Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Reviews’ Category

Singing Is In My People, As Sight Is In The Eye

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 11, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“How Green Was My Valley” (1941) — movie review
Today’s second film review is for the classic family drama “How Green Was My Valley”, directed by John Ford and starring Walter Pidgeon as Mr. Gruffydd, the village minister whose quiet strength and plain talk make him the moral center of the valley;  Maureen O’Hara as Angharad, the proud daughter whose heart gets caught between love and social expectation;  Donald Crisp as Gwilym Morgan, the coal‑miner father trying to hold his family together while the world changes around them;  Sara Allgood as Beth Morgan, the strong‑willed mother who loves fiercely and does not suffer fools;  Roddy McDowall as Huw Morgan, the youngest son whose memories frame the story;  and a supporting cast of brothers, miners, and neighbors who fill out the life of a Welsh coal town on its way down.
Background:  This was my first full viewing of “How Green Was My Valley”.  I’ve “heard” about it for years in off-hand movie discussions, mainly because it won the Best Picture Oscar over “Citizen Kane”, which tends to make movie folks either roll their eyes or lean in closer.  “How Green Was My Valley” was released in 1941 and received ten Academy Award nominations;  it won five:  Best Picture, Best Director (John Ford), Best Supporting Actor (Donald Crisp), Best Cinematography (Black‑and‑White), and Best Art Direction – Interior Decoration (Black‑and‑White).  Historically, it sits as one of the big studio dramas about the passing of a way of life.   In this case, the way of life is a coal‑mining community slowly being buried under its own slag heaps — and as one of Ford’s key non‑Western films.
Plot:  The story is told in flashback by an older (unseen) Huw Morgan, remembering his childhood in a Welsh mining valley.  His father and older brothers work in the coal mine, and the family home is full of food, singing, and routine.  As time passes, wages are cut, the mine owners squeeze harder, and the men begin talking unions and strikes;  Huw watches his brothers argue with their father about how to respond, and the village slowly splits into camps.  At the same time, he sees the quiet love between his sister Angharad and Mr. Gruffydd, a love that runs head‑first into class and money.  The valley itself changes:  black spoil piles grow, the air darkens, and accidents become more common;  one by one, Huw’s brothers leave for other countries or other work.  The film builds toward a final mining disaster and a farewell to both family and valley — at least as Huw remembers them.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  very good;  beautiful and grounded;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  This is a sincere, steady drama that works because it lets you live with the Morgans before it starts taking things away.  The story is sentimental by modern standards, but it is built on work, faith, pride, and the slow grinding down of a community instead of on cheap twists.  The movie does not rush from big speech to big tragedy;  it shows meals, chapel, arguments, and small jokes, and then shows how those same moments feel different as the valley declines.  It is not fast and it is not flashy, but it earns its emotion.
Acting:  Donald Crisp is excellent as Gwilym Morgan, firm, fair, and believable as a man trying to balance loyalty to the owners with loyalty to his sons.  Sara Allgood gives Beth a mix of warmth and iron;  when she defends her family, you believe it.  Walter Pidgeon plays Mr. Gruffydd with calm dignity and a bit of quiet humor, and Maureen O’Hara’s Angharad is strong and sensitive, with more going on under the surface than the script spells out.  Roddy McDowall is very good as young Huw, wide‑eyed without being sugary.  The brothers, neighbors, and chapel elders mostly feel like real people instead of “types”, which helps the valley feel lived‑in.
Filming / FX:  The black‑and‑white cinematography is one of the film’s strongest points.  The village set — houses, mine headgear, hills — looks like a real place you could walk through.  The camera uses light and shadow to contrast the warmth of the Morgan home and chapel with the harshness of the mine and the growing slag piles;  interiors feel cramped but cozy, which fits a large family in a small house.  There are no “effects” in the modern sense, but the mine sequences (especially the final rescue) are staged well enough to feel tense.  The filming is classical and mostly invisible — which, IMHO, is a compliment here.
Problems:  A few.  The film leans into sentiment, and some scenes will feel melodramatic to modern eyes — especially the more “speechy” moments.  The pacing can drag in the middle as the story shifts between labor trouble, family drama, and Huw’s school experiences.  Several of the brothers blur together;  they come and go without much individual development, so their departures feel more symbolic than personal.  The Angharad / Gruffydd love story is powerful in idea but doesn’t get enough screen time.  And the accents and dialogue are very “Hollywood Wales”, which may bother viewers who know the real thing.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It is gentle, sad, and quietly moving.  I liked the way it balances nostalgia with loss — the idea that childhood memories can be both warm and painful at the same time.  The performances are strong, the visuals are lovely, and the story has enough honesty to keep it from turning into pure syrup.  It is not a film I’ll watch every year, but I am glad I finally sat down and watched it straight through.
Final Recommendation:  Very high to MUST SEE recommendation.  “How Green Was My Valley” is historically significant for its Best Picture win, its multiple Oscars, and its place in John Ford’s career as one of his major non‑Western dramas.  It is also a solid example of how classic Hollywood tried to tell working‑class stories and mark the passing of older communities.  If you enjoy black‑and‑white dramas, family sagas, or films told through the lens of memory, this one is worth your time.  It is near perfect, because it is heartfelt and memorable — and now I understand why it still gets talked about, even if you think “Citizen Kane” should have taken the statue.
.
Click here (11 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The Money Was On The Screen

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 11, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Hell’s Angels” (1930) — movie review
Today’s review is for the early aviation war epic “Hell’s Angels”, directed by Howard Hughes and starring Ben Lyon as Monte Rutledge, the charming, woman‑chasing younger brother whose carefree (and cowardly) attitude masks a streak of loyalty for his brother;  James Hall as Roy Rutledge, the more serious, principled older brother whose sense of duty keeps pulling him into danger;  Jean Harlow as Helen, the flirtatious and unpredictable love interest whose behavior complicates the brothers’ already strained relationship;  and John Darrow as Karl, the German friend from Oxford whose return to Germany and later death in the bombing of London underline how the war tears apart personal loyalties and friendships.  There is also a large supporting cast of British officers, German pilots, and squadron mates who fill out the story of rivalry, honor, and sacrifice in the skies over World War I Europe.  The film mixes melodrama on the ground with large‑scale aerial combat sequences which (even today) feel surprisingly real / accurate.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I’d heard about “Hell’s Angels” mostly as “that insanely expensive Howard Hughes aviation movie” from watching the Hughes biopic “The Avaiator” (review here) and as the film which made Jean Harlow a star.  Released in 1930 after an infamously long and chaotic production, the movie was one of the most expensive films ever made at the time.  It received no Academy Award nominations (the Oscars were still finding their footing), but historically it’s significant for its groundbreaking (and brilliant) aerial photography and for pushing technical boundaries in ways few films of the era attempted.  The film did have the highest grossing attendance of the year and Hughes clearly spent his production money in the air giving the people what they wanted to see.  Hughes’ obsession with realism led to dangerous stunts, multiple pilot injuries, and at least one fatality during production.  The film is remembered today as a landmark in aviation cinema and as a key moment in Harlow’s rise to fame.
Plot:  The story follows two British brothers, Roy and Monte Rutledge, who attend Oxford and fall into a rivalry over women — especially Helen, whose flirtations complicate their relationship.  When World War I breaks out, both brothers join the Royal Flying Corps.  Roy is earnest and dutiful;  Monte is reluctant but eventually follows.  The film shifts between melodrama on the ground (romantic entanglements, betrayals, and moral choices) and large‑scale aerial combat sequences.  The brothers fly dangerous missions, including a nighttime bombing raid and a massive dogfight against German fighters.  A captured German officer (a friend from Oxford) refuses to betray his country, adding another layer of conflict.  The story builds toward a final mission behind enemy lines, where Roy and Monte must make a life‑or‑death decision that tests their loyalty, courage, and brotherhood.  The ending is tragic, with sacrifice framed as both noble and inevitable in wartime.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Mostly;  uneven but interesting;  spectacular for its time;  several;  mostly yes.
Any good?  Mostly.  “Hell’s Angels” is a strange mix of early‑talkie melodrama and jaw‑dropping aerial action.  The ground scenes feel dated — stiff acting, awkward dialogue, and pacing issues — but the flying sequences are genuinely impressive.  The film tries to balance romance, rivalry, and war, and while the story is uneven, the ambition is undeniable.  The emotional beats land better than I expected, and the final act has surprising weight.  It’s not a great movie overall, but it’s an important one, and parts of it still work remarkably well.
Acting:  The acting is a mixed bag.  Ben Lyon and James Hall are serviceable as the brothers — Lyon brings charm, Hall brings earnestness — but both performances feel very “early 1930s.”  Jean Harlow, at just 18, is the standout:  playful, bold, and already showing the screen presence that would make her a star.  Some supporting roles are wooden, especially in the early dialogue scenes, but that’s typical of the transitional sound era.  The emotional moments between the brothers in the final act are surprisingly effective, even if the delivery is occasionally theatrical (overly melodramatic).
Filming / FX:  This is where the movie shines.  The aerial sequences are extraordinary — real planes, real stunts, real danger.  Hughes filmed dogfights with dozens of aircraft, using daring camera angles and long takes that still look impressive almost a century later.  The nighttime bombing raid is atmospheric, and the massive dogfight is chaotic in a good way.  The ground scenes are more static, with early‑sound limitations, but the flying footage more than makes up for it.  For 1930, the aerial filming is groundbreaking / spectacular!
Problems:  Several.  The pacing is uneven, especially in the first hour.  The melodrama feels dated, and some scenes drag.  The acting can be stiff, and the dialogue occasionally clunky.  The tonal shifts (from light romance to heavy war drama) don’t always blend smoothly.  The film’s length (well over two hours) feels excessive.  None of these issues ruin the film, but they make it feel like two different movies stitched together.  What REALLY almost completely ruined the viewing experience for me was watching the film on YouTube.  There were commercial interruptions practically EVERY three minutes.  Most were two ads with the first being 10 seconds and the second letting “skip” after 5 seconds.  Also, there were two sets of ads which repeated over and over again.  One set the first hour and the second during the second hour.  Streaming films on YouTube is AGONIZINGLY painful!!
Did I enjoy the film?  Mostly yes.  The flying sequences alone make it worth watching.  They’re exciting, dangerous, and visually impressive.  The melodrama is hit‑or‑miss (mostly miss), but Harlow adds spark, and the brothers’ story has enough emotional pull to keep things moving.  The final act is strong and the ending is reasonably memorable.  It’s not a film I’d revisit often (and NEVER again on YouTube), but I’m glad I finally saw it.  It’s a fascinating piece of early Hollywood history.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate recommendation.  “Hell’s Angels” is historically significant, visually groundbreaking, and ambitious in ways few early‑sound films dared to be.  The aerial photography alone earns it a place in cinema history, and Jean Harlow’s performance is a bonus.  The melodrama is dated, and the pacing uneven, but the film’s technical achievements and wartime themes make it worth watching — especially for fans of aviation history, early Hollywood epics, or classic film milestones.  It’s not perfect, but it’s important, and parts of it are still thrilling today.  Miss this film if you HAVE to watch it on YouTube.  Otherwise, it’s not a bad movie. The aerial fight easily makes this no lower than a moderate recommendation – no matter how much else may be wrong with the film.
.
Click here (11 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

