Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Best Picture Nomination’

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 »

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 »

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 »

If You Don’t Know Why, I Can’t Tell You

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 27, 2026| 2 Comments »

“High Noon” (1952) — movie review
Today’s review is for the western‑drama “High Noon”, directed by Fred Zinnemann and starring Gary Cooper as Marshal Will Kane, the newly married lawman who finds out a vengeful outlaw is coming back on the noon train;  Grace Kelly as Amy Fowler Kane, Will’s young Quaker bride whose pacifism clashes with the violence heading their way;  Katy Jurado as Helen Ramírez, the businesswoman with ties to both Kane and the outlaw, and the only person in town who seems to understand what’s coming;  Lloyd Bridges as Deputy Harvey Pell, the ambitious second‑in‑command who wants Kane’s job but not Kane’s burden;  Thomas Mitchell as Mayor Jonas Henderson, who urges Kane to leave town “for the good of the community”;  and Ian MacDonald as Frank Miller, the outlaw whose return sets the whole story in motion.  The film unfolds almost in real time as Kane tries to gather support from the townspeople he’s protected for years — only to find out how quickly gratitude evaporates when danger shows up.
Background:  I’ve seen this movie several times over the years — on TV, on DVD, and once on a streaming service when I was on a western kick.  Strangely, it’s one of those westerns I only remember in general outline:  Marshal stays, he fights, he wins, he rides away.  LoL.  “High Noon” was released in 1952 and became one of the most influential westerns ever made.  It received seven Academy Award nominations and won four:  Best Actor (Gary Cooper), Best Film Editing, Best Original Song (“Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darlin’”), and Best Score.  It was also nominated for Best Picture and Best Director.  Historically, the film is famous for its real‑time structure, its moral tension, and its political subtext:  many critics see it as an allegory for the Hollywood blacklist and the cowardice of institutions under pressure.  Whether you buy that or not, the film’s reputation as a landmark western is well‑earned.  It’s also one of the few westerns where the “hero” spends most of the movie scared, frustrated, and abandoned — which makes it feel surprisingly modern.
Plot:  The story begins on Kane’s wedding day.  He’s just married Amy, turned in his badge, and is ready to leave town for a quieter life.  Then word arrives that Frank Miller (a killer Kane put away) has been pardoned and is arriving on the noon train.  Miller’s “gang” rides into town a few hours before he is due to arrive.  Kane tries to leave, but his conscience won’t let him.  He turns back, puts the badge on again, and starts asking the townspeople for help.  One by one, they refuse:  the judge flees, the mayor urges Kane to run, the church congregation debates morality versus practicality, and even his deputy refuses unless Kane promises him the marshal job.  Helen Ramírez warns Amy that running from trouble doesn’t make it disappear.  As the clock ticks toward noon, Kane finds himself alone.  Amy, torn between her pacifist beliefs and her love for Will, boards the train to leave — but jumps off when she hears gunshots.  The final showdown pits Kane against Miller and his gang in the empty streets.  Amy saves Will’s life by shooting one of the outlaws (in the back), and Kane kills Miller.  When the townspeople gather afterward, Kane throws his badge in the dirt and rides away without a word.
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;  clean, tense filming;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “High Noon” is one of those rare westerns that feels both classic and surprisingly contemporary.  The tension comes not from big shootouts but from watching a man realize the people he trusted won’t stand with him.  The real‑time pacing works — the clock becomes a character.  The story is simple, but the moral weight is heavy:  duty versus self‑preservation, community versus convenience.  It’s not a big, sweeping western.  It’s a tight, focused one, and that’s why it still works seventy-plus years later.
Acting:  Gary Cooper earned his Oscar.  He plays Kane as a man who’s scared but determined, and the quiet moments (the pauses, the glances, the frustration)  sell the character.  Grace Kelly is fine, though her role is mostly reactive until the final act.  Katy Jurado is the standout:  calm, smart, and the emotional anchor of the film.  Lloyd Bridges brings believable insecurity to Harvey Pell, and the supporting cast (the mayor, the judge, the townspeople) all feel like real people trying to justify their own fear.  Nobody is doing flashy acting here, but everyone fits the story.
Filming / FX:  The filming is clean and deliberate.  Zinnemann uses close‑ups, empty streets, and the ticking clock to build tension.  The black‑and‑white cinematography gives the town a stark, almost brittle feel — like everything could crack under pressure.  The editing (which won the Oscar) keeps the pacing tight.  There are no “effects” in the modern sense, but the staging of the final shootout is crisp and easy to follow.  The score, especially the recurring theme song, ties the whole film together and reinforces the sense of time running out.
Problems:  A few.  The townspeople’s cowardice is laid on pretty thick, and some scenes (particularly the church debate) feel a bit preachy.  Amy’s pacifism is underdeveloped until the very end, which makes her final decision feel abrupt.  The film’s political allegory (if you read it that way) can feel heavy‑handed.  And the romance between Kane and Amy never quite feels lived‑in — aside from the age difference, they seem like two people who met last week.  None of these issues ruin the film, but they do make some moments feel a little stiff.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  “High Noon” is tense, thoughtful, and surprisingly emotional.  The real‑time structure keeps you engaged, and Cooper’s performance carries the film.  The final showdown still works, and the ending (Kane tossing the badge in the dirt) remains one of the great closing gestures in westerns (anyone else remember Clint Eastwood / Dirty Harry throwing his badge into a pond at the end of the original “Dirty Harry“?  LoL).  It’s a movie that sticks with you because it’s not really about gunfights.  It’s about courage, loneliness, and what people do when doing the right thing is inconvenient.
Final Recommendation:  Very Highly to MUST See Recommendation.  “High Noon” is historically significant for its Academy Awards, its influence on the western genre, and its moral complexity.  It’s a tight, well‑acted film that still feels relevant today.  If you enjoy classic westerns, character‑driven stories, or films that build tension without relying on spectacle, this one is a MUST see.  It’s a reminder that sometimes the bravest thing you can do is stand your ground — especially when nobody stands with you.
.
Click here (27 May) 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 »

God, I Hate Space

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 26, 2026| 2 Comments »

“Gravity” (2013) — movie review
Today’s review is for the survival / space-disaster drama “Gravity”, directed by Alfonso Cuarón and starring Sandra Bullock as Dr. Ryan Stone, a medical engineer on her first shuttle mission still grieving the loss of her daughter;  George Clooney as Matt Kowalski, the veteran astronaut on his final mission who tries to keep Stone calm as everything falls apart;  Ed Harris (voice) as Mission Control;  and Phaldut Sharma as Shariff, the mission specialist working outside the shuttle when the debris first hits.  The film is a tight, intense story about isolation, survival, and the will to keep going.
Background:  I saw this film after reading an article by Dr. deGrasse who said it was a very enjoyable movie, but it got a lot of the physics wrong.  That was several years ago.  I watched shortly after my first viewing of “The Martian” and thought:  “Ok, female version.”  Anyway, this is my second viewing.  Released in 2013, “Gravity” received ten Academy Award nominations and won seven, including:  Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Score, and Best Visual Effects.  It was also nominated for Best Picture and Best Actress (Bullock).  It’s widely seen as a major technical leap in digital cinematography and visual-effects integration.
Plot:  Stone, Kowalski, and Shariff are repairing the Hubble Satellite  when debris from a destroyed satellite slams into their shuttle.  Shariff is killed, Stone is sent spinning into space, and Kowalski rescues her with his jet pack.  They head to the ISS, which is also damaged.  The Soyuz capsule is unusable, and Kowalski sacrifices himself so Stone can survive.  She then pushes on to the Chinese station (Tiangong) and uses its capsule to attempt re-entry.  After fires, oxygen issues, and another debris pass, she finally makes it down to earth, lands in a lake and crawls onto a beach — exhausted, but alive.
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 strong;  exceptional visuals;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Gravity” is a focused survival story that keeps tension high and doesn’t waste time.  It’s simple, but effective, and the sense of isolation is real.  The pacing is brisk and the film stays locked on Stone’s experience.
Acting:  Bullock carries the film and gives Stone a believable mix of fear, frustration, surrender and renewed determination.  Clooney brings calm confidence to Kowalski, which helps the early scenes.  The supporting voices do their jobs, but this is Bullock’s movie.
Filming / FX:  Outstanding!  The visuals still look great — Earth views, debris fields, lighting, and weightlessness all feel real.  The long opening shot is impressive.  The sound design (silence, muffled impacts, score) adds to the tension.  On my office 48in TV from three feet away, the film holds up very well visually although (obviously) this was a film meant to be seen on as large a screen as possible.
Problems:  A few.  The science is somewhat questionable and the technology mix, while credible, is unrealistically easy for her to “just” use.  LoL.  The symbolism (rebirth, shedding the suit, crawling out of the water) is also a bit too much.  LoL.  Then again, maybe I’m just reading too much into my own the “film-as-metaphor-for-life” symbolism.  None of this ruins the film, but it reminds you this is more emotional / survival journey than physics / motion lesson.  As an aside, I’ve begun to notice as I’ve watched more films and done more reviews, I am starting to “see” and think about this whole “symbolism” / metaphor in cinema much more than I ever used to.  I’m not sure if I really “like” this what did the director / film “mean”.  I think I’m still simple and prefer to be told – in the end or by the story…  But maybe that’s just me.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes!  It’s tense, visually beautiful, and emotionally satisfying.  Bullock’s performance makes you care about Stone’s survival.  It’s not a movie I’d re-watch a bunch, but it’s definitely worth seeing more than once.
Final Recommendation:  Highly Recommended.  “Gravity” is a visually stunning, Oscar-winning technical achievement anchored by a strong performance from Bullock.  Its historical significance in cinematography and visual effects makes it worth viewing, and the survival story delivers exactly what it promises.
.
Click here (26 May) 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 »

