and mindless formulas are just that - mindless.
We Were Soldiers
(2002)
excellent movie
18 January 2006
This film is excellent all round. Good acting, good score, good script and directing. The cinematography is also well done. There is a very high level of realism, almost frighteningly so.
Mel Gibson gives one of his finer performances in a good sound script worthy of such an effort. The rest of the cast give good supporting performances.
The score is moving and appropriate. All music is spot on for the specific scenes, i.e. each piece catches the mood of the scene correctly. The music itself is very good.
The script is well balanced, showing different views of the conflict as it unfolds. The picture takes its time in developing its characters and the historical/sociological background and this pays off.
It is an unusual film in that it shows us American soldiers who are men of honor and character and worthy of admiration. Not the usual message Hollywood sends us about our warriors - and it is a true story.
A good, solid satisfying picture worth watching.
Mel Gibson gives one of his finer performances in a good sound script worthy of such an effort. The rest of the cast give good supporting performances.
The score is moving and appropriate. All music is spot on for the specific scenes, i.e. each piece catches the mood of the scene correctly. The music itself is very good.
The script is well balanced, showing different views of the conflict as it unfolds. The picture takes its time in developing its characters and the historical/sociological background and this pays off.
It is an unusual film in that it shows us American soldiers who are men of honor and character and worthy of admiration. Not the usual message Hollywood sends us about our warriors - and it is a true story.
A good, solid satisfying picture worth watching.
Finding Neverland
(2004)
a story that doesn't need telling
29 December 2005
I give this picture a seven but it's success depends entirely on Johnny Depp's performance. The story itself is not intrinsically interesting and the supporting cast does a good workmanlike job but nothing stellar. Direction is fine. The real problem is this is a story that does not really bear telling, let alone deserve a feature motion picture with a talented cast. It is a fine effort wasted on a story unworthy of it.
Johnny Depp, I think, has now demonstrated he is one of the best young talents in Hollywood. Certainly he is the best young male actor. He achieved something few actors do well: he mastered a foreign accent and kept it consistently throughout the picture. And he was able to do it with evocative emotion. Only Meryl Streep is another actor who can do this.
Think this is a small accomplishment? Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman failed to do it with a Southern accent in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof". Tom Hanks failed with a Boston Braham accent in "Volunteers". Maureen O'Hara failed with an Irish accent in "The Quiet Man". And these are all talented actors.
Still, I think the story itself, basically how the author of "Peter Pan" gets his inspiration for this tale, is too small and mundane a story for the screen. Others have disagreed and rate this picture highly.
Johnny Depp, I think, has now demonstrated he is one of the best young talents in Hollywood. Certainly he is the best young male actor. He achieved something few actors do well: he mastered a foreign accent and kept it consistently throughout the picture. And he was able to do it with evocative emotion. Only Meryl Streep is another actor who can do this.
Think this is a small accomplishment? Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman failed to do it with a Southern accent in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof". Tom Hanks failed with a Boston Braham accent in "Volunteers". Maureen O'Hara failed with an Irish accent in "The Quiet Man". And these are all talented actors.
Still, I think the story itself, basically how the author of "Peter Pan" gets his inspiration for this tale, is too small and mundane a story for the screen. Others have disagreed and rate this picture highly.
The Best Years of Our Lives
(1946)
A triumph of both Truth and Humanity
25 December 2005
A truly fine picture. So good the real question is, where to begin its praise? First, look at the talent, Wyler as director, a Robert Sherwood script, Myrna Loy and Fredric March as leads? Right there you have the 'A' team. The results should not be surprising.
The script is just right. Without illusions but without cynicism. It shows hard truths and true love. It is tight and well paced.
The directing is outstanding. The pace and tension of the scenes are spot on. And many of the shots were superb, Wyler getting the camera angle just right, focusing in the key element yet keeping the rest of the scene in play. His control of the lighting is equally good yet so subtle is his command you are hardly aware of it.
The acting is first rate. Like any great movie, all characters gave strong performances, although Myrna Loy and Frederic March were superb. Altogether, even in the smaller characters like Fred Derry's parents or 'Spikey', were perfectly cast. Even Hoagy Carmichael, a professional musician, gave a strong, believable performance.