A Rather Convoluted Lack Of Justice

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 10, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“David Copperfield”  (1935) — movie review
[Apologies (in advance) to any post readers who may find this review excessively long / detailed.  Although, the movie itself isn’t unusually long, the multiple story lines are each important to the plot and therefore make an adequate review long and convoluted, too.  Because I’ve never read the novel, this review had to be “supplemented” by reading other reviews – and particularly Wikipedia (for novel and film).  I did try to “incorporate” and not plagiarize.  LoL.  I’ll try to get back to shorter and more reader friendly reviews going forward.]
Today’s second review is for the classic film adaptation “David Copperfield”, directed by George Cukor and starring Freddie Bartholomew as young David, gentle, observant, and trying to survive a childhood full of loss and cruelty;  Frank Lawton as the adult David, earnest and hopeful as he tries to build a life of his own;  W. C. Fields as Mr. Micawber, the eternally optimistic debtor whose charm somehow outweighs his irresponsibility;  Edna May Oliver as Aunt Betsey Trotwood, sharp‑tongued, fiercely protective, and the first adult to truly stand up for David;  Basil Rathbone as Mr. Murdstone, the cold, domineering stepfather who tries to crush David’s spirit in his early years;  Maureen O’Sullivan as Dora, the sweet but fragile young woman David marries;  Madge Evans as Agnes Wickfield, David’s steady childhood friend and moral compass who quietly becomes the real partner of his adult life;  and Roland Young as Uriah Heep, the oily, “’umble” clerk whose false modesty hides a calculating ambition.  The film follows David from childhood hardship to adult self‑discovery, weaving together Charles Dickens’ humor, heartbreak, and social criticism.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I’ve never read the Dickens’ source novel nor seen any of the other versions.  This film was a major production for its time and it received three Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Film Editing, and Best Assistant Director. It’s historically significant as one of the earliest large‑scale Dickens adaptations that tried to capture both the sweep of the novel and the emotional beats of the characters.  It’s also remembered for W. C. Fields’ performance as Micawber, which many critics still consider one of the best Dickens character portrayals ever put on screen.  The film came out during the Great Depression, and audiences responded strongly to its themes of perseverance, kindness, and the hope that life can get better if you keep going.
Plot:  The story begins with David’s birth and early childhood, where he lives happily with his widowed mother until she marries Mr. Murdstone.  Murdstone and his equally harsh sister quickly take over the household, imposing strict discipline and emotional cruelty.  [Side note:  in old England, a widow retained use of real property after a husband’s death, but she didn’t “own” it.  If she remarried, the “ownership” of the property passed to the new husband.  In this case, to the cruel and abusive Mr. Murdstone and not to the bloodline heir:  David.]  After David fights back, he’s sent away to a boarding school and later to work in a London bottling factory — a grim, lonely existence.  Eventually he runs away to find his Aunt Betsey Trotwood, who takes him in and gives him a real home.  From there, the film follows David into adulthood:  his friendships with the ever‑optimistic Mr. Micawber and the loyal Traddles;  his deepening bond with Agnes Wickfield, who quietly supports him through setbacks and bad choices;  his infatuation and marriage to Dora, which turns out to be more fragile than he wants to admit;  his growing awareness of Uriah Heep’s scheming;  and his eventual discovery of love, purpose, and stability.  The story builds toward the exposure of Heep’s fraud, the collapse of several illusions in David’s life, and his gradual realization of who he is and what (and who) he truly wants.  It’s a long journey (both funny and sad), but always grounded in the idea that character is shaped by hardship and the people who help you through it.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  very good;  classic MGM craftsmanship;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “David Copperfield” is a strong adaptation without the novel’s length.  The pacing is steady, the emotional beats land, and the film balances humor and hardship in a way that feels more honest than sentimental.  It’s not perfect — some sections feel rushed, others linger — but overall it’s a well‑crafted, engaging film that still works almost ninety years later.  The story’s themes of resilience, kindness, and personal growth come through clearly.
Acting:  Freddie Bartholomew is excellent as young David — expressive, vulnerable, and believable in every scene.  Frank Lawton, as the adult David, is solid if a bit understated, but he carries the later sections well enough.  W. C. Fields is the standout:  his Micawber is warm, funny, and surprisingly restrained (for Fields), and he steals every scene he’s in.  Edna May Oliver is terrific as Aunt Betsey — sharp, commanding, and unexpectedly tender.  Basil Rathbone makes Murdstone genuinely intimidating, and Roland Young gives Uriah Heep the perfect mix of false humility and quiet menace.  Maureen O’Sullivan’s Dora is sweet and appealing, which makes her limitations feel sad rather than annoying.  Madge Evans brings a calm, steady presence to Agnes, and even though the film doesn’t give her much time.  You still feel why she is the person David should have been leaning on all along.  The supporting cast is large, but most of them make their characters feel distinct and memorable.
Filming / FX:  This is classic 1930s MGM — polished sets, careful lighting, and a sense of scale that makes the world feel full and realistic.  The black‑and‑white cinematography is clean and expressive, especially in the darker childhood scenes.  The London sequences look convincingly grimy, and Aunt Betsey’s home feels warm and safe by contrast.  There are no special effects to speak of, but the production design does most of the heavy lifting.  The crowd scenes, the courtroom, and the various interiors all feel like part of a coherent world.  The editing is smooth, and the film has that “studio prestige” look that MGM specialized in during the era.
Problems:  A few.  The film compresses a very long novel, so some characters and subplots feel rushed or simplified.  The transitions between childhood and adulthood are abrupt. Dora’s story line, in particular, feels underdeveloped — she’s sweet, but the emotional impact of her arc is muted compared to the book.  Agnes, while present and important, could have used more screen time to fully sell the shift from “friend” to “true partner” for viewers who don’t know the novel (like me – LoL).  The tone occasionally swings too quickly between humor and tragedy.  And, like many adaptations of its time, the film softens some of Dickens’ harsher social criticism.  None of these issues ruin the movie, but they keep it from being a fully complete version of the novel.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s warm, engaging, and surprisingly moving.  The performances (especially Fields, Oliver, and the two Davids) give the story real heart, and the film’s mix of humor and hardship feels true to Dickens.  I appreciated the craftsmanship, the pacing, and the way the film captures the idea that life is shaped by the people who help you along the way.  The Micawber scenes are genuinely fun, and the quieter moments with Agnes and Aunt Betsey give the film emotional weight.  It’s not a movie I’d watch every year, but it’s one I’m glad I’ve finally seen.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “David Copperfield” is a well‑acted, historically significant adaptation of one of Dickens’ greatest novels.  Its Best Picture nomination makes sense, and its influence on later Dickens films is clear.  If you enjoy classic Hollywood, literary adaptations, or stories about resilience and personal growth, this one is well worth your time.  It’s not perfect, but it’s heartfelt, memorable, crafted with care, and it does a respectable job of bringing David, Dora, Agnes, and the rest of Dickens’ world to the screen.
.
Click here (10 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The Chemistry Of Good Coaching