With Furnaces So Hot A Man Can Forget His Fear Of Hell

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 23, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Quiet Man” (1952) — movie review
Today’s review is for the romantic‑drama / Irish‑American classic “The Quiet Man”, directed by John Ford and starring John Wayne as Sean Thornton, the Irish‑American boxer returning to his childhood village to escape a violent past;  Maureen O’Hara as Mary Kate Danaher, the strong‑willed, proud woman Sean falls for (and must fight across half the county and back to the village to win);  Victor McLaglen as Will Danaher, Mary Kate’s hot‑tempered, stubborn older brother who blocks the marriage out of spite;  Barry Fitzgerald as Michaleen Oge Flynn, the matchmaker, gossip, and part‑time philosopher who “helps” the romance along;  Ward Bond as Father Peter Lonergan, the parish priest and occasional narrator who tries to keep the peace;  Mildred Natwick as The Widow Tillane, the landowner whose property purchase sparks half the trouble;  Arthur Shields as Reverend Cyril Playfair, the Protestant minister who becomes an unlikely ally;  and Jack MacGowran as Ignatius Feeney, one of the local mischief‑makers who stirs the pot whenever possible.  The film blends romance, comedy, Irish village life, and a bit of old‑fashioned brawling into one of Ford’s most beloved movies.
Background:  I’ve seen this film at least a half dozen times over the years, but this is my first viewing in a couple of years.   I usually watch it in conjunction with having seen “E.T.”  LoL.  “The Quiet Man” was released in 1952 and was both a critical and commercial success.  It received seven Academy Award nominations (including Best Picture) and won two:  Best Director (Ford) and Best Cinematography (Color).  Historically, the film is significant for its lush Technicolor photography of Ireland, its affectionate (idealized) portrayal of rural Irish life, and its place in Ford’s long collaboration with Wayne and O’Hara.  It’s also remembered for its influence on later romantic comedies and for its famous climactic fistfight, which has become one of the most iconic brawls in movie history.  The movie is a blend of nostalgia, myth making, and character‑driven humor — very much a product of its time, but still enjoyable today.
Plot:  The story begins with Sean Thornton returning from America to the small Irish village of Innisfree, hoping to reclaim his family’s old cottage and start a quieter life.  He immediately falls for Mary Kate Danaher, but her older brother Will (the local bully and landowner) refuses to allow the courtship, partly out of pride and partly because Sean outbid him for the cottage.  With the help of Michaleen, Father Lonergan, and Reverend Playfair, Sean and Mary Kate manage to marry, but Will refuses to give Mary Kate her dowry, which (in her mind) represents her independence and dignity.  Sean, haunted by a tragic boxing accident in America, refuses to fight Will over the money, which Mary Kate interprets as weakness.  After a series of misunderstandings, arguments, and one runaway attempted train ride, Sean drags Mary Kate across half the countryside for a legendary fistfight which takes them all the way back to the village.  The brawl ends in mutual respect, the dowry is resolved, and the film closes with Sean and Mary Kate settling into married life — with the village returning to its usual gossip and good humor.
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;  beautiful color filming;  a few dated bits;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Quiet Man” is one of those films that works because it leans into its own charm.  It’s not meant to be gritty or realistic.  It’s a romanticized Ireland:  green fields, friendly neighbors, stubborn pride, and a good fight to settle things.  The story is simple, but it’s told with warmth and humor.  The pacing is relaxed, and the movie takes its time letting you settle into village life.  The emotional beats land because the characters feel real, even when the situations get a bit theatrical.  It’s an old‑fashioned film, but an enjoyable one.
Acting:  Wayne gives a surprisingly gentle performance as Sean — still physically imposing, but more vulnerable than in many of his roles.  O’Hara is terrific:  fiery, proud, and convincing as a woman who refuses to be treated as property.  Their chemistry carries the film.  McLaglen is hilarious as Will Danaher, playing him with bluster and just enough humanity to keep him from being a cartoon.  Barry Fitzgerald steals half the scenes he’s in, offering comic relief without ever breaking the tone.  Bond, Natwick, Shields, and MacGowran all add texture to the village, making it feel like a real community.  The ensemble works because everyone plays their roles straight — no winking and no irony.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is the standout.  The Technicolor landscapes are gorgeous — rolling hills, stone fences, bright cottages, and misty mornings.  Ford clearly loved the scenery, and the camera lingers on it.  The interiors are warm and inviting, and the outdoor scenes feel alive.  The famous fistfight is staged with humor and energy, using wide shots to show the countryside as the two men tumble through it.  There are no “effects” in the modern sense, but the practical work (the storm scenes and the brawl) still looks good.  The film’s visual style is one of the reasons it has lasted.
Problems:  A few.  Some of the gender dynamics feel dated (IMHO), particularly the scenes involving Mary Kate’s dowry and the expectation that Sean must physically confront her brother to “prove” himself.  The film’s portrayal of Irish culture leans heavily on stereotypes — charming ones, but stereotypes nonetheless.  The pacing can feel slow to modern viewers, and some of the humor is very much of its era.  And, realistically of course, there is the age of the two leads.  They say they want to settle and have children, but Mary Kate is clearly in her late 20s (at best), which would have made having a first child rare.  Not unheard of, but rare for the era and their age(s).  None of these issues ruin the film, but they do remind you that it’s a product of the early 1950s.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s warm, funny, beautifully shot, and anchored by two strong performances.  The romance works because Wayne and O’Hara play it with sincerity, and the supporting cast adds just the right amount of humor.  The film has a gentle, nostalgic feel that makes it easy to watch.  It’s not perfect, but it’s charming — and more often than not, that’s enough.
Final Recommendation:  Very strong recommendation.  “The Quiet Man” is a beautifully filmed, well‑acted classic with historical significance, two Academy Awards, and one of the most memorable romantic pairings in Hollywood history.  If you enjoy character‑driven stories, lush scenery, or old‑school romance with a bit of humor and a famous brawl, this one is well worth your time.  It’s a film that has earned its place in cinema history — and one that still brings me a smile.
.
Click here (23 May) 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 »

See You Then, Inyeon

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 19, 2026| 2 Comments »