This is a very fine picture that remains fresh, meaningful and undated to this day. The sensitivity and deftness with which Homer Parrish's lost limbs are handled is itself a great achievement in both art and humanity. It was a good balance of not only the acceptance of his loss by others, but also the acceptance of himself. And his final belief that others saw and accepted him as he was and not what he had lost.
See this film. You won't be disappointed. Only the most callous and hardened heart would fail to appreciate it.
The script is just right. Without illusions but without cynicism. It shows hard truths and true love. It is tight and well paced.
The directing is outstanding. The pace and tension of the scenes are spot on. And many of the shots were superb, Wyler getting the camera angle just right, focusing in the key element yet keeping the rest of the scene in play. His control of the lighting is equally good yet so subtle is his command you are hardly aware of it.
The acting is first rate. Like any great movie, all characters gave strong performances, although Myrna Loy and Frederic March were superb. Altogether, even in the smaller characters like Fred Derry's parents or 'Spikey', were perfectly cast. Even Hoagy Carmichael, a professional musician, gave a strong, believable performance.
This is a very fine picture that remains fresh, meaningful and undated to this day. The sensitivity and deftness with which Homer Parrish's lost limbs are handled is itself a great achievement in both art and humanity. It was a good balance of not only the acceptance of his loss by others, but also the acceptance of himself. And his final belief that others saw and accepted him as he was and not what he had lost.
See this film. You won't be disappointed. Only the most callous and hardened heart would fail to appreciate it.
The Quiet Man
(1952)
perhaps its what you bring to it......
25 December 2005
I am uncertain how to critique this film objectively. I will start by making a critique of some other critiques. One complaint is the 'stereotypes' of the Irish. These complaints reveal both the Political Correctness of the complainers and their ignorance. The Director, John Ford (real name Sean Aloysius O'Fearna) was born and raised in Ireland and was very much the moving force in producing this movie. Why? Because he liked the script. The leading lady, Maureen O'Hara (real name Maureen Fitzsimons) was also born and raised in Ireland. She also helped get the film produced. Why? Because she liked the script.
Now, If these two Irish born participants in the picture don't find anything offensive, why should we? The greatest offense seems to be depicting the Irish as people who like to drink and fight. Having known many Irishmen I can say many do, in fact, like to drink and fight. Stereotypes usually originate in a firm foundation of fact.
Secondly, they are horribly offended by the 'violence against women', blah, blah, blah. Now, the Maureen O'Hara and John Wayne characters in this movie were repeated pretty much hereafter in every picture they did together. It is, in fact, a very old theme. People who hate the idea of a fiery, strong willed female finally tamed by a confident, dominant male can find equal hatred for Shakespeare, just read 'Taming of the Shrew'. It was an old theme when Shakespeare wrote it.
Sadly, they were so busy being offended they missed what a fine athletic performance Maureen O'Hara gave as John Wayne dragged her along. She was a real trooper. That bit of athletic performance was no mean feat.
Now, back to the film. It seemed syrupy, smalzy and contrived. So bad, at times, it was cloying and annoying. The plot seemed paper thin and artificial, merely a threadbare artifice to generate false conflict. The characters were all stock characters and hence all wholly predictable as was the inevitable outcome. Thus, with no genuine tension and no real character development that drew you in; it was hard to sustain interest in this film.
My difficulty is, as a boy, I use to love all of the John Ford/Maureen O'Hara/John Wayne pictures. Yet, I doubt most of them were any better than this. So why now do I find this so unengaging? I think because as a boy, as did the larger society, we believed these simple smarmy sentiments. I probably believed that when two men fought they would afterwards become friends ( a frequent theme in films of this era). I now know that the victor usually feels contempt for the loser and the loser has a burning hatred of the winner for the humiliation inflicted on him. And so it is with the other sentimental claptrap.
However, it may also be the era in which we live. Now we live where every disgusting, evil human perversion is just a click of the mouse away. Where car jacking, once shocking, are now just accepted as normal life. Where terrorists kill by the thousands and drug dealers enslave by the tens of thousands. We live in an era that has grown callous and cynical. Simple, smarmy sentiments like mom, home and apple pie simply don't hold much water anymore.
So, is impatience for the sugary sentiment in this picture merely a matter of growing up? Is it like the Bible says, "When I was a child I thought like a child and acted as a child, but now I am a man and have put aside childish ways".