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 10, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Knute Rockne, All American” (1940) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sports biography “Knute Rockne, All American”, directed by Lloyd Bacon and starring Pat O’Brien as Knute Rockne, the Notre Dame chemistry professor turned football coach who builds a national powerhouse;  Ronald Reagan as George Gipp, the gifted but carefree halfback whose early death becomes school legend;  Gale Page as Bonnie Rockne, Knute’s steady wife;  Donald Crisp as Father Callahan, who backs Rockne’s early coaching;  and Albert Bassermann as Father Nieuwland, the mentor who helps Rockne balance academics and athletics.  Together, they tell how a kid from Norway becomes one of the most influential coaches in American sports.
Background:  This was my first viewing in multiple decades.  I remember seeing it a couple of times in my teens.  LoL.  The film didn’t receive any Academy Award nominations, but it’s historically important for popularizing the “win one for the Gipper” moment and for being one of the earliest major studio sports biopics.  It also helped cement Reagan’s “Gipper” identity for the rest of his acting career and political life.
Plot:  The movie follows Rockne from immigrant childhood through his years at Notre Dame as student, chemistry professor, and eventually head football coach.  He helps develop the forward pass, builds a national program, and inspires generations of players – at South Bend and around the country.  The Gipp storyline is the emotional center.  Rockne’s later success brings national (and enduring) fame before his tragic death in a plane crash.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Mostly;  solid early‑Hollywood performances;  straightforward filming;  a few;  mostly yes.
Any good?  Mostly.  It’s an earnest, old‑style biography that hits the major beats without digging very deep.  The football scenes are simple but clear.  The movie does a decent job showing how Rockne’s ideas shaped the sport.  It’s more tribute than analysis, but it works.
Acting:  Pat O’Brien is strong as Rockne — energetic and believable as both teacher and coach.  Reagan is relaxed and likable as Gipp.  Page brings warmth as Bonnie.  The supporting cast fits the tone.  The acting is very much early‑1940s studio style, but it gets the job done.
Filming / FX:  Clean black‑and‑white filming, simple staging, and modest football action.  Nothing fancy.  The campus scenes look good, and the crowd shots give a sense of scale.  It’s visually plain, but appropriate for the era.  I found the interspersing of Hollywood with actual (real) game footage to be very interesting.
Problems:  A few.  The story is smoothed into a string of inspirational moments, and some scenes are overly sentimental.  The football action is dated.  The pacing slows in the middle.  The movie avoids any deeper look at Rockne’s flaws, so it feels more like a tribute than a full biography.
Did I enjoy the film?  Mostly.  It’s sincere, nostalgic, and easy to watch.  The performances are good, the story moves along, and the Gipp scenes still land.  It’s not a movie I’d revisit often, but I’m glad I’ve seen it again.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation. “Knute Rockne, All American” is an important early sports biopic with real cultural significance.  It’s not a modern, gritty biography, but it’s well‑acted, historically interesting, and worth seeing if you enjoy classic Hollywood or the history of American football.  Let’s be honest…  This isn’t the greatest movie – acting, biopic, sports or whatever – but for certain of us older (ancient), former sand lot, high school or college athletes, this film will be kind of fun to bring back memories…
.
Click here (10 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Just Then It Felt As If I Wasn’t Pretending Anymore

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2026| 3 Comments »

“Dave” (1993) — movie review
Today’s second film review is for the political comedy “Dave”, directed by Ivan Reitman and starring Kevin Kline as Dave Kovic / Bill Mitchell, the decent temp‑agency owner who ends up impersonating the President;  Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Mitchell, the sharp and quietly frustrated First Lady;  Frank Langella as Bob Alexander, the power‑hungry Chief of Staff;  Kevin Dunn as Alan Reed, the nervous Communications Director trying to keep the whole mess together;  Ving Rhames as Duane Stevenson, the stone‑faced Secret Service agent who slowly warms to Dave;  Ben Kingsley as Vice‑President Nance, honest and steady;  and Charles Grodin as Murray Blum,  Dave’s accountant friend who somehow ends up fixing the federal budget with a pencil.  Light political comedy with a good heart.
Background:  This is a re‑watch for me.  I saw “Dave” back when it first came out and mostly remembered it as “the nice political comedy where Kevin Kline plays two parts and somehow makes both work.”  The movie did reasonably well and picked up an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay.  It sits in that early‑90s window when Hollywood could still make a White House comedy that was hopeful instead of bitter.  No dark conspiracy thriller, no “everything is broken” sermon — just the idea that maybe a decent person could land in the Oval Office and try to help.  Looking at it now, that alone makes it feel more than a little historic.
Plot:  Dave Kovic runs a small temp agency in “small town, America”, and does a side gig impersonating the President because he happens to look exactly like him.  One night, the Secret Service hires him to be a stand‑in for a quick public appearance.  While Dave is “being” the President, the real Bill Mitchell has a stroke during an affair.  Bob Alexander and Alan Reed decide to keep the medical crisis secret and use Dave as a full‑time double so they can keep the government (and their own power) under control.  At first, Dave just reads what they put in front of him.  Then he starts paying attention.  He visits a shelter, listens to people, and decides he actually wants to do some good.  He brings in his friend Murray to help fix the budget, starts pushing for jobs, and treats staff like human beings.  Ellen slowly figures out that this “new” husband is not the man she married, and that’s a good thing.  Bob, meanwhile, tries to frame Dave in a fake scandal and set himself up as the next President.  It all builds to a joint session of Congress, a staged collapse, and a quiet little ending that lets Dave walk away with his conscience intact.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  very good;  clean and straightforward;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Dave” is simple, but it works.  The story is easy to follow, the tone stays light without turning into pure fluff, and the movie never laughs at Dave for being decent.  That’s important.  A lot of later political stuff treats kindness as a joke or a weakness.  Here, the whole point is that basic decency is exactly what’s missing.  The script keeps things moving, gives everyone at least a moment or two, and lands the ending without a big speech about “saving democracy.”  It’s not deep, but it’s solid.
Acting:  Kevin Kline is the anchor for the whole film.  As Dave, he’s awkward, funny, and genuinely kind;  as Bill Mitchell, he’s cold and selfish.  You never confuse the two, even though it’s the same face.  Sigourney Weaver gives Ellen some real weight.  She starts off distant and angry, then slowly lets herself trust this “new” version of her husband.  Frank Langella leans into Bob Alexander as a classic Washington shark, and it fits the movie’s slightly heightened tone.  Kevin Dunn’s Alan Reed is nervous, guilty, and more human than he first appears.  Ving Rhames gets some of the best small moments as Duane, especially when he finally admits he’d take a bullet for Dave.  Ben Kingsley plays Vice‑President Nance as quiet and honest, which pays off later.  And Charles Grodin, as Murray, walks in, talks about cutting the federal budget like it’s a household ledger, and just about steals the movie.  I can’t remember liking Grodin in anything I’ve ever seen him in, but in this film he really is excellent!  Go figure…
Filming / FX:  This is early‑90s studio work, and it looks like it.  Clean interiors, bright lighting, and a White House that feels like a movie set but not a cartoon.  No flashy camera tricks, no big effects shots — just straightforward coverage that lets the actors and the script do the work.  The music leans a little “uplifting,” but it matches the tone.  Nothing here is going to wow you visually, but nothing gets in the way either.  It feels like exactly what it is:  a mid‑budget studio comedy that knows its job.
Problems:  The big one is realism.  The idea that you could hide a presidential stroke, swap in a double, and keep it going for weeks is pure fantasy.  The movie doesn’t really care about the 25th Amendment or how any of this would actually work.  Bob Alexander is also pretty broad — fun to watch, but not subtle.  The romance between Dave and Ellen is sweet, but it moves fast and mostly lives in looks and small gestures.  If you want a hard‑edged political story, this isn’t it.  You have to accept that this is a fable about a good person dropped into a bad system, not a “how Washington really works” movie.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  I smiled through most of it.  Some of that is nostalgia, but a lot of it is just the cast doing their jobs well.  The jokes still land, the emotional beats still work, and the movie’s basic belief — that it would be nice if someone in power actually cared — hasn’t aged out.  I rolled my eyes at a few of the plot shortcuts, but I never felt talked down to.  For a light political comedy from thirty years ago, that’s not bad.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation. “Dave” is a well‑acted, good‑natured political comedy with a memorable dual performance from Kevin Kline and a script that earned its Oscar nomination.  It’s also a small time capsule from when Hollywood could still imagine a basically decent person in the Oval Office without irony.  Not a MUST see, but if you like character‑driven comedies, political stories with a soft touch, or just want to watch decent people try to do the right thing, “Dave” is very much worth your time.
.
Click here (9 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Juliet Never Dies