“Past Lives” (2023) — movie review
Today’s review is for the Korean semi-romantic drama:  “Past Lives”, directed by Celine Song and starring Greta Lee as Nora Moon/Moon Na Young, a Korean‑born playwright now living in New York;  Teo Yoo as Jung Hae Sung, her childhood friend from Seoul, still carrying the weight of their early childhood bond;  and John Magaro as Arthur Zaturansky (Nora’s American husband), a steady, thoughtful writer trying to understand the emotional gravity between his wife and another man.
Background:  I first heard about “Past Lives” a few weeks ago when I noticed it on the list of Best Picture Nominees for 2023.  It ended up with two Academy Award nominations (Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay) which is pretty remarkable for a quiet, small‑scale drama with no big set pieces and no “Oscar‑bait” theatrics.  It also picked up a ton of festival attention and was widely talked about as one of the best films of the year.  Historically, it’s already being viewed as a standout in the “what‑if” / missed‑connection genre — a very realistic, adult look at how childhood bonds, immigration, marriage, and identity can all collide in ways that don’t fit neat Hollywood categories.  This was my first viewing.  I watched this for free on my library feed and have since purchased streaming rights (as it fell to my price point) for future viewing.
Plot:  Nora and Hae Sung were close friends as kids in Seoul — the kind of early bond that feels like it might turn into something more someday.  But Nora’s family emigrates to Canada, and the two lose touch.  Twelve years later, they reconnect online, talking constantly, but the timing is off:  Nora is focused on her writing career, and the long‑distance thing doesn’t make sense.  They drift apart again.  Another twelve years pass.  Nora is now married to Arthur and living in New York City.  Hae Sung decides to visit the city, partly as a vacation, partly to see her.  The film follows the three of them over a few days — not in a love‑triangle way, but in a very human, very honest way about what it means to grow up, grow apart, and still feel something powerful for someone who represents a version of your life you didn’t choose (or which the universe didn’t choose for you).  There’s no melodrama, no big blow‑ups — just three people trying to navigate something complicated with as much grace as they can manage.
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 across the board;  clean, intimate filming;  a couple of slow stretches;  yes — very much.
Any good?  Yes.  “Past Lives” is one of those films that sneaks up on you.  It’s quiet, but not dull;  emotional, but not manipulative.  The story feels lived‑in — like something that could actually happen to real people, not movie characters.  (But I am a “romantic” who believes in serendipity.)  The pacing is deliberate, but it works because the film is about small shifts in emotion and perspective, not big plot twists.  IMHO, it earns its reputation as one of the standout films of 2023.
Acting:  Greta Lee is terrific — very controlled and internal feeling, but you always feel you know what’s going on under the surface.  Teo Yoo brings a kind of gentle steadiness to Hae Sung that makes the whole situation feel believable instead of melodramatic.  And John Magaro does a great job with a role that could have easily been written as “the jealous husband,” but instead comes across as thoughtful, self‑aware, and genuinely trying to understand what Nora is feeling.  The three of them together make the film work.
Filming / FX:  This is a small, realistic film (no FX to speak of ) but the filming is clean and intentional.  Lots of long takes, quiet moments, and simple framing that lets the actors carry the weight.  New York looks like New York (not the glossy movie version), and the scenes in Seoul feel authentic without being touristy.  The final sequence on the street at night is especially well done — understated, but powerful.
Problems:  A couple of stretches run a bit slow, especially in the middle when the film is setting up the emotional stakes for the reunion.  Nothing drags badly, but if you’re expecting a more traditional romantic arc or big dramatic confrontations, this movie isn’t that.  It’s also very quiet — which is a strength, but it means you have to be in the right mood for it.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes — very much.  It’s thoughtful, honest, and surprisingly moving.  The ending in particular hit harder than I expected.  It’s not a “feel‑good” movie, but it’s a very human one, and it sticks with you after it’s over.
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended.  “Past Lives” is a beautifully made, emotionally realistic film with excellent performances and a clear sense of purpose.  Its Oscar nominations make sense, and I think it’ll hold up well over time.  If you like character‑driven stories about relationships, identity, and the paths we take (and don’t take), this is a MUST see.  Final Note:  This film introduced me to the Buddhist‑rooted concept 인연 (inyeon), which refers to the karmic connections built over countless past lives.
.
Click here (19 May) 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 »

Won’t You Ring Dem Bells

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 12, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Bells of St. Mary’s” (1945) — movie review
Today’s review is for the classic drama “The Bells of St. Mary’s”, directed by Leo McCarey and starring Bing Crosby as Father O’Malley, the easygoing, quietly stubborn priest assigned to a struggling parochial school;  Ingrid Bergman as Sister Mary Benedict, the disciplined, idealistic nun whose faith in her students is matched only by her determination to keep the school alive;  Henry Travers as Horace P. Bogardus, the wealthy businessman whose plans for a new office building collide with the sisters’ hopes;  Joan Carroll as Patsy, a shy girl dealing with family troubles;  and William Gargan as Joe, Patsy’s father trying to rebuild his life.  With this ensemble, the film blends gentle humor, faith, and community spirit into a story about hope, charity, and the quiet battles fought in everyday life.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film, although I’ve heard about it for years because of Bing Crosby’s Oscar-winning role in “Going My Way” (1944), to which this is a sequel.  “The Bells of St. Mary’s” was released in 1945 and became a major box-office success.  It was the highest grossing film of the year.  It received eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Crosby), Best Actress (Bergman), Best Director, and Best Film Editing.  It didn’t win any Oscars, but its historical significance is clear:  it was one of the earliest mainstream films to portray Catholic clergy with warmth and humor, and it helped cement Crosby’s Father O’Malley as one of Hollywood’s most enduring characters.  The movie is also remembered for its gentle tone during the final months of World War II, offering audiences a sense of comfort and optimism.
Plot:  Father O’Malley arrives at St. Mary’s, a parochial school run by a group of nuns led by Sister Mary Benedict.  The school is in poor condition, and the sisters hope that a wealthy businessman, Horace Bogardus, will donate his new office building to them once he sees their good work.  O’Malley, more practical, thinks the school may need to close.  The two leaders clash (kindly, but firmly) over teaching methods, discipline, and the future of the school.  Meanwhile, the film follows several smaller stories:  Patsy, a young girl struggling with her parents’ separation;  a timid boy learning to stand up for himself;  and the sisters’ attempts to keep their community afloat.  As Christmas approaches, misunderstandings, illnesses, and personal sacrifices come to a head.  The film builds toward a bittersweet resolution involving Sister Mary Benedict’s health, the fate of the school, and the quiet grace of people doing their best for one another.
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;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Bells of St. Mary’s” is a gentle, warm-hearted film that works because it doesn’t try to be more than it is.  It blends humor, faith, and small human moments into a story that feels sincere rather than sentimental.  The pacing is steady, the emotional beats land, and the film earns its reputation as one of the classic “comfort” movies of the 1940s.  It’s not flashy.  It’s quietly effective.
Acting:  Crosby is relaxed and believable as Father O’Malley — calm, patient, and quietly persuasive.  Bergman is excellent as Sister Mary Benedict, bringing dignity, strength, and warmth to a role that could easily have become one-note.  Their scenes together are the heart of the film.  Henry Travers adds charm as Bogardus, and the supporting cast (especially Joan Carroll as Patsy) gives the story emotional grounding.  Nobody overacts, and the performances feel natural for the era.
Filming / FX:  The film is straightforward visually — clean black-and-white cinematography, simple sets, and gentle lighting.  There are no special effects to speak of, but the look fits the tone:  warm, modest, and focused on the characters.  The school interiors feel lived-in, and the Christmas scenes have a quiet charm.  The editing is smooth, and the film’s simplicity works in its favor.
Problems:  A few.  The movie is long for such a small-scale story, and many scenes feel stretched out.  The tone can be overly sentimental, especially by modern standards.  The subplot involving Patsy’s family is touching but occasionally melodramatic.  And the film’s portrayal of discipline and education reflects its era — some viewers may find it quaint or old-fashioned.  None of these issues break the film, but they stood out on a first viewing.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s gentle, sincere, and quietly uplifting.  I appreciated the warmth of the performances, the small moments of humor, and the film’s belief in kindness and community.  It’s not a movie I would watch every year, but I found it comforting and surprisingly moving.  It’s the kind of film that leaves you feeling a little better than when you sat down to start watching it.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “The Bells of St. Mary’s” is historically significant for its Oscar nominations, its portrayal of clergy, and its place in mid-century American cinema.  It’s rated “Approved” under the old Production Code and is suitable for all audiences.  If you enjoy classic Hollywood dramas, gentle character stories, or films with a warm holiday spirit, this one is well worth your time.  It’s not a perfect film, but it’s a heartfelt and memorable one.
A Final Thought:  Most viewers will probably not notice but when they are saying the “Pledge of Allegiance“, they omit the phrase:  “One nation under God“.  This is because it wasn’t added until 1954 as a reaction to the “Cold War” fear of “Godless Communists”.  There was a surge in religious belief post WWII and Korea and some religious organizations (notably the Knight’s of Columbus) had begun adopting / including the phrase in their private (Catholic) schools.  The author (Francis Bellamy) of the original version of the “Pledge” did not include the “religious” phrase and was, in fact, a supporter of the separation of Church and State.
.
Click here (12 May) 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 »