Or, is it because both I and the society at large have grown hard, callous and cynical? Perhaps a little of both.
But remember, the generation that saw the release of this film loved this film. Even Hollywood did, giving it two Academy awards. And they were grown ups, having lived through a Great Depression and a World War. Certainly, they had no illusions.....
So perhaps it is just us..... A newer generation without illusions, but also without faith.
Now, If these two Irish born participants in the picture don't find anything offensive, why should we? The greatest offense seems to be depicting the Irish as people who like to drink and fight. Having known many Irishmen I can say many do, in fact, like to drink and fight. Stereotypes usually originate in a firm foundation of fact.
Secondly, they are horribly offended by the 'violence against women', blah, blah, blah. Now, the Maureen O'Hara and John Wayne characters in this movie were repeated pretty much hereafter in every picture they did together. It is, in fact, a very old theme. People who hate the idea of a fiery, strong willed female finally tamed by a confident, dominant male can find equal hatred for Shakespeare, just read 'Taming of the Shrew'. It was an old theme when Shakespeare wrote it.
Sadly, they were so busy being offended they missed what a fine athletic performance Maureen O'Hara gave as John Wayne dragged her along. She was a real trooper. That bit of athletic performance was no mean feat.
Now, back to the film. It seemed syrupy, smalzy and contrived. So bad, at times, it was cloying and annoying. The plot seemed paper thin and artificial, merely a threadbare artifice to generate false conflict. The characters were all stock characters and hence all wholly predictable as was the inevitable outcome. Thus, with no genuine tension and no real character development that drew you in; it was hard to sustain interest in this film.
My difficulty is, as a boy, I use to love all of the John Ford/Maureen O'Hara/John Wayne pictures. Yet, I doubt most of them were any better than this. So why now do I find this so unengaging? I think because as a boy, as did the larger society, we believed these simple smarmy sentiments. I probably believed that when two men fought they would afterwards become friends ( a frequent theme in films of this era). I now know that the victor usually feels contempt for the loser and the loser has a burning hatred of the winner for the humiliation inflicted on him. And so it is with the other sentimental claptrap.
However, it may also be the era in which we live. Now we live where every disgusting, evil human perversion is just a click of the mouse away. Where car jacking, once shocking, are now just accepted as normal life. Where terrorists kill by the thousands and drug dealers enslave by the tens of thousands. We live in an era that has grown callous and cynical. Simple, smarmy sentiments like mom, home and apple pie simply don't hold much water anymore.
So, is impatience for the sugary sentiment in this picture merely a matter of growing up? Is it like the Bible says, "When I was a child I thought like a child and acted as a child, but now I am a man and have put aside childish ways".
Or, is it because both I and the society at large have grown hard, callous and cynical? Perhaps a little of both.
But remember, the generation that saw the release of this film loved this film. Even Hollywood did, giving it two Academy awards. And they were grown ups, having lived through a Great Depression and a World War. Certainly, they had no illusions.....
So perhaps it is just us..... A newer generation without illusions, but also without faith.
Nicholas and Alexandra
(1971)
historically accurate, dramatically flat
18 November 2005
This picture is historically quite accurate, a good history lesson. Unfortunately, as drama, it is quite dreary. The score is essentially non-existent. The cast in workmanlike but uninspiring as is the directing. The script, too, is factual and well done as history but never quite rises to great drama. In other words, this is no 'Dr. Zhivago'. The film makers rather hammered home the fact that Nicholas and Alexandra 'loved' each other, but it never rises to the passion or interest of Zhivago and Laura.
Perhaps the real problem are Nicholas and Alexandra themselves. They were average, decent, conscientious, church going people as we would know them today. Nicholas would have risen to middle management, would have been a good lieutenant in the Fire Department.
But that's the dramatic problem, they were just pretty damned average people placed in extraordinary power and circumstances in which they were completely unsuited to cope. They have no intrinsic interest themselves anymore than your neighbors do. Do you want to sit through a three hour picture about your neighbor? How 'bout a three hour movie about Paris Hilton? No .. rich but boring.
The areas the picture does excel is in costumes and sets, where it quite justly won Academy awards. However, this is not sufficient to redeem it.