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“West Side Story” (1961) — movie review
Today’s review is for the musical / romantic tragedy “West Side Story”, directed by Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise and starring Natalie Wood as Maria, a young Puerto Rican girl who falls in love with the wrong boy (Tony);  Richard Beymer as Tony, a former Jet trying to stay out of trouble but pulled back in;  Rita Moreno as Anita, Maria’s sharp, loyal friend who is in love with Maria’s brother (Bernardo);  George Chakiris as Bernardo, Maria’s protective older brother and leader of the Sharks;  and Russ Tamblyn as Riff, the Jets’ leader whose confidence gets everyone in deeper trouble than they expect (and him killed).  The film follows two street gangs, two young (LoL) lovers, and the cost of pride on the West Side of New York City.
Background:  I saw this movie once when I was a teen.  I didn’t like it then.  I liked it even less this time.  “West Side Story” was released in 1961 and became a major hit.  It received eleven Academy Award nominations and won ten, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Chakiris), and Best Supporting Actress (Moreno).  It’s one of the most successful film musicals ever made and considered a landmark for choreography on film.  It’s also the best‑known adaptation of the 1957 Broadway musical, which itself was a modern retelling of “Romeo and Juliet”.
Plot:  Rival youth gangs (the Jets and the Sharks) fight for control of their neighborhood.  Riff wants a “rumble” with Bernardo to settle things.  He convinces Tony to come to a neighborhood dance where the challenge will be made.  Tony meets Maria, and they fall for each other immediately — which makes everything worse.  The rumble goes ahead anyway, and things get out of control:  a fight, an unintended fatal stabbing, and a revenge killing (stabbing).  Anita tries to help Tony and Maria escape, but anger and misunderstanding lead to a final tragedy (Tony is shot dead).  The film ends with Maria confronting both gangs as they finally see the cost of their hatred.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  No;  not as bad as the movie;  adequately filmed;  many;  no.
Any good?  No.  “West Side Story” may still be one of the great film musicals, but IMHO the acted parts were tolerable to good and the dancing and singing were mostly terrible.  The story is simple, but the energy, music, and choreography still (just) fail to carry it.  The themes — love, pride, and prejudice — still work, but the musical framing in this film version simply doesn’t (for me).
Acting:  Natalie Wood’s acting is warm and almost believable as Maria, even with the dubbing.  Richard Beymer is just okay as Tony.  Rita Moreno is excellent as Anita and deserved her Oscar.  George Chakiris is strong as Bernardo.  Russ Tamblyn brings energy to Riff’s dancing, but not to the acting.  The ensemble (mixed gender) dancing is very good.  The acting bits are FAR better than the musical style but that’s still not saying much.
Filming / FX:  The filming is colorful and stylized.  The choreography is the ridiculous despite being sharp, athletic, and filmed cleanly.  The sets alternate between looking stage / theatrical and actual on-site.  The camera work is steady but neither the singing nor dancing appealed to me.  No modern effects, but there are some token off-center hazing of couples and some vaguely psychedelic coloring and motions which I found distracting more than interesting.
Problems:  Many and major.  I always have a problem when actors in their mid-20s are cast as young teens.  It’s almost never believable – and it wasn’t in this film.  The casting of non‑Latino actors in brown makeup is a big issue today;  but in fairness, they also coated the actors who might have been Latinos in brown makeup, too.  Tony’s hands were frequently darker than Maria’s in closeups!  Most of the dialogue felt stiff and contrived and almost none of it made for a decent segue into any of the songs.  To be perfectly honest, none of the cast looked like they were singing and only Moreno looked she could have been singing her songs.  And, the actors’ spoken voices didn’t match their singing voices.  The “attempted” theatrical (stage) style felt dated.  The dubbing is noticeable (i.e. terrible).  Any of these was enough to ruin the film, and they (the combination) did just that (for me).
Did I enjoy the film?  No.  The music is barely okay and I did manage to remember a few of the main lines from a couple of the songs, but not many lines, or songs.  The dancing is strong when the couples are mixed, or just female, but visually ridiculous when all male 20+ year old males are doing ballet “like” moves when they are supposed to be in a street gang.  Very few of the emotional moments land (for me).  The tragedy doesn’t work (regardless if you know it’s coming) – it is SUPPOSED to be Romeo and Juliet – but strangely, Juliet / Maria never dies.  This is a film I can say I’ve seen and won’t ever watch again (but I will HAVE to watch different versions).
Final Recommendation:  Low (to skip it) recommendation.  “West Side Story” is a major musical with historical significance, but unless you have a really good reason to watch it, I wouldn’t.  There are many other MUCH better musicals out there to better spend your time viewing.  Since I have been to so few stage productions, I really can’t comment on if this was a faithful rendition of the stage musical.
Final Thoughts:  Strangely enough two of the songs had lyrics which were probably “questionable” back in 1961.  There is a rooftop song (“America“) sung by the Puerto Ricans about limited vs unlimited opportunity AND racist discrimination in coming to NYC.  The second song (“Gee, Officer Krupke”) is about the social / economic conditions which “may” lead to juvenile delinquency: poor parenting, poor education, poverty, mental health issues, police discrimination, judicial and social worker apathy.  Both songs are interesting (to me) because I wonder how much / little has changed / improved in the last sixty-five years…
.
Click here (9 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Today We Die – A Little Bit

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 8, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Zátopek” (2021) — movie review
Today’s second film review is for the Czech biographical sports drama “Zátopek”, directed by David Ondříček and starring Václav Neužil as Emil Zátopek, the stubborn, pain‑embracing long‑distance runner who turns himself into an Olympic legend through sheer will and brutal training;  Martha Issová as Dana Zátopková, Emil’s sharp, competitive wife and Olympic javelin champion who refuses to live in his shadow;  James Frecheville as Ron Clarke, the Australian record‑setting runner who visits Zátopek years later, carrying both admiration and disappointment;  and Jirí Simek as Stanislav Jungwirth, a fellow runner and Olympic teammate trying to navigate the shifting political winds of post‑war Czechoslovakia.  The film tries to balance sports hero worship, political compromise, and the personal cost of greatness on Zátopek and the people around him.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I watched it for free from my County library and I will pick up a copy when I see it drop to my price point.  I’ve known about Emil Zátopek since the mid-1980s, mostly as a name in Olympic history — the guy with the “ugly” running form, the wild interval workouts, and that incredible triple gold at the 1952 Helsinki Games (5,000m, 10,000m, and the marathon).  “Zátopek” premiered in 2021 and was selected as the Czech Republic’s submission for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film, though it did not end up with a nomination.  Historically, Emil Zátopek is one of the most important distance runners ever — not just for medals, but for how he trained and how he became a symbol inside a small country caught between big powers.  The film also touches on his later political troubles after the Prague Spring and his partial rehabilitation, which gives it more weight than a simple “sports highlight reel” movie.  IMHO:  Zátopek is the greatest “documented” long distance runner in history.
Plot: The movie uses Ron Clarke’s visit to Prague in the late 1960s as its framing device.  Clarke arrives as a guest of Emil and Dana, and as they talk, the film jumps back and forth between their present‑day conversations and Zátopek’s earlier life.  We see young Emil working at a shoe factory, being pushed into running, and then discovering that he can suffer more than anyone else on the track.  The story follows his rise through national competitions, then the 1948 London Olympics, and finally the 1952 Helsinki Games where he pulls off his legendary triple.  Along the way, we see his courtship and marriage to Dana, her own Olympic success (she wins Gold in the javelin event), and the way their relationship is both loving and competitive.  The political side creeps in as the Communist regime tightens its grip, using Zátopek’s fame for propaganda while also expecting loyalty and silence.  Later, after the Prague Spring and the Soviet invasion, Zátopek’s refusal to fully toe the line leads to his demotion and exile to menial work.  The present‑day scenes with Clarke show an older Zátopek who is still generous and warm, but also marked by what he has lost.  The film ends on a bittersweet note, with Clarke finally understanding the full cost behind the medals and the public smile.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong, committed performances;  solid, realistic filming with a few striking race sequences;  some pacing and structure issues;  yes.
Any good?  (Full disclosure:  This review is favorably biased because Zátopek has been a personal “hero” of mine since I first participated in the San Francisco “Bay to Breakers” race back in the 1980s.)  Overall, this is a solid sports biopic with more on its mind than just “guy runs fast and wins medals.”  The framing with Ron Clarke gives the story a reflective tone.  We are looking back at a legend through the eyes of someone who never quite reached the same heights.  (Clarke is widely considered among the greatest middle distance runners of the 1960s.)  When the movie focuses on Zátopek’s training, his stubbornness, and his odd charm, it works very well.  The race scenes are tense and sweaty, and you can feel the exhaustion and the stakes.  The political material adds needed weight, showing how a national hero can be both celebrated and controlled by the state.  That said, the film sometimes tries to cover too much:  early life, romance, multiple Olympics, politics, later disgrace.  Still, as a portrait of a specific man in a specific time, it is engaging and often moving.
Acting:  Václav Neužil does a very good job as Zátopek.  He leans into the physical awkwardness (the grimaces, the flailing arms, the gasping which were the “signature” of  Zátopek’s running style) but also gives Zátopek a warmth and humor that keeps him from becoming just a “suffering machine.”  You believe that this guy would run himself into the ground and then crack a joke about it.  Martha Issová as Dana is a real highlight.  She is not just “the wife at home.”  She is competitive, funny, and sometimes sharper than Zátopek about what is happening around them.  Their scenes together feel like a real marriage — supportive, but also prickly when needed.  James Frecheville’s Ron Clarke is quieter, more internal, which fits the role of a man who has to live with being “almost the best” in a world that only remembers gold.  The supporting cast, including Robert Mikluš as Jan Haluza and various coaches and officials, do their jobs well, giving a sense of a small, tight athletic community under a big political shadow.
Filming / FX:  The filming is clean and mostly grounded.  The race sequences are shot in a way that lets you feel the rhythm of the laps and the grind of distance running without getting too fancy.  There are some nice touches — close‑ups of Zátopek’s face as he pushes through pain, the sound of breathing and footsteps, the way the crowd noise swells and fades.  The period details (stadiums, uniforms, streets, interiors) feel convincing enough that I never fell out of the story.  The movie does not rely on big flashy effects, which is fine for this kind of story.  When it does use more stylized moments — slow motion, slightly heightened sound — it is usually to underline just how far Zátopek is pushing himself.  Overall, the technical side supports the story rather than calling attention to itself.
Problems:  My main issues are with pacing and structure.  The back‑and‑forth between present‑day Clarke and past‑tense Zátopek sometimes feels a bit mechanical — we get a question, then a flashback, then back again.  It works in concept, but it slows things down (repeatedly).  The film also tries to cover a lot of years, which means some parts of Zátopek’s life feel rushed or sketched in.  For example, his shift from national hero to political problem happens fairly quickly on screen, even though in real life it was a long, messy process.  There are also moments where the script leans a little too hard on “inspirational sports movie” beats, which clash slightly with the political material.  None of these problems break the film, but they keep it from being truly great cinema.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  I like sports history, and I especially like stories where the “hero” suffers / endures a personal cost.  Watching Zátopek grind through workouts, joke with teammates, and then run himself into the ground at major races is compelling.  The relationship between Emil and Dana gives the movie a human core that also kept me invested even when the story line got a bit wobbly.  I did feel the length at times, and I am not sure I would rush to rewatch it repeatedly, but I am glad I saw it.  As a look at a specific athlete (personal hero figure) and era, the film worked for me.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  (Like I said:  “A biased review.”  LoL)  This film will be of particular interest for anyone into Olympic running history, distance running, or mid‑20th‑century Central European politics.  It is not a perfect film, but it is a thoughtful and often powerful one.  The performances, especially from Václav Neužil and Martha Issová, are strong, and the race sequences do a good job of putting you inside Zátopek’s very strange, very painful world.  The movie also has real historical significance in that it brings a significant sports figure (one who helped redefine training and became a symbol inside his country) to a wider audience.  If you want a light, breezy sports movie, this might feel a bit heavy.  But if you are up for a layered look at what it costs to be a legend under a watchful authoritarian regime, this is well worth your time.
.
Click here (8 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