Charming With Arrow, Sword Or Smile

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

“The Adventures of Robin Hood”  (1938)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the classic Technicolor swashbuckler “The Adventures of Robin Hood”, directed by Michael Curtiz and William Keighley, and starring Errol Flynn as Robin Hood (the bold, laughing outlaw who defies tyranny with charm, skill, and a sense of justice);  Olivia de Havilland as Maid Marian (initially loyal to the crown, gradually moved by Robin’s courage and compassion);  Una O’Connor as Bess (Marian’s sharp-tongued, loyal handmaiden who sees more than she lets on);  Basil Rathbone as Sir Guy of Gisbourne (cold, ambitious, and eager to crush Robin for personal and political gain);  Claude Rains as Prince John (scheming, vain, and delighted to tax England into misery);  Melville Cooper as the Sheriff of Nottingham (smug, petty, and all too happy to enforce Prince John’s cruelty for his own benefit);  Eugene Pallette as Friar Tuck (jovial, stubborn, and surprisingly handy with a staff);  and Alan Hale Sr. as Little John (Robin’s loyal second-in-command — big-hearted, strong, and always ready for a fight).  Together, they bring to life one of early Hollywood’s most enduring adventure tales — bright colors, sword fights, and all.
Background:  I’ve seen this movie several times over the years — mostly on TV as a kid and now streaming in a beautifully restored version.  “The Adventures of Robin Hood”  is one of the crown jewels of the Golden Age of Hollywood.  It was nominated for four Academy Awards and won three:  Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, and Best Original Score (Erich Wolfgang Korngold).  Historically, it’s significant as one of the earliest major films shot entirely in three-strip Technicolor — and it remains one of the best uses of that process.  The movie also cemented Errol Flynn’s status as the definitive Robin Hood for generations.  This is one of those films that helped define the adventure genre itself.
Plot:  With King Richard held captive abroad, Prince John seizes power in England and begins bleeding the people dry through oppressive taxes.  Sir Robin of Locksley rebels, forming a band of outlaws in Sherwood Forest to protect the poor and resist John’s tyranny.  Robin’s daring raids, cheerful defiance, and sense of justice make him a hero to the people — and a target for Prince John and Sir Guy.  Marian, initially skeptical of Robin, gradually sees the truth of the suffering around her and becomes an ally.  The story builds through ambushes, disguises, archery contests, and sword fights, culminating in Robin’s rescue of King Richard and the downfall of Prince John’s plot.  It’s straightforward, energetic, and told with absolute confidence.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  iconic performances;  gorgeous Technicolor visuals;  a few dated moments;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  This is one of the great adventure films — joyful, confident, and completely unashamed of being a big, colorful swashbuckler.  The story is simple, but it’s told with such energy and sincerity that it still works today.  The pacing is brisk, the action is fun, and the tone is light without being silly.  It’s the kind of movie that knows exactly what it wants to be and delivers it with style.
Acting:  Errol Flynn is perfect as Robin Hood — charismatic, athletic, and effortlessly charming.  He plays Robin with a grin that makes the whole rebellion feel fun rather than grim.  Olivia de Havilland brings warmth and intelligence to Marian, giving the romance more weight than you might expect.  Basil Rathbone is excellent as Sir Guy — sharp, controlled, and dangerous — and his final duel with Flynn is still one of the best sword fights ever filmed.  Claude Rains is delightfully oily as Prince John.  The supporting cast (Pallette, Hale, and the rest) rounds things out with humor and heart.
Filming / FX:  The Technicolor photography is the standout.  The colors are bright, bold, and almost storybook-like — greens, reds, and golds that pop off the screen.  The sets and costumes are lavish, and the outdoor Sherwood Forest scenes feel alive.  The action scenes are cleanly staged, with real stunts, real swords, and real arrows (some of which were famously shot by professional archers into stuntmen wearing padded armor — not CGI!).  The score by Korngold is sweeping and heroic, and it basically set the template for adventure-movie music for decades.  Everything feels handcrafted and vibrant.
Problems:  A few . The tone is very “1930s Hollywood,” which means some characters are broad and the dialogue can be theatrical.  The romance is sweet but moves quickly.  Prince John and Sir Guy are fun villains, but not especially deep.  Some of the humor is dated, and the movie’s sense of medieval England is more fantasy than history.  None of this hurts the film — it’s just part of its era and charm.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  This is one of those movies that always puts a smile on my face.  The energy, the color, the sword fights, the music — it all works.  It’s light, fun, and endlessly re-watchable.  Flynn’s performance alone is worth the time, and the whole production has a confidence and joy that modern adventure films sometimes lack.  It’s pure entertainment, done with craftsmanship and heart.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended to MUST see.  “The Adventures of Robin Hood” is a landmark in adventure film making — historically important, visually stunning, and still wildly entertaining.  Its Oscar wins reflect the quality of its production, and its influence can be seen in everything from later Robin Hood adaptations to modern action-adventure movies.  If you enjoy classic Hollywood, swashbucklers, or just want to see one of the most charming heroes ever put on screen, this film is essential.  It remains a joyful, colorful, and wonderfully crafted classic.  Final note:  You MUST see this movie if you really want to understand “Shrek“…  LoL
.
Click here (5 May) 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 Was All A Dream