If you are someone who is not inclined to read a book but would like to know something of the history of this period, this would be an excellent picture for you to view. However, if you are already well versed in the subject the movie will seem rather dull.
Perhaps the real problem are Nicholas and Alexandra themselves. They were average, decent, conscientious, church going people as we would know them today. Nicholas would have risen to middle management, would have been a good lieutenant in the Fire Department.
But that's the dramatic problem, they were just pretty damned average people placed in extraordinary power and circumstances in which they were completely unsuited to cope. They have no intrinsic interest themselves anymore than your neighbors do. Do you want to sit through a three hour picture about your neighbor? How 'bout a three hour movie about Paris Hilton? No .. rich but boring.
The areas the picture does excel is in costumes and sets, where it quite justly won Academy awards. However, this is not sufficient to redeem it.
If you are someone who is not inclined to read a book but would like to know something of the history of this period, this would be an excellent picture for you to view. However, if you are already well versed in the subject the movie will seem rather dull.
Mrs. Miniver
(1942)
stands the test of time
15 November 2005
One unnoticed talent in the picture was Christopher Severn playing the part of Toby Miniver, the Miniver's youngest child. Child actors are often cast strictly for their appearance and their performances frequently leave much to be desired. However, Christopher, playing at such a young age, gives an absolutely delightful performance that is also refreshingly professional. His timing is excellent, his dialogue is on the button, and he hits all his marks. He far outshines his other child co-star. He contributed to every scene he was in. Ironically, the rest of his short career was spent in oblivion, not even receiving screen credit in some of his roles.
The rest of the picture is very good. The sappy violin music through much of the picture could be toned down. But the picture as a whole is far less sappy than many other propaganda pictures of the day and much more believable. Callous modern audiences, hardened by the deadening sex and violence constantly doled out on today's screen, may find some of its conventions amusing. But it stands the test of time and is still a very watchable picture.
The rest of the picture is very good. The sappy violin music through much of the picture could be toned down. But the picture as a whole is far less sappy than many other propaganda pictures of the day and much more believable. Callous modern audiences, hardened by the deadening sex and violence constantly doled out on today's screen, may find some of its conventions amusing. But it stands the test of time and is still a very watchable picture.
All the King's Men
(1949)
great picture with lasting truth
7 November 2005
Power corrupts and politics is Power. That's the message of this film. Robert Penn Warren wrote the novel in the 30's, the movie was made in the 40's, and here it is 50 years later and the message is just as true then as it is now. Clinton selling pardons to raise money for his presidential library - and his long line of cheap floosies. Pick another politician, one you don't like, same story.
However, this movie has another message, stated by the corrupt politician himself: out of evil comes good. That truth is the only thing that makes Democracy work. Even while Broderick Crawford's character was corrupt, Nixonian corruption selling out to protect his own power, he still kept his promises: roads, schools, hospitals. He strong armed and blackmailed but he got them built.
Yeah, Democracy is ugly, but no uglier than the human clay it is made out of. As Churchill said, 'Democracy is the worst form of all governments except for everything else.' Sadly, 50 years from now someone could again watch this picture and still see their own society mirrored in its images. Thankfully, it will still be a great film with solid performances across the board, fast pacing and good writing. There's no wasted motion in this picture.
Hopefully, 50 years from now, good will still come out of evil. However, there is one other truth: if there is too much evil no good will come out of it. Let's hope there's never too much of it here in America......
However, this movie has another message, stated by the corrupt politician himself: out of evil comes good. That truth is the only thing that makes Democracy work. Even while Broderick Crawford's character was corrupt, Nixonian corruption selling out to protect his own power, he still kept his promises: roads, schools, hospitals. He strong armed and blackmailed but he got them built.
Yeah, Democracy is ugly, but no uglier than the human clay it is made out of. As Churchill said, 'Democracy is the worst form of all governments except for everything else.' Sadly, 50 years from now someone could again watch this picture and still see their own society mirrored in its images. Thankfully, it will still be a great film with solid performances across the board, fast pacing and good writing. There's no wasted motion in this picture.
Hopefully, 50 years from now, good will still come out of evil. However, there is one other truth: if there is too much evil no good will come out of it. Let's hope there's never too much of it here in America......
Tell Your Friends