They Call Me: “Mister Tibbs”!

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 8, 2026| 2 Comments »

“In The Heat Of The Night” (1967) — movie review
Today’s review is for the crime / drama “In The Heat Of The Night”, directed by Norman Jewison and starring Sidney Poitier as Virgil Tibbs, a sharp, composed Philadelphia homicide detective who gets pulled into a small‑town murder case;  Rod Steiger as Police Chief Bill Gillespie, the gruff local lawman who doesn’t want Tibbs’ help but needs it;  Warren Oates as Sam Wood, the patrolman whose routine night turns into a mess of suspicion;  Lee Grant as Mrs. Colbert, the newly widowed woman demanding answers;  and Larry Gates as Endicott, the wealthy plantation owner whose old‑South authority hides more than he lets on.  The film follows Tibbs and Gillespie as they try to solve a murder in a town where race, pride, and fear complicate everything.
Background:  This is probably my fifth (or more) viewing of this film in the last fifty years.  LoL.  I mostly remembered the “They call me Mister Tibbs!” line and the tension between Tibbs and Gillespie.  Released in 1967, “In The Heat Of The Night” received seven Academy Award nominations and won five, including Best Picture and Best Actor (Steiger).  It’s historically important for its frank look at racial tension in the American South during the Civil Rights era and for Poitier’s lead performance at a time when Hollywood was still very cautious about this kind of story.  It remains famous for the “slap scene” as Poitier insisted it be retained in the film even though there were sure to be strong objections to it in the South.
Plot:  A wealthy industrialist is found murdered in Sparta, Mississippi.  The local police grab Tibbs at the train station, assuming he’s the killer. When they find out he’s actually a top homicide detective from Philadelphia, the embarrassment is immediate — but so is the need for his skill.  Tibbs is reluctantly paired with Chief Gillespie to solve the case.  Their investigation runs through local resentments, false leads, and buried secrets:  a suspicious patrolman, a frightened teenager, a powerful plantation owner, and a town that would rather cling to its prejudices than face the truth.  The case builds toward a confrontation that exposes the real killer and forces the town to look at itself.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  atmospheric;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “In The Heat Of The Night” is a tight, well‑made drama that mixes mystery with social tension.  The murder plot is straightforward, but the real strength is the relationship between Tibbs and Gillespie — two men forced to work together despite every reason not to trust each other.  The movie balances character, suspense, and social commentary without getting preachy.
Acting:  Poitier is excellent — calm, sharp, and quietly furious when he needs to be.  Steiger is equally strong as Gillespie, defensive and proud but slowly realizing Tibbs is the better detective.  Their scenes together carry the film.  The supporting cast feels right for the setting and gives the story some extra weight.
Filming / FX:  The filming is atmospheric and gritty.  The hot, humid Southern nights practically drip off the screen.  The lighting is low and shadowy, which fits the mood.  The camera work is simple and direct, focusing on faces and tight spaces.  The score by Quincy Jones adds a bluesy, restless feel.  No modern “FX” here — just solid, grounded film-making.
Problems:  A few.  Some supporting characters feel thinly written.  A couple of red‑herring suspects are resolved quickly.  The pacing slows a bit in the middle.  The ending comes together a little abruptly.  None of this greatly affects the film.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s tense, well‑acted, and still powerful.  The dynamic between Tibbs and Gillespie works, and the mix of mystery and social tension holds up.  Poitier’s performance is the standout and is still worth seeing on its own.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “In The Heat Of The Night” is historically significant and well‑acted.  It earned its awards.  If you like crime dramas, character-driven stories, or films that reflect their time, this one is well worth watching.  This is one of the two films I always associate with Rod Steiger.  The other is: “The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell” (1955) – review here.  Both films are well worth your time viewing.
.
Click here (8 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

$366,400 American Dollars Cash

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 7, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Equalizer 3” (2023) — movie review
Today’s second film review is for the action / vigilante thriller “The Equalizer 3”, directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Denzel Washington as Robert McCall, an ex‑CIA operative recovering in a small Italian town;  Dakota Fanning as Emma Collins,  a young CIA analyst who McCall directs to a suspicious financial trail;  David Denman as Frank Conroy, her steady, boots‑on‑the‑ground supervisor;  Remo Girone as Dr. Enzo Arisio,  the town doctor who patches McCall up;  Eugenio Mastrandrea as Giorgio Bonucci, the local police officer trying to keep order;  Andrea Scarduzio as Vincent Quaranta, the ambitious Camorra boss;  and Andrea Dodero as Marco Quaranta,  his hot‑headed younger brother.
Background:  I’ve seen the first two “Equalizer” films and thought they were decent so I wanted to continue the series / franchise.  This third entry didn’t get any Academy Award nominations (no surprise — this genre is not generally awards bait), and it’s not historically important in the Oscar sense.  Its main “hook” is the reunion of Washington and Fanning for the first time since “Man on Fire” (2004), plus the fact that this is probably Washington’s last outing as McCall.  Two points:  The move to an Italian coastal setting also gives it a different feel from the Boston‑based earlier films.  And, second…  Prior to “Equalizer 2“, Washington was known for NEVER doing sequels.  But here we are…  LoL.
Plot:  After a violent encounter in Sicily, McCall is badly wounded and ends up in a small seaside town, where Dr. Enzo Arisio takes him in and helps him recover.  As McCall heals, he starts to enjoy the slower pace of life and the friendliness of the locals:  the café owner, Gio the cop, the older residents on the square.  He clearly likes the idea that this might finally be a place to stop moving.  The film theme ends up being:  “We all end up where we are supposed to be…”  The problem is the Camorra (Mafia), in the persons of Vincent Quaranta and his brother Marco are leaning on the town — threatening shop owners, burning property, and pushing a bigger plan involving drugs and development money.  McCall sees the fear in the people around him and recognizes exactly what kind of men these are.  Meanwhile, Emma Collins is tracking the money trail tied to drugs and terrorism funding (from he opening action scene), which leads her to Italy and the same network the Quaranta brothers are part of.  She and her supervisor Frank Conroy work the case from the CIA side while McCall quietly starts taking pieces off the board in his usual methodical way.  It all comes together in a stormy final showdown where McCall goes straight at the brothers and their crew which ends their hold on the town.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  very good;  clean and atmospheric;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  IMHO this is the best of the three and at the very least tied with the original film.  The story is simple but solid:  a man who’s done a lot of damage in his life finds a place he actually cares about and decides he’s not going to let bullies wreck it.  The slower pace works here because the town and its people are actually likable, so when the McCall finally goes into action, it feels earned.
Acting:  Denzel Washington is, again, the whole reason to watch this franchise.  His McCall is polite, quiet, and observant, with that “switch” you can see flip when he decides someone has crossed a line.  Dakota Fanning is good as Collins (smart, a little green, but not clueless) and her scenes with Washington have an easy, low‑key rapport.  Remo Girone gives the doctor a nice mix of warmth and backbone, and Eugenio Mastrandrea makes Gio feel like a real local cop stuck between fear and duty.  Andrea Scarduzio and Andrea Dodero are convincing as the Quaranta brothers — entitled, cruel, and just dumb enough to underestimate McCall.
Filming / FX:  The filming is straightforward and mostly clean (visible).  The Italian locations do a lot of work — narrow streets, old stone buildings, the harbor, the hills above town.  It all looks like a real place people actually live in, not just a backdrop.  The action scenes are shot clearly, with no shaky‑cam or hyper‑cutting.  When McCall moves, it’s quick and brutal, and you can follow what’s happening.  There’s not much in the way of big FX;  it’s (mostly) practical fights, gunplay, and some explosions, with a nicely staged stormy finale.
Problems:  A few.  The first half is slower, and if you’re expecting constant action, you may get impatient watching McCall drink tea, walk the town (he’s recovering from a serious gunshot wound), and quietly observe people.  I liked that, but it does mean the movie takes its time getting to the big hits.  The villains are pretty standard crime‑movie types — nasty and greedy, but not especially deep.  The terrorism‑funding angle that brings in the CIA feels like a bolt‑on plot device more than something you really feel.  And, as usual, McCall’s ability to anticipate everything and survive anything is a bit much if you think about it too hard.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  I liked the town, I liked the locals, and I liked watching McCall decide they’re “his” people now.  The mix of quiet scenes and sharp bursts of violence works for this character.  It’s not a movie I need to rewatch over and over, but this was my second viewing as I just never got around to drafting a review.  (Better late than never…)
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “The Equalizer 3” is a solid, well‑acted vigilante thriller with a good sense of place and a cleaner, more focused story than the earlier entries.  No awards, no big historical footprint, but as a closing chapter for Denzel Washington’s McCall — and a small Italian town standing up to the Camorra / organized crime with a little help from a very dangerous neighbor — it does the job.
.
Click here (7 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

And Don’t Forget To Have That Doctor Call!