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 30, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Gaslight” (1944) — movie review
Today’s review is for the psychological thriller “Gaslight”, directed by George Cukor and starring Ingrid Bergman as Paula Alquist, a young woman trying to build her life while slowly being made to doubt her own sanity;  Charles Boyer as Gregory Anton, her charming but increasingly controlling husband whose motives grow darker as the story unfolds;  Joseph Cotten as Brian Cameron, the Scotland Yard inspector who begins to suspect something is very wrong in the Alquist household;  and Angela Lansbury (in her film debut) as Nancy, the flirtatious, sharp-tongued maid whose presence adds tension to the already strained marriage.  The cast plays everything straight, letting the suspense build slowly as Paula’s world closes in around her.
Background:  This is my first viewing of “Gaslight”, although I’ve known the term “gaslighting” for years (as most people do now).  The movie is based on the 1938 play “Gas Light” and was previously adapted into a 1940 British film.  This 1944 version was the major Hollywood production and the one that became the classic.  It received seven Academy Award nominations and won two:  Best Actress for Ingrid Bergman and Best Art Direction.  Historically, the film is significant not only for Bergman’s performance but also for popularizing the concept of psychological manipulation that would later enter everyday language as “gaslighting.”  It’s considered one of the key psychological thrillers of the 1940s and remains a reference point for stories about coercive control.
Plot:  Paula Alquist, still traumatized by the unsolved murder of her famous opera-singer aunt, meets and marries Gregory Anton after a whirlwind romance.  They move into her aunt’s old London townhouse, where Paula hopes to start fresh.  But almost immediately, strange things begin happening:  footsteps in the attic, missing items, dimming gaslights, and Gregory’s constant suggestions that Paula is forgetful, unstable, or imagining things.  As Gregory isolates her from friends and the outside world, Paula becomes increasingly unsure of her own mind.  Meanwhile, Scotland Yard inspector Brian Cameron takes an interest in the case after recognizing Paula’s connection to her aunt’s murder.  The story builds toward the revelation of Gregory’s true motives and Paula’s struggle to reclaim her sanity and her life.
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 and effective;  a few;  yes.
Any good? Yes. “Gaslight” is a tight, well-crafted psychological thriller that still works today.  The tension builds slowly but steadily, and the film does a good job showing how manipulation can happen in small, believable steps.  The story is simple, but the emotional stakes feel real.  The final act delivers a satisfying payoff without losing the tone of the earlier scenes.
Acting:  Bergman is terrific:  vulnerable, confused, and slowly unraveling, but never weak.  Her performance sells the entire movie, and her Oscar win makes sense.  Boyer is smooth and unsettling as Gregory, playing the role with just enough charm to make the manipulation believable.  Cotten brings a steady, reassuring presence as Cameron, and Angela Lansbury is memorable in her film debut — sharp, sly, and already showing the screen presence she’d have for decades. The ensemble fits the story well.
Filming / FX:  The film uses its sets and lighting to great effect.  The townhouse feels claustrophobic, with shadows, narrow hallways, and dimming gaslights adding to Paula’s sense of isolation.  The cinematography is clean and deliberate, emphasizing small details (a missing brooch, a flickering light, a creaking ceiling) that build tension without any modern “FX.”  The attic scenes are particularly effective.  The film relies on atmosphere rather than spectacle, and it works.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing in the middle can feel slow, especially as Paula’s doubts repeat in slightly different forms.  Gregory’s villainy becomes a bit obvious earlier than the film seems to think it does, which reduces some of the suspense.  And the resolution, while satisfying, wraps things up neatly in a way that feels very “Hollywood 1940s.”  None of these issues ruin the film, but they keep it from being a perfect thriller.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s tense, well-acted, and emotionally engaging.  Bergman’s performance alone makes it worth watching, and the slow build of psychological pressure is still effective.  The film feels like a product of its time, but in a good way — atmospheric, character-driven, and focused on emotional stakes rather than big twists.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation. “Gaslight” is a classic psychological thriller with an Oscar-winning performance, a historically significant theme, and a well-constructed sense of tension.  It’s not flashy, but it’s smart, well-acted, and still relevant.  If you enjoy character-driven suspense or want to see the film that gave us the term “gaslighting,” this one is definitely worth your time.  A very solid classic.
.
Click here (30 April) 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 »

Never Get Outta The Boat Unless You’re Goin’ All The Way

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 29, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Apocalypse Now (Redux)” (2001) — movie review
Today’s review is for the war / drama epic “Apocalypse Now (Redux)”, directed by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Martin Sheen as Captain Benjamin Willard, the burned-out, sunken-eyed intelligence officer sent on a classified mission upriver;  Marlon Brando as Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, the once-brilliant Special Forces officer who has gone completely rogue and set himself up as a kind of jungle warlord;  Robert Duvall as Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore, the surf-obsessed Air Cavalry commander whose love of napalm and Wagner makes him unforgettable;  Frederic Forrest as Chef, the jittery New Orleans cook whose nerves fray the deeper they go;  Sam Bottoms as Lance, the surfer-turned-machine-gunner who drifts into psychedelic detachment;  Laurence Fishburne as Clean, the too-young gunner whose bravado masks his inexperience;  and Albert Hall as Chief Phillips, the boat captain trying to keep discipline as the mission grows stranger.  This is the extended version of Coppola’s Vietnam War odyssey — longer, darker, and more surreal than the original.
Background:  I first saw the original “Apocalypse Now” many years ago, but not on original release at the theater.  I still remember being unimpressed.  This was my second full viewing of the “Redux” version.  The original 1979 film was nominated for eight Academy Awards — including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Sheen), Best Supporting Actor (Duvall), and Best Adapted Screenplay — and it won two (Best Cinematography and Best Sound).  “Redux,” released in 2001, adds almost 50 minutes of restored footage, including the French plantation sequence and extended scenes with the Playboy Bunnies.  Historically, “Apocalypse Now” is considered one of the defining Vietnam War films — a hallucinatory / spiritual descent into the madness of conflict, loosely inspired by Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” (a novel which has nothing to do with Vietnam).  “Redux” is Coppola’s attempt to present a fuller, more thematically layered version of the story.
Plot:  Captain Willard is pulled from a drunken haze in Saigon and given a classified mission:  travel upriver into Cambodia, locate Colonel Kurtz, and “terminate his command… with extreme prejudice.”  Willard joins a Navy patrol boat crew (Chief, Chef, Lance, and Clean) and they begin the long journey upriver.  Along the way, they encounter Kilgore’s Air Cavalry unit, whose surreal mix of surfing, helicopters, and napalm sets the tone for the madness ahead.  As they push deeper into the jungle, the crew faces ambushes, moral confusion, and psychological unraveling.  The “Redux” cut includes a lengthy detour at a French plantation, where Willard hears colonial perspectives on the war, and an extended sequence with the stranded Playboy Bunnies.  One by one, the crew is lost to violence or despair.  Willard finally reaches Kurtz’s compound (a nightmare world of primitive ritual, fear, and worship) where he confronts the man he has been sent to kill.  The film ends with Willard making his choice, leaving the compound as the jungle swallows the echoes of Kurtz’s final words:  “The horror…  the horror.”
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  No;  very good to excellent;  visually stunning and immersive;  lots (some serious);  No.
Any good?  No.  “Apocalypse Now (Redux)” is a powerful, unsettling film.  It’s long — very long — but it earns its reputation as a cinematic experience rather than a straightforward war movie.  The themes of madness, morality, and the cost of violence are still sharp.  The added scenes deepen some ideas (colonialism, disillusionment) while slowing the pace, but the overall impact remains strong.  It’s a film which will bore you to tears and numb your bum as you search for its meaning.
Acting:  Martin Sheen gives a haunted, “internal” performance:  quiet, controlled, and increasingly frayed.  Marlon Brando, even with limited screen time, dominates the final act with his voice, presence, and unsettling calm.  Robert Duvall is iconic as Kilgore — funny, terrifying, and unforgettable.  Frederic Forrest and Sam Bottoms bring vulnerability to their roles, and Laurence Fishburne (only 14 during filming) is heartbreaking as Clean.  The ensemble feels real:  tired, scared, and slowly unraveling.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is outstanding.  The jungle is filmed as both beautiful and threatening, and the lighting (especially in the Kurtz compound) is masterful.  The helicopter assault set to Wagner is still one of the most famous sequences in film history.  The practical effects hold up remarkably well, and the sound is immersive.  The “Redux” cut restores scenes with a slightly different color timing, but the overall look remains striking.  This is a film where the visuals do as much storytelling as the dialogue.
Problems:  A bunch.  The 50+ minutes “Redux” additions are a mixed bag.  The French plantation sequence is interesting but slows the film down considerably.  The extended Playboy Bunny scenes also feel unnecessary and further disrupt the pacing.  The film’s length (over three hours) may be too much for some viewers (me, for instance).  And the ending, while iconic, can feel opaque if you’re not familiar with the themes Coppola is exploring (I’m not – or wasn’t until I read about the film).  These issues don’t undermine the film’s overall “cinematic” impact, but they did make the film boring and physically tiresome (to me).  The two deal breakers (for me) are the Huey lifting the patrol boat for transport (never gonna happen) and the pouncing tiger in the jungle.  Even fully stripped with no weapons, ammo or fuel, the boat is FAR too heavy for a Huey to lift it.  And, I can’t imagine an M16 stopping a charging full grown tiger (male or female).  It would take an incredibly lucky shot to kill the tiger at that range – let alone stop it mid-charge.  The M16 has far too light a round to stop a 200lb-400lb pouncing tiger and at the distance they imply in the scene, the tiger would be in the air jumping at you and you are simply NOT going to shoot it out of the air and or kill it before it tears you to shreds. LoL.
Did I enjoy the film?  No.  It’s intense, strange, and exhausting, even if it’s also gripping and visually stunning.  The journey upriver drags you along without pulling you in to the experience.  The performances — especially Sheen, Duvall, and Brando — are memorable, but by (and in) the end, I didn’t care about any of them.  It’s not a film I’d watch often – having now seen the original and this version (twice), but it’s one I’m glad I revisited in this review as it confirmed my original opinion (of both versions).
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation for cinema ONLY.  Otherwise, give it a miss, as it’s a bore.  “Apocalypse Now (Redux)” is a landmark war film — historically significant for its Oscar nominations, its influence on film-making, and its unflinching portrayal of the psychological toll of war.  The “Redux” version is longer, (supposedly) more meditative, and powerful.  If you’re interested in classic cinema, Vietnam War films, or ambitious film-making, this is a must-see at least once (only once).
.
Click here (29 April) 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 »