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 7, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Born Loser” (1967) — movie review
Today’s review is for the action / biker‑gang / vigilante drama “The Born Loser”, directed by Tom Laughlin and starring Tom Laughlin as Billy Jack, the quiet ex‑Green Beret who keeps getting dragged into trouble;  Elizabeth James as Vicky Barrington, the college student targeted by a violent biker gang;  Jeremy Slate as Danny Carmody, the gang leader who uses fear to control everyone around him;  Jack Starrett as Deputy Fred, the local lawman who means well but can’t keep up;  and Robert Tessier as Cueball, one of Carmody’s muscle men.  The film follows Billy Jack as he tries to protect Vicky and several other young women from Carmody’s gang while the town mostly looks the other way.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film in many years.  I know I saw it in a theater, but I don’t really remember if it was during its first release.  This film introduced the Billy Jack character, but there’s not much else notable about it.  Released in 1967, “The Born Loser” didn’t receive any Academy Award nominations, but it became a surprise hit and launched the “Billy Jack” series.  Historically, it’s part of the late‑1960s biker‑gang wave and is remembered for mixing vigilante justice with low‑budget martial arts action.  It stimulated my interest in Hapkido (a Korean martial art), which I later took lessons on while I was in West Germany in the mid-1970s.
Plot:  Billy Jack steps in when Carmody’s gang roughs up some locals.  That puts him on their radar, and the gang turns its attention to Vicky and several other young women.  Carmody escalates from harassment to outright threats, and the town’s authorities either can’t or won’t stop him.  Billy tries to help, which only makes him a bigger target.  The story builds toward a final confrontation between Billy and the gang, with Vicky caught in the middle and the town finally forced to face the danger it’s been ignoring.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Mostly;  decent;  simple and effective;  several;  mostly yes.
Any good?  Mostly.  “The Born Loser” is a rough, straightforward action film.  The story is simple, the threat feels real, and the frustration with the town’s inaction gives the movie some bite.  It’s not a subtle story / film, but it works.
Acting:  Laughlin is solid as Billy Jack — quiet, stubborn, and believable.  Elizabeth James gives Vicky more backbone than the script sometimes allows.  Jeremy Slate is convincing as Carmody:  smooth on the surface, nasty underneath.  Starrett (who I remember from his role of the brutal cop in “First Blood“) and Tessier fit their roles.  Nobody is doing award‑level work, but everyone fits the film.
Filming / FX:  Simple and effective.  Real bikes, real stunts, and straightforward camera work.  Nothing fancy.  The outdoor shots look good, and the action is clear enough.  The movie has that “shot fast and cheap” 1960s feel, but it suits the material (and the acting).
Problems:  Several.  The pacing drags in spots.  Some scenes linger too long.  The violence toward the young women is uncomfortable and feels exploitative.  The town’s passivity is believable but frustrating.  The dialogue is stiff in places.  The low budget for the film shows.
Did I enjoy the film?  Mostly yes.  It’s not great, but it’s watchable.  The tension works, the villains are genuinely unpleasant, and Billy Jack’s quiet determination gives the story some weight.  The final showdown is satisfying.  “Right between the eyes…“
Final Recommendation:   Moderate to strong recommendation.  “The Born Losers” is historically interesting as the first Billy Jack film and as a snapshot of its era.  It’s rough, but the performances, the tension, and the simple action make it worth seeing if you’re interested in the character or the genre.  Watch it for the early look at Billy Jack and the low budget period feel.  I enjoyed this film a lot more than it probably deserves.  LoL
.
Click here (7 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Would You Still Love The Man I Have Become?

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 6, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Return” (2024) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical drama “The Return”, directed by Uberto Pasolini and starring Ralph Fiennes as Odysseus, the long‑absent king trying to get home after twenty years of war and wandering;  Juliette Binoche as Penelope, the wife trying to protect her household while resisting a dangerous suitor;  Charlie Plummer as Telemachus, the son caught between fear, anger, and the father he barely remembers; and Marwan Kenzari as Antinous, one of Penelope’s suitors who hopes to take over her kingdom.  The film follows Odysseus’ secret return to Ithaca and the threat waiting for him — especially Antinous, the suitor trying to force Penelope into marriage to seize the throne.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I knew the basic idea but not much else.  Released in 2024, “The Return” didn’t receive any Academy Award nominations, but it drew attention for its simple, human-scale take on the final chapters of “The Odyssey.”  The film is notable for focusing on the emotional cost of coming home after years away — not the myth of Greek legend, just the people.
Plot:  After twenty years away, Odysseus returns to Ithaca in disguise (not really, just older looking).  Penelope has spent years fending off a house full of suitors led by Antinous, who is determined to force her into marriage and take the kingdom.  Telemachus is old enough to fight back but not strong enough to stop the threat.  Odysseus watches from the shadows, trying to understand the home he left behind and the people he once knew.  Antinous tightens his grip, using charm, pressure, and open menace to corner Penelope and humiliate Telemachus.  The film builds toward the expected confrontation, but the focus mostly stays on the emotional fallout — absence, doubt, fear, and the difficulty of returning to a life that didn’t stand still and wait for you.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  simple and effective;  a few;  mostly yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Return” is a quiet, thoughtful drama.  It’s not an action film except in the final scene (of slaughter).  It’s about people trying to reconnect after too much time apart, with Antinous’ threat giving the story real stakes.  The movie leans into hesitation, silence, and the awkwardness of a family trying to figure out who they are to each other now.  IMHO, that’s where it works best.
Acting:  Fiennes (as usual) is very good — worn down, wary, and carrying the weight of everything he’s done.  Binoche gives Penelope strength without turning her into an action hero.   She feels like someone who has survived by being careful and smart, especially in scenes opposite Antinous.  Plummer is believable as a young man caught between fear and anger, bristling at Antinous’ dominance.  The actor playing Antinous makes him just charming enough to be plausible and just cruel enough to be scary.  The film is basically a four-person drama, and all four do their jobs well.
Filming / FX:  The filming is simple and effective:  natural light, close shots, and a focus on faces.  Nothing fancy.  No big effects.  The camera stays close to the characters, which fits the story.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing is slow, and some scenes felt like they lingered longer than they needed to.  The story sometimes feels small, even with Antinous’ threat hanging over everything.  The other suitors blur together.  Telemachus’ arc could use more development.  Nothing which ruins the film, but noticeable.
Did I enjoy the film?  Mostly yes.  It’s not exciting, but it’s sincere.  The performances carry it, and the emotional beats land.  The final scenes between Odysseus, Penelope, Telemachus, and Antinous give the film its weight and make his journey (and ours) feel worthwhile.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “The Return” is a well-acted retelling of a classic story, with historical interest for its human-scale approach and its clear focus on Antinous’ threat to Penelope and Telemachus.  If you like character-driven dramas, quiet tension, or new takes on old stories, this one is worth your time.  Watch it for the performances and the reminder that coming home can be its own kind of battle.
.
Click here (6 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