Blame Mattel… They Make The Rules

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 28, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Barbie” (2023) — movie review
Today’s review is for the fantasy / comedy “Barbie”, directed by Greta Gerwig and starring Margot Robbie as “Stereotypical Barbie,” the Barbie who wakes up one day with thoughts of death, flat feet, and a sudden sense that her perfect world is cracking;  Ryan Gosling as Ken, the beach‑obsessed himbo whose entire identity revolves around Barbie until he discovers “patriarchy” (LoL) in the real world;  America Ferrera as Gloria, the Mattel employee whose drawings and anxieties accidentally link her to Barbie’s crisis;  Ariana Greenblatt as Sasha, Gloria’s daughter, whose blunt honesty forces Barbie to confront uncomfortable truths;  Will Ferrell as the Mattel CEO, a clueless corporate leader trying to shove Barbie back into her box;  Kate McKinnon as “Weird Barbie,” the scribbled-on, haircut-gone-wrong outcast who knows how the universe works;  Issa Rae as President Barbie;  and Rhea Perlman as Ruth Handler, Barbie’s creator, who guides Barbie toward a choice about what it means to be “real.”  Together, they inhabit a world that swings between bright plastic fantasy and the messy, contradictory real world.
Background:  I came to this movie with a mix of curiosity and skepticism – and a very high recommendation from my older daughter.  I never played with Barbies (I played with G.I. Joes), and I didn’t know what to expect from a film based on a “girl’s” toy line.  The early buzz was that this movie was surprisingly thoughtful AND good.  Released in 2023, “Barbie” became a cultural phenomenon and the highest-grossing film of the year.  It received eight Academy Award nominations — including Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Gosling), and Best Supporting Actress (Ferrera).  Billie Eilish’s “What Was I Made For?” won the Oscar for Best Original Song.  Historically, the film is notable for being the first major studio blockbuster directed by a woman to cross the billion-dollar mark, and for turning a corporate brand into a surprisingly layered commentary on identity, gender expectations, and the contradictions built into the Barbie legacy.
Plot:  Barbie lives in “Barbie Land“, where every day is perfect, every night is girls’ night, and the Kens exist mostly to be noticed.  One morning, Barbie’s routine breaks:  her shower is cold, her toast burns, her feet go flat, and she starts thinking about death.  Weird Barbie tells her she must travel to the real world to fix the connection with the human who’s projecting these feelings onto her.  Barbie arrives in Los Angeles and discovers that the real world is nothing like Barbie Land — people criticize her, men leer at her, and she realizes she has no idea who she is outside of perfection.  Meanwhile, Ken discovers patriarchy (mostly horses and being a rhinestone cowboy) and brings it back to Barbie Land, where the Kens quickly take over and turn the Barbies into subservient girlfriends.  Barbie, Gloria, and Sasha return to restore things, using a mix of honesty, distraction, and emotional awakening to snap the Barbies out of their trance.  The Kens stage a big musical battle (LoL – shades of Michael Jackson’s “Beat It” or “West Side Story“), Barbie confronts her own identity crisis, and Ruth Handler appears to help Barbie decide whether she wants to remain a doll or become human.  The film ends with Barbie choosing the messy, imperfect real world — and taking her first awkward step into 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;  excellent across the board;  bright, clever, and surprisingly detailed;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Barbie” is a far better film than a movie based on a toy has any right to be. It’s funny, self-aware, and occasionally moving.  The film balances satire with sincerity — poking fun at Barbie’s contradictions while also acknowledging why she mattered to so many people.  The themes about identity, expectations, and choosing your own path land more often than not.  It’s not subtle, but it doesn’t need to be.  The movie works because it commits fully to its tone:  playful on the surface, thoughtful underneath.
Acting:  Robbie is terrific — she plays Barbie with warmth, confusion, and just enough vulnerability to make the character feel real.  Gosling almost steals the show as Ken;  his comic timing is excellent, and he leans into the absurdity without ever winking at the camera.  America Ferrera grounds the film emotionally, and her monologue about the contradictions of being a woman is one of the movie’s standout moments.  Greenblatt is sharp as Sasha.  McKinnon is hilarious as Weird Barbie.  Ferrell does his usual corporate-buffoon routine, which works well enough.  The ensemble of Barbies and Kens adds energy and humor throughout.
Filming / FX:  The movie looks great. The production design is bright, colorful, and intentionally artificial — plastic skies, painted backdrops, and sets that look like life-size playsets.  The transitions between Barbie Land and the real world are “mildly” clever.  The costumes are “Barbie” fun and varied, pulling from decades of her outfits.  The musical numbers are energetic, especially the big Ken sequence.  The filming is clean and confident, and the visual jokes land without being too distracting.  It’s a movie that knows exactly what it wants to look like.
Problems:  A few.  The Mattel-corporate subplot feels artificial and interrupts the stronger emotional threads.  Some jokes go on far too long or they’re not funny.  The pacing in the middle sags slightly.  And while the themes are meaningful, some may find the film occasionally spells them out a little too directly (I didn’t).  None of these spoil the movie.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s (somewhat) funny, (very) colorful, and surprisingly thoughtful.  The performances are strong, the humor works, and the emotional beats land.  I didn’t expect to enjoy it as much as I did, but the film has a charm and intelligence that won me over.  The ending (Barbie choosing to be human) is handled with a light touch.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation. “Barbie” is a clever, entertaining film with strong performances, memorable visuals, and a surprising amount of heart.  Its Oscar nominations were well-deserved, and its immediate cultural impact is undeniable, although I’m not sure if it will prove lasting.  Whether you’re watching for the comedy, the performances, or the themes about identity and choice, it’s worth your time.  It’s a movie that manages to say something real without losing its sense of fun.
.
Click here (28 April) 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 Must Be That Ozark Water