He Done Her Wrong, She Shot Back

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 5, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Chicago” (2002) — movie review
Today’s review is for the musical / crime / trial drama “Chicago”, directed by Rob Marshall and starring Renée Zellweger as Roxie Hart, the fame‑hungry housewife who shoots her lover and suddenly discovers that murder sells;  Catherine Zeta‑Jones as Velma Kelly, the vaudeville star whose own double‑homicide act gets moved to the back pages when Roxie becomes the new sensation;  Richard Gere as Billy Flynn, the slick lawyer who turns trials into showbiz;  Queen Latifah as Mama Morton, the prison matron who runs her cell block like a nightclub;  John C. Reilly as Amos Hart, Roxie’s loyal, invisible husband;  and Christine Baranski as Mary Sunshine, the reporter who believes every publicity stunt Billy feeds her.  The film follows two women who kill, lie, dance, and claw for the spotlight in 1920s Chicago.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film.  I’m not sure why I was never interested in seeing it.  Now I know why.  Released in 2002, “Chicago” received thirteen Academy Award nominations and won six, including Best Picture and Best Supporting Actress (Zeta‑Jones).  Historically, the film is credited with reviving the movie musical after a long dry spell and “proving” that stylized, stage‑inspired storytelling could still work on screen.  (IMHO:  not so much.)
Plot:  Roxie Hart dreams of being a star, but instead she’s stuck in a dull marriage while having an affair with a salesman who lies to her saying he can get her on stage.  When she discovers the truth, she shoots him.  Roxie is arrested and thrown into Cook County Jail, where she meets Velma Kelly — the reigning celebrity murderer.  Velma expects to stay in the spotlight but then Billy Flynn takes Roxie’s case and turns her into the new media darling.  Roxie learns quickly:  cry on cue, pose for the papers, and give the reporters a story they can dance to.  Velma tries to team up with Roxie, but Roxie wants the fame for herself.  The trial becomes a circus, Billy spins a story the jury wants to hear, and Roxie walks free — only to discover that fame fades fast.  She and Velma eventually team up for a vaudeville act because, in Chicago, murder may get you onstage, but staying there takes work.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  No;  weak;  stylish and energetic;  you betcha;  NO.
Any good?  No.  “Chicago” is slow, dull, and not entertaining.  The story is cynical and not amusing, with the musical numbers the only thing keeping the pace moving (and most of them are slow AND boring).  The film is not deep and it doesn’t pretend to be.  It’s a stage show on film — and it fails because it’s boring.
Acting:  Zellweger is very okay as Roxie — insecure, ambitious, and willing to reinvent herself.  Zeta‑Jones is tolerable as Velma, giving the character confidence and swagger.  Gere is smooth but ridiculous as Billy Flynn.  At least Queen Latifah brings presence as Mama Morton in one number.  John C. Reilly is above average as Amos (I didn’t know he could sing or dance), but his sole number – although Chaplin-esque – is as boring as all of the other numbers.  The ensemble attempt to fit the tone and keep the energy up, but there is nothing memorable here to see or hear.
Filming / FX:  The filming is stylized and theatrical — stage lighting, sharp cuts, and musical numbers that blend fantasy with reality.  The choreography is clear with stylized eroticism, and the production design captures the 1920s without turning it into a museum piece.  But none of it “works”.  The musical numbers are the low point:  dull, repetitive, and visually interesting for about the first thirty seconds of the film.
Problems:  You betcha…  The pacing (story) between musical numbers is a joke.  All of the supporting characters are more types than people.  And if you’re not a fan of musicals (I generally like musicals), the style may feel overwhelming and when it isn’t, it’s just, plain boring.  …Fatal for the viewer (and the film).
Did I enjoy the film?  No.  It’s dull, not funny, and visually overstocked to the point of ending up boring.  The musical numbers are forgettable (before they’re done), the performances are boring, and the film just doesn’t work at any level.  I am really struggling to find anything positive to say – except it does (mercifully) end in less than two hours.
Final Recommendation:  Low to Skip it recommendation.  “Chicago” is a over-stylish and unentertaining film, which surprisingly (to me) is a historically significant film that is said to have revived the movie musical genre for Hollywood and earned its Best Picture win.  If you are “into” any of the lead or supporting actors, you may find this worth viewing.  If you enjoy musicals, satire, or stories about fame and reinvention, you may find this film entertaining.  I usually enjoy all of those (music, satire, and good stories), but this film has none of them for me.  I am stunned this film was nominated for – let alone won – Best Picture and so I looked into why…  It turns out the other nominations split the votes and this film came in as a consensus of generally acceptable across Hollywood.  Not for me…  I think it’s a stinker (at best).
.
Click here (5 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Are You Trying To Seduce Me?

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 4, 2026| 6 Comments »

“The Graduate” (1967) — movie review
Today’s review is for the coming‑of‑age / romantic‑drama / comedy “The Graduate”, directed by Mike Nichols and starring Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin Braddock, the aimless recent college graduate drifting into an affair and trying to figure out what comes next;  Anne Bancroft as Mrs. Robinson, the seductive older woman who upends Benjamin’s life and sense of direction;  Katharine Ross as Elaine Robinson, the daughter caught between expectation and rebellion;  William Daniels as Mr. Braddock, Benjamin’s well‑meaning but clueless father;  Murray Hamilton as Mr. Robinson, the husband whose world unravels;  Elizabeth Wilson as Mrs. Braddock, the socially polished mother trying to keep up appearances;  and Buck Henry as the hotel clerk, the deadpan gatekeeper of Benjamin’s double life.  The film follows a young man who doesn’t know what he wants — until he makes a series of choices that complicate everything in his life.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film in many years.  I originally saw it sometime in the 1970s on TV, but I haven’t watched it since.  Released in 1967, “The Graduate” was a major critical and cultural success.  It received seven Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Hoffman), Best Actress (Bancroft), Best Supporting Actress (Ross), and Best Adapted Screenplay.  Mike Nichols won the Oscar for Best Director.  Historically, the film is significant for capturing the generational uncertainty of the late 1960s, for its groundbreaking use of music (Simon & Garfunkel), and for its frank (for the time) depiction of sexuality and disillusionment.  It’s also one of the films that helped define the “New Hollywood” era:  character‑driven, socially aware, and stylistically bold.  This film is often cited as a “comedy”.  I think that’s stretching the definition to include “amusing / awkward” situations more than “humorous or funny situations”.  But maybe that’s just me…
Plot:  Benjamin Braddock returns home to California after graduating from college, unsure of what he wants to do with his life.  At a party thrown by his parents, he’s cornered by Mrs. Robinson, the wife of his father’s business partner.  She seduces him, and the two begin an affair that Benjamin drifts into more than chooses.  The relationship is secret, transactional, and emotionally confusing for him.  Things get complicated when Benjamin is pushed (by both families) to take out Elaine, Mrs. Robinson’s daughter.  He reluctantly agrees, only to genuinely fall for her.  When Elaine discovers the affair, she is furious and leaves for Berkeley.  Benjamin becomes obsessed with winning her back, chasing her across the state, confronting her parents, and trying to convince her that he’s changed.  The story builds toward the famous wedding‑crashing scene, where Benjamin interrupts Elaine’s ceremony and the two run away together — only to sit on a bus, suddenly unsure of what they’ve just done.  The ending is iconic precisely because it’s ambiguous:  freedom, rebellion, and uncertainty (again!) all at once.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  stylish and inventive;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Graduate” is one of those films that still feels fresh even though it’s almost sixty years old.  The themes (uncertainty, pressure, rebellion, and the fear of adulthood) are timeless.  The movie balances humor, awkwardness, and emotional tension in a way that feels honest rather than forced.  The pacing is deliberate, and the film trusts the audience to sit with Benjamin’s confusion instead of spelling everything out.
Acting:  Dustin Hoffman is terrific as Benjamin:  awkward, anxious, and believable in almost every scene.  He captures that mix of youthful arrogance and total cluelessness that makes the character work.  Anne Bancroft is outstanding as Mrs. Robinson:  confident, bitter, seductive, and wounded all at once.  Her performance gives the film its edge.  Katharine Ross brings warmth and intelligence to Elaine, making her more than just a plot device.  William Daniels and Elizabeth Wilson are pitch‑perfect as Benjamin’s well‑meaning but oblivious parents.  Murray Hamilton is strong as Mr. Robinson, especially when the façade cracks.  And Buck Henry’s small role as the hotel clerk adds just the right amount of dry humor.  Overall, the acting is real and memorable.
Filming / FX:  The filming is stylish and inventive (for its day):  long takes, tight close‑ups, clever transitions, and a visual language that tries to mirror Benjamin’s emotional state.  The use of Simon & Garfunkel’s music is iconic — not just background, but part of the film’s mood and meaning.  The cinematography captures both the emptiness of suburban comfort and the energy of Berkeley.  There are no “effects” in the modern sense, but the film’s visual choices (the scuba suit scene, the cross‑cutting during the affair, the final bus shot) are still impressive.  It’s a movie that looks simple on the surface but is carefully crafted underneath.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing slows in the middle, especially during Benjamin’s drifting phase.  Some of the characters (particularly Elaine) feel especially underwritten compared to Benjamin and Mrs. Robinson.  The film leans heavily on symbolism which rarely works (for me) and doesn’t here (for me).  And the ending, while famous, feels abrupt and unresolved / unrealistic if you’re expecting a traditional “happily ever after.”  None of these issues seriously hurt the film, but they’re particularly noticeable on re‑watch fifty years later.  And being “really” picky:  Benjamin twice takes the Bay Bridge to Berkeley, but he’s driving the wrong way (West) and going to San Francisco and not the East Bay (where Berkeley is).  Also, Ben and Elaine catch a bus to the “end-of-line” in Berkeley to visit the zoo, but the zoo they end up in is the San Francisco Zoo, not the Oakland Zoo.  And there are some other minor continuity issues, but I guess most folks will never notice them.  LoL.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s funny (not haw-haw funny), awkward, thoughtful, and surprisingly emotional.  The performances are strong, the music is memorable, and the story still resonates.  The film’s not flashy, it’s heartfelt, and it captures a moment in life (and in American culture) that still feels relatable (at least to this dinosaur).
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “The Graduate” is a culturally significant, beautifully acted, and stylistically bold film that helped define a generation.  With its Academy Award recognition, iconic scenes, and lasting influence, it remains a must‑see for anyone interested in character‑driven drama, 1960s cinema, or films about the uncertainty of growing up.  Watch it for the performances, the music, and to remember that sometimes figuring out what comes next in life IS hard.
.
Click here (4 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Hope You Are Well

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 3, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Strategic Air Command” (1955) — movie review
Today’s review is for the Cold War military drama “Strategic Air Command”, directed by Anthony Mann and starring James Stewart as Lt. Col. Robert “Dutch” Holland, the former WWII bomber pilot turned professional baseball player who is recalled to active duty;  June Allyson as Sally Holland, his loving but increasingly worried wife who struggles with the strain of military life;  Frank Lovejoy as Gen. Hawkes, the no‑nonsense commander who believes in Holland’s abilities and the mission of SAC;  and Harry Morgan as a fellow crewman who adds a touch of humanity and camaraderie to the flight scenes.  The film follows a successful major-league third baseman who is pulled back into the Air Force Reserve and into the emerging world of long‑range nuclear deterrence, forcing him and his wife to confront the personal cost of constant readiness, dangerous training flights, and the possibility of never coming home.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film.  I approached it knowing only that it starred James Stewart and that it was often described as a semi‑propagandistic collaboration between Hollywood and the U.S. Air Force during the early Cold War.  Stewart himself was a decorated bomber pilot in WWII, so his casting adds a layer of authenticity that few actors of the era could match.  The film was a box‑office success and received praise for its aerial photography, which was cutting‑edge for 1955.  Historically, the movie sits at an interesting intersection:  part recruitment film, part domestic drama, part technological showcase.  It reflects a moment when America was shifting from conventional warfare to nuclear deterrence, and the Strategic Air Command was being positioned as the backbone of national security.
Plot:  Dutch Holland is a star third baseman for the St. Louis Cardinals, enjoying a comfortable civilian life and a stable marriage when he is unexpectedly recalled to active duty in the Air Force Reserve.  He and Sally uproot their lives and move from base to base as Dutch is retrained to fly the massive B‑36 Peacemaker and later the sleek B‑47 Stratojet as part of SAC’s around‑the‑clock readiness posture.  The long flights, harsh schedules, and constant relocations put increasing strain on their relationship, even as Dutch becomes more committed to the mission and the men he serves with.  A serious in‑flight emergency forces Dutch to confront his own mortality and the toll his service is taking on Sally.  The film ultimately resolves with a compromise that tries to honor both his sense of duty and his responsibility to his family, reflecting the era’s belief that national security required sacrifice not just from service members, but from their spouses as well.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Pretty good;  solid;  excellent aerial photography;  a bit slow and preachy;  yes, mostly.
Any good?  Yes, this is a good film, though not a great one – even by the standards of its day.  It works best when it leans into authenticity:  the procedures, the aircraft, the sense of duty, the quiet professionalism of the crews and the commitment of the families.  The story is straightforward and a bit stiff, but there is a sincerity to the way it treats service and sacrifice that still comes through.  The domestic drama gives the film emotional grounding, even if it occasionally feels like it is there to underline the message rather than to complicate it.  IMHO, the movie is most interesting now as a time capsule of early Cold War anxieties and confidence, showing how America wanted to see its strategic forces and the people who manned them.
Acting:  James Stewart carries the film.  His performance as Dutch feels natural and lived‑in, and knowing his real‑life background as a bomber pilot makes his calm professionalism and occasional flashes of doubt feel even more believable.  June Allyson does a good job as Sally, even though the script mostly gives her variations on worry, frustration, and loyalty.  She manages to make the strain of repeated moves and long absences feel real.  Frank Lovejoy brings authority and a certain stern warmth to Gen. Hawkes, the kind of commander who is tough but not cartoonish.  Harry Morgan and the other supporting players add small touches of humor and humanity around the edges.  Overall, the acting is solid and very much of its time:  restrained, earnest, and focused on selling the seriousness of the mission.
Filming / FX:  This is where the movie really shines.  The aerial photography of the B‑36 and B‑47 is impressive, even by modern standards.  The film takes its time showing takeoffs, formations, cockpit procedures, and in‑flight refueling, and you can feel the size and weight of the aircraft.  VistaVision and Technicolor are used to full advantage, with bright skies, gleaming aluminum, and wide shots that make the bombers look both beautiful and intimidating.  The interiors feel reasonably authentic for the period, and the base locations give a sense of the scale of SAC’s operations.  There are no “effects” in the modern CGI sense, but the practical flying footage is the real star here, and it holds up remarkably well.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing is slow, particularly in the middle third, where the film repeats the cycle of flight, strain at home, and renewed commitment without adding much new information.  The domestic scenes sometimes feel like they exist mainly to reinforce the idea that sacrifice is necessary, rather than to explore the characters in depth.  The dialogue can be a bit stiff and speech‑like, especially when generals or doctors are explaining the importance of the mission.  The film also leans heavily toward a positive, almost promotional view of SAC, which may feel simplistic or one‑sided to modern viewers.  None of these issues make the movie bad, but they do keep it from being as emotionally rich or dramatically complex as it could have been.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes, mostly.  I enjoyed the historical context, the aircraft footage, Stewart’s performance, and was surprised by Allyson’s even better performance.  The movie has a calm, confident tone that fits its subject, and the flying sequences are genuinely engaging.  The domestic drama did not always land for me, but it did give the story some needed human stakes beyond the hardware.  It is not a film I would watch for thrills or surprises, but as a look at how the 1950s imagined and justified the new world of nuclear‑age air power, it is both interesting and, at times, moving.
Final Recommendation:  A moderate recommendation for the average viewer.  “Strategic Air Command” will be a stronger recommendation for fans of aviation history, James Stewart, or those who lived through the Cold War and the military films of that era.  The aerial photography alone makes it worth seeing at least once.  Allyson’s presence (more than Stewart’s) gives the story a powerful emotional center.  It is very much a product of its time, with all the strengths and limitations that implies, but that is also part of its value.  If you are interested in how Hollywood and the Air Force worked together to present the Strategic Air Command to the public, or if you simply enjoy well‑shot flying sequences wrapped around a sincere (if somewhat idealized) story about duty and family, this film is worth your time.
.
Click here (3 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

It’s In Here Battles Are Won

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 2, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“My Left Foot” (1989) — movie review
Today’s review is for the biographical drama “My Left Foot“, directed by Jim Sheridan and starring Daniel Day‑Lewis as Christy Brown;  Brenda Fricker as Christy’s mother, Mrs. Brown;  Ray McAnally as Christy’s father, Patrick (“Paddy”) Brown;  Fiona Shaw as Dr. Cole;  and Ruth McCabe as Mary Carr, Christy’s eventual wife.  This is a portrait of a man with severe cerebral palsy who refuses to be defined by anyone’s expectations.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film but I knew Daniel Day‑Lewis’s received an Oscar for his performance.  Seeing it now, what stands out is how much the film avoids the usual inspirational‑biopic tone.  It won two Academy Awards:  Best Actor for Day‑Lewis and Best Supporting Actress for Brenda Fricker.  It also helped establish Jim Sheridan as a major Irish filmmaker.  It also arrived at a time when disabilities were rarely portrayed with realistic nuance in mainstream cinema, which gives the film additional lasting cultural weight.
Plot:  The story follows Christy Brown from childhood through early adulthood in a crowded working‑class Dublin household.  Born with cerebral palsy and unable to control anything except his left foot, Christy is assumed by neighbors and even some family members to be intellectually disabled.  A breakthrough comes when he uses chalk between his toes to write a word (mother) on the floor, proving his intelligence and changing the course of his life.  The film tracks his development as an artist (painter) and writer;  his complicated relationships with his parents and siblings;  his struggles with communication;  and finally, his romantic disappointments and ultimate success.  The narrative stays close to Christy’s perspective, showing both his brilliance and his volatility without smoothing over the rough edges.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  yes;  exceptional;  intimate, naturalistic filming;  a few structural issues;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  The film succeeds because it refuses to turn Brown into a symbol or a lesson.  It presents him as a full human being — stubborn, profane, gifted, jealous, funny, and often difficult.  The honesty of that approach gives the film a weight that most biographical dramas never reach.
Acting:  Daniel Day‑Lewis’s performance is as precise and committed as his (and the role’s) reputation suggests, but what makes it great is not the physical transformation;  it’s the emotional clarity.  He plays Christy as a man who demands to be taken seriously, even when he sabotages himself.  Brenda Fricker is equally strong as his mother (Mrs. Brown), grounding the film with quiet persistence and unshowy strength.  Ray McAnally brings depth to the role of Christy’s father, and the supporting cast fills out the Brown household with believable warmth and frustration.
Filming / FX:  Sheridan shoots the film with a cramped and noisy realism, and the camera often stays at Christy’s level, forcing the viewer to experience the world as he does.  The lighting is natural, the editing is unobtrusive, and the score is used sparingly.  There are no flashy effects and that suits the material.
Problems:  The film can feel episodic / set-piece, with some chapters of Christy’s life receiving more attention than others.  The romantic storyline in the final act is honest but abbreviated, and the pacing occasionally slows / wanders.  These issues don’t undermine the film.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s a tough, unsentimental movie, but it’s also deeply human.  The family dynamics are vivid, the performances are rich, and the film’s refusal to simplify Christy Brown makes it far more compelling than a typical (Hollywood) biopic.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “My Left Foot” is a tough, honest, deeply human drama anchored by outstanding performances and clear, unfussy film making.  It’s well worth your time to view.
Additional Note:  With the review of this film, I have completed the reviews for the Best Picture, highest gross attendance, and all other Best Picture nominations for 1989.  The reviews can be found off of my “Reviews Menu” page.  The films included:  “DRIVING MISS DAISY“;  “BATMAN“;  “DEAD POETS SOCIETY“; “FIELD OF DREAMS“;  “BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY“;  and “MY LEFT FOOT”.  I’ve now completed reviews for three (1962, 1989, and 1990) of the ninety-seven years of Oscars.
.
Click here (2 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started