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 27, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Minari” (2020) — movie review
Today’s review is for the family / immigrant drama “Minari”, written and directed by Lee Isaac Chung and starring Steven Yeun as Jacob Yi, the determined father chasing a dream of owning his own farm in rural Arkansas;  Yeri Han as Monica, his wife, who is torn between supporting Jacob’s vision and protecting her family from instability;  Alan Kim as David, their young son with a heart condition who tries to make sense of this strange new world;  Noel Kate Cho as Anne, the older sister who quietly shoulders more responsibility than she should;  Youn Yuh-jung as Soon-ja, the unconventional grandmother whose humor, stubbornness, and unexpected warmth reshape the family;  and Will Patton as Paul, the eccentric farmhand whose faith and loyalty give Jacob a much-needed ally.  The film follows a Korean-American family trying to build a life (and a future) in 1980s America.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I approached this viewing with no knowledge of the film’s history or the story-line.  It was just on my list of Best Picture nominations for 2020.  “Minari” received six Academy Award nominations — Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Yeun), Best Supporting Actress (Youn), Best Original Screenplay, and Best Original Score.  Youn Yuh-jung won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, becoming the first Korean performer to win an acting Oscar.  Historically, the film is significant for its portrayal of the Korean-American immigrant experience without leaning on clichés or heavy-handed messaging.  It’s a small, personal story based loosely on the director’s own childhood, and it sits in that rare space where a family drama feels both intimate and universal.  It also came out during a time when Asian-American representation in film was being discussed more openly, so its success felt like a meaningful moment.
Plot:  Jacob moves his family from California to rural Arkansas to start a farm growing Korean vegetables — a crop he believes will thrive and find a market among other immigrants.  Monica is skeptical from the start, worried about money, isolation, and David’s health.  The kids try to adapt, with Anne taking on more responsibility and David forming a complicated bond with his grandmother, Soon-ja, who arrives from Korea to help.  Jacob hires Paul, a deeply religious and slightly odd local man, to help with the farm.  As the family struggles with finances, marital tension, cultural differences, and the unpredictability of farming, the story builds toward a series of setbacks — including a fire that threatens everything they’ve worked for.  Through it all, the family tries to hold together, even when their dreams and fears pull them in different directions.  The ending is quiet but hopeful, suggesting that roots can grow even in difficult soil and unexpected places.
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;  naturalistic and grounded;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Minari” is a gentle, thoughtful film that takes its time and trusts the audience to sit with small moments.  It’s not a big, sweeping drama — it’s a collection of lived-through scenes that add up to something meaningful.  The movie balances mild humor, frustration, hope, and disappointment without ever feeling forced.  It’s a story about work, family, and the quiet resilience required to start over in a new place.  IMHO, it earns its reputation as one of the better family dramas of the last few years.
Acting:  Steven Yeun gives a strong, grounded performance as Jacob — ambitious, stubborn, and quietly vulnerable.  Yeri Han is excellent as Monica, capturing the emotional weight of someone trying to hold a family together while feeling increasingly isolated.  Alan Kim is terrific as David — funny, honest, and believable in every scene. Noel Kate Cho brings a steady presence as Anne.  Youn Yuh-jung is the standout;  she brings humor, unpredictability, and heart to Soon-ja, and her Oscar win makes perfect sense after watching the film.  Will Patton adds depth and odd charm as Paul, giving the story an unexpected layer of humanity.
Filming / FX:  The filming is naturalistic and understated:  lots of soft light, open fields, and quiet interiors.  The camera work is simple but effective, letting the performances and environment speak for themselves.  The score is gentle and fits the tone.  There are no “effects” in the modern sense, but the film uses its setting (the trailer home, the fields, the creek) to create a sense of place that feels both specific and universal.  It’s visually calm, which suits the story.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing is slow, especially in the middle, and some viewers may find the film a little too quiet for its own good (some of it felt a bit like farming).  Jacob’s stubbornness can get repetitive, and Monica’s frustration circles the same emotional ground a few times.  The ending may feel abrupt if you’re expecting a big “movie moment.”  And the film leans a bit on symbolism with the minari plant — not in a bad way, but it’s pretty clear the plant stands for something (resilience, second chances, and the idea that some things grow best when you stop forcing them).  IMHO, it works, but it’s one of those touches where either you can see the meaning coming from a mile away or you don’t.  I didn’t and had to read about this film before I could write this review.  None of these issues seriously hurt the film, but I’d have appreciated a little more narrative explanation.  LoL.  I’m a bit simple that way.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s warm, sincere, and quietly moving.  The family dynamics feel real, the performances are strong, and the film has a gentle flow that draws you in – again, like farming and waiting for a crop to ripen.  It’s not flashy, but it’s heartfelt.  I found myself thinking about the characters and symbolism after the movie ended, which is usually a sign of a good film.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “Minari” is a beautifully acted, emotionally honest family drama with historical significance due to its Oscar nominations and its portrayal of the Korean-American immigrant experience.  It’s a small film with a big heart, and it’s well worth your time.  Watch it for the performances, the sincerity, and the reminder that hope can take root in unexpected places.
.
Click here (27 April) 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 Long Time Ago…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 21, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Star Wars:  A New Hope” (1977) — movie review
Today’s review is for the space-fantasy adventure:  “Star Wars:  A New Hope”, written and directed by George Lucas and starring Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker, the restless farm kid who wants more than moisture farming;  Harrison Ford as Han Solo, the smuggler who pretends not to care but always does;  Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia Organa, the rebel leader who’s braver and sharper than anyone expects;  and Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi, the old hermit with a past he only hints at;  Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin, the cold, precise commander of the Death Star;  Anthony Daniels as C-3PO and Kenny Baker as R2-D2, the droids who end up carrying half the plot on their metal backs;   David Prowse (body) and James Earl Jones (voice) as Darth Vader, the black-armored enforcer whose presence fills every room;  and Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca, Han’s co-pilot and loyal friend.  The film blends adventure, myth, humor, and old-school serial energy into something that still feels fresh almost fifty years later.  I really think of this movie as a cultural blend of hero-epic / Sci-Fi Western / good-guy vs bad-guy / sensei-student / serial movie which helps explain the cross-societal acceptance.
Background:  I’ve seen this movie well over a couple of dozen times:  in theaters, on VHS, on DVD, on Blu-ray, and on streaming.  Perhaps only of interest to me, I never saw this film in its original theater release as I was in the Army and stationed in West Germany at the time.  I did see it in a theater when it was re-released for a short theater run prior to the release of the sequel.  This film was released in 1977 and “Star Wars:  A New Hope” was a cultural earthquake.  It received ten Academy Award nominations and won six competitive Oscars — including Best Editing, Best Score (John Williams), Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Sound, and Best Visual Effects — plus a Special Achievement Award for sound effects.  It was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Supporting Actor (Guinness).  Historically, it’s one of the most influential films ever made:  it changed how movies were marketed, how blockbusters were built, and how special effects were created.  It also launched a franchise that’s still going strong decades later.  Whether you love the sequels, prequels, or spin-offs, it all starts here.
Plot:  The story begins with a rebel ship fleeing a massive Imperial Star Destroyer.  Princess Leia hides stolen Death Star plans in R2‑D2 before being captured by Darth Vader.  The droids escape to Tatooine, where they’re found by Luke Skywalker, a young moisture farmer who feels trapped on his uncle’s homestead.  When R2 runs off to find Obi-Wan Kenobi, Luke follows and learns about the Force, the Jedi, and his father’s past.  After storm-troopers kill Luke’s aunt and uncle, he joins Obi-Wan on a mission to deliver the plans to the Rebellion.  They hire Han Solo and Chewbacca, fly to Alderaan (which has been destroyed), and get pulled into the Death Star.  Luke, Han, and Chewie rescue Leia;  Obi-Wan confronts Vader;  and the group escapes with the plans.  The film ends with the Rebel assault on the Death Star, where Luke (guided by the Force) fires the shot that destroys the station (remade in “Top Gun:  Maverick“).  It’s a simple story told with energy, heart, and a sense of wonder that still works.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  solid and iconic;  groundbreaking for its time;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes!  “Star Wars:  A New Hope” is one of those rare films that feels timeless.  It’s straightforward, earnest, and built around classic good-vs-evil storytelling.  The pacing is brisk, the characters are memorable, and the world feels lived-in without needing long explanations.  The movie’s charm comes from how confidently it mixes genres:  western, samurai film, WWII dogfights, fairy tale — and still feels like its own thing.  It’s not complicated, but it doesn’t need to be.  It’s fun, it’s adventurous, and it still works.
Acting:  The acting is so-so, but still better than people sometimes remember.  Hamill gives Luke the right mix of innocence and determination.  Ford steals scenes with his dry humor and easy charisma.  Fisher is sharp, commanding, and never plays Leia as a damsel.  Guinness brings gravitas that helps sell the whole “Jedi” idea.  The supporting cast (especially Cushing and the droids) adds texture and personality.  Vader, with Jones’ voice and Prowse’s physical presence, remains one of the great screen villains.  Nobody is doing Shakespeare here, but everyone fits their role.
Filming / FX:  For 1977, the effects were revolutionary.  The model work, motion-control photography, and sound design created a universe that felt huge.  The ships, the cantina creatures, the Death Star interiors — all of it still looks good.  Williams’ score is one of the greatest ever written and carries half the emotional weight.  Some shots show their age, but most of the film holds up remarkably well.  The editing keeps the action clear, and the final trench run is still one of the best sequences in sci-fi cinema.  I watched the film this time on DVD and the CGI generated scenes, particularly the added Solo confrontation with Jaba the Hutt is just poorly done by modern standards.  Solo is clearly superimposed over “something” which isn’t there.  But even though there are multiple FX issues, throughout the film, they don’t really distract from your (my) memories of the film or its enjoyment of those memories.  I’m not sure if a modern adult, seeing the film for the first time would agree without having the emotional baggage.
Problems:  A few.  Most of the “science” in the Sci-Fi is just wrong.  The early Tatooine scenes run a bit long.  The Storm-troopers’ aim is famously terrible.  And the movie’s simplicity (which is part of its current charm) means some characters don’t get much depth.  But none of these issues really hurt the film.  They’re more quirks than real problems.  By today’s standards, this would be a moderate to terrible “B” movie, but it’s difficult to separate this film from its time and place in history / American society.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  This is one of those movies that still makes us feel like kids.  The adventure, the music, the characters — it all works.  Even after multiple viewings, the Death Star battle still gets my heart rate up.  The film is fun, sincere, and (like most great hero-epic / westerns) endlessly re-watchable.  It’s not trying to be profound;  it’s trying to be exciting and entertaining, and it succeeds handsomely!
Final Recommendation:  Very Highly Recommended to MUST see. “Star Wars:  A New Hope” is a landmark of modern cinema — historically significant for its Academy Awards, its technical breakthroughs, and its cultural impact.  It’s also just a fun (not great) movie.  If you’ve somehow never seen it, you should.  And if you have, it’s always worth revisiting to remember why this galaxy far, far away became such a big part of our own.
.
Click here (21 April) 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 »

Who’s Gonna Love Me, Dad? Who’s Gonna Love ME?

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 20, 2026| 3 Comments »

“Born On The Fourth Of July” (1989)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the Vietnam War / biography drama “Born On The Fourth Of July”, directed by Oliver Stone and starring Tom Cruise as Ron Kovic, the patriotic Long Island kid who volunteers for the Marines, is paralyzed in combat, and returns home to a country he barely recognizes;  Kyra Sedgwick as Donna, the high-school sweetheart whose life moves on while Ron’s collapses;  Willem Dafoe as Charlie, the bitter, broken veteran Ron meets in Mexico;  Raymond J. Barry as Ron’s father, a proud, emotionally distant man who doesn’t know how to help his son;  Caroline Kava as Ron’s mother, whose Catholic faith and rigid expectations clash with Ron’s growing anger;  Jerry Levine as Steve, Ron’s childhood friend;  and Frank Whaley as Timmy, another local boy whose life is also shaped by the war.  The film follows Ron from idealistic teenager to disillusioned veteran to anti-war activist, tracing the cost of war on one man’s body, family, and sense of self.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film and it really brought up memories from my own past.  I volunteered to serve in the Army for four years when I was 19 years old.  I read an article in “Newsweek Magazine“, which said not enough young men were joining the services and if we weren’t willing to defend the country, who would?  I remember the hype around this film when it came out, mostly because it was Tom Cruise “going serious” and doing an injured Veteran role.  Released in 1989, “Born On The Fourth Of July” was a major critical success.  It received eight Academy Award nominations and won two:  Best Director (Stone) and Best Film Editing.  Cruise received his first Best Actor nomination for this role.  Historically, the film is significant because it brought Ron Kovic’s memoir to a wide audience and forced a lot of Americans to confront the long-term consequences of the Vietnam War — not just on the battlefield, but in hospitals, living rooms, and public protests.  It’s also one of the more prominent films to show the arc from patriotic enlistment to anti-war activism through the eyes of a single veteran.
Plot:  The story begins in Massapequa, New York, where young Ron Kovic grows up in a patriotic, Catholic household. Inspired by speeches, parades, and a sense of duty, he enlists in the Marines right out of high school.  His second tour in Vietnam is chaotic and brutal.  During a firefight, Ron accidentally kills a fellow Marine (a moment that haunts him) and later he is shot and paralyzed from the chest down.  The VA hospital scenes are grim:  overcrowded rat-infested wards, neglect, and a system that seems indifferent to the men it’s supposed to heal.  Ron eventually returns home to a family that loves him but doesn’t understand him, and a community that has moved on.  His frustration grows into anger:  at the war, at the government, at himself.  After a disastrous attempt to find escape in Mexico, Ron eventually channels his pain into activism, joining Vietnam Veterans Against the War.  The film ends with Ron preparing to speak at the 1976 Democratic National Convention, finally finding a voice and purpose beyond the uniform he once wore so proudly.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  outstanding;  intense and immersive;  a few;  mostly yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Born On The Fourth Of July” is a powerful, often difficult film that doesn’t flinch from showing the physical and emotional cost of war. It’s not subtle (Oliver Stone almost never is) but the directness works here.  The movie captures the arc from idealism to disillusionment in a way that feels honest, even when the film-making gets heavy‑handed.  The hospital scenes, the family arguments, the protests all land because the film commits to showing how messy and painful the journey really was for Kovic. It’s not an easy watch, but it’s an effective one.
Acting:  Cruise gives one of the best performances of his career.  He plays Ron’s transformation:  from eager teenager to shattered veteran to determined activist, with real conviction.  The physical work (Cruise) alone is impressive, but it’s the emotional unraveling (of Kovic) that stands out.  Sedgwick is warm and believable as Donna, though she’s not in the film that much.  Dafoe brings (his typical) raw, chaotic energy to Charlie, in the Mexico scenes.  Caroline Kava and Raymond J. Barry feel like real parents caught between pride, fear, and denial.  The supporting cast fills out the world convincingly, particularly in the early hometown sequences.
Filming / FX:  Stone’s direction is intense and sometimes overwhelming.  The Vietnam scenes are chaotic, loud, and disorienting — which is clearly the point.  The hospital sequences are grim and claustrophobic.  The cinematography shifts tone as Ron’s life changes:  bright and nostalgic early on, harsh and unsteady after the injury, and more grounded during the activism phase.  There are no “effects” in the modern sense, but the practical work:  especially the battle scenes and the physical depiction of Ron’s paralysis are believable.
Problems:  A few.  Stone’s style (IMHO) is heavy-handed, especially in the early patriotic scenes and the protest sequences.  The Mexico section feels unexplained – like it belongs in a different movie.  Some of the dialogue feels forced.  The film also feels like it compresses a lot of Kovic’s activism into a short stretch, which makes the final act feel confusingly abbreviated.  None of these issues ruin the film, but they do keep it from being as tight / meaningful as it could be.
Did I enjoy the film?  Mostly yes.  “Enjoy” is a tricky word for a movie that is very often painful to watch, but I found it compelling and worthwhile viewing.  Cruise’s performance carries the film, and the story (IMHO) feels important — not in a preachy way, but in an injured / betrayed human way.  The movie made me think about the cost of war, the failures of the systems meant to support veterans (then and today), and the courage it takes to rebuild a life after everything falls apart.  It’s not a film I’d re-watch often, but I’m glad I finally saw it.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “Born On The Fourth Of July” is historically significant for its awards, its cultural impact, and its unflinching portrayal of a veteran’s journey from patriotism to protest.  Cruise delivers one of his defining performances, and Stone’s direction gives the film emotional weight.  If you’re interested in Vietnam War stories, biographies, or films that tackle the long shadow of war, this one is well worth viewing.  A caution to sensitive viewers:  the film is appropriately rated “R” for language, nudity / sexual content, drug use, and violence / gore.
.
Click here (20 April) 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