Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Best Visual Effects Oscar’

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 »

What We Do In Life Echoes In Eternity

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 4, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Gladiator” (2000) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical action‑drama “Gladiator”, directed by Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius (a loyal Roman general betrayed by the new emperor and forced into slavery, fighting his way back toward justice);  Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus (the insecure, manipulative son of Marcus Aurelius whose hunger for power drives the story’s conflict);  Connie Nielsen as Lucilla (Maximus’ former love and Commodus’ sister, caught between survival and conscience);  Oliver Reed as Proximo (the gruff, pragmatic gladiator-trainer who sees potential in Maximus);  Djimon Hounsou as Juba (a fellow slave and fighter who becomes Maximus’ closest friend in the arena);  and Richard Harris as Marcus Aurelius (the aging philosopher-emperor whose death sets the tragedy in motion).  Together, they anchor a story of loyalty, revenge, corruption, and the brutal spectacle of Rome at its height.
Background:  I first saw the original “Gladiator” in theaters back in 2000, and I remember being struck by how “big” it felt — not just in action, but also in emotion.  This extended edition adds roughly 15 minutes of footage, mostly character beats and political texture, which deepen the story without changing its arc.  The film was a major awards contender / winner.  It received twelve Academy Award nominations and won five:  including Best Picture, Best Actor (Crowe), Best Costume Design, Best Sound, and Best Visual Effects.  Historically, “Gladiator” is credited with reviving the sword-and-sandals epic, a genre that had been dormant for decades.  This film was also one of Ridley Scott’s most commercially successful films and helped redefine large-scale historical dramas for the 21st century.  I’ve seen the theatrical cut several times over the years, but I believe this was my first full viewing of the extended edition.  I haven’t seen the regular version recently enough to comment if this version is a substantial upgrade or not.
Plot:  The story begins on the German frontier, where General Maximus leads Rome’s armies to victory.  Emperor Marcus Aurelius privately tells Maximus he intends to name him protector of Rome until the Senate can restore the Republic.  Commodus, learning he will not inherit the throne, murders his father and orders Maximus executed.  Maximus escapes but returns home to find his family murdered.  Captured by slavers, he is sold to Proximo and forced to fight as a gladiator.  His skill and leadership quickly make him a crowd favorite, and he eventually reaches Rome, where Commodus (now emperor of Rome) uses the arena to consolidate his power.  Maximus hides his identity at first, but when he reveals himself in the Colosseum, Commodus is shaken.  Lucilla and several senators secretly work with Maximus to overthrow Commodus and restore the Republic.  The extended edition adds scenes showing the Senate’s internal struggles and Commodus’ increasing paranoia.  The story builds toward a final confrontation in the arena, where Maximus, wounded and exhausted, kills Commodus but dies shortly after.  His death inspires the Senate to reclaim authority, and Juba buries Maximus’ small tokens of home in the arena sand, promising they will meet again.
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;  powerful and immersive;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Gladiator” remains one of the most compelling historical epics of the last few decades.  I’ve read the extended edition doesn’t radically change the film, but it enriches the political stakes and gives a bit more context to Commodus’ insecurity and Lucilla’s impossible position.  As stated above, the changes weren’t big enough for me to notice / remember.  The emotional through‑line (Maximus’ grief, loyalty, and drive for justice) still hits hard and is the core of the hero’s motivation (revenge).  The movie balances action, character drama, and political intrigue in a way that feels both old-fashioned and modern.  It’s a strong, confident film that earns its big moments.
Acting:  Crowe carries the movie with a realistic, physical performance that never feels showy.  His Maximus is stoic, wounded, and quietly intense, and the emotional scenes land because he underplays them.  Phoenix is excellent as Commodus — insecure, jealous, and dangerous in a way that feels all too human.  Connie Nielsen brings dignity and sadness to Lucilla, and her scenes with Phoenix are some of the film’s most tense.  Oliver Reed (in his final role) gives Proximo a mix of cynicism and rough mentorship that adds texture to the middle act.  Djimon Hounsou provides heart and warmth as Juba.  Richard Harris, though only in the early part of the film, sets the tone with his weary, philosophical presence.  The ensemble works well together, and nobody feels out of place.
Filming / FX:  Ridley Scott’s visual style is on full display:  sweeping landscapes, gritty battlefields, and the grandeur of Rome recreated with a mix of practical sets and digital extensions.  The opening battle is chaotic but readable, and the gladiator fights are staged with weight and impact.  The extended edition includes a few additional shots and transitions, but nothing that changes the overall look.  (Again, it’s hard to say though, because my memories of the theatrical version have faded.  LoL)  The visual effects, while dated in a few moments, still hold up remarkably well for a film from 2000.  The sound design (swords, crowds, drums) adds to the immersion.  The score by Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard remains iconic and does a lot of emotional heavy lifting.  The film feels big, lived-in, and dangerous.  Note:  the various shots of the Colosseum of Rome are awesome (even the slightly fuzzy exterior shots which are clearly FX)!!  LoL.
Problems:  A few.  Some of the digital crowd shots look their age, and a couple of transitions in the extended edition feel “off” (that’s a highly technical term).  Commodus can come across as overly theatrical in a few scenes (IMHO), though Phoenix mostly keeps him believable.  The political subplot, while interesting, occasionally slows the pacing.  The film also leans heavily into mythic heroism, which means some historical details are simplified or ignored.  None of these issues break the movie, but they stand out on repeat viewings.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  “Gladiator” still works — emotionally, visually, and dramatically.  The extended edition doesn’t change the core film so it’s still worth watching for fans.  Maximus’ journey from general to slave to gladiator to symbol of justice is compelling, and the film’s mix of action and character drama still feels satisfying.  The final scenes (Maximus’ death, Commodus’ downfall, and Juba’s quiet farewell) remain moving.  I enjoyed it as much now as I did when it first came out.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “Gladiator” is a modern classic — a well-made, emotionally resonant epic with strong performances and memorable visuals.  Its Academy Awards reflect the film’s impact, and its historical significance in reviving the large-scale epic is undeniable.  The extended edition adds depth without disrupting the story.  If you enjoy historical dramas, action films, or Ridley Scott’s work, this one is a MUST see.
.
Click here (4 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 »

Never Tell Me The Odds…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 22, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Star Wars:  The Empire Strikes Back” (1980) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sci-fi / fantasy adventure “Star Wars:  The Empire Strikes Back”, directed by Irvin Kershner and starring Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker, the young Jedi-in-training trying to understand his destiny;  Harrison Ford as Han Solo, the sarcastic smuggler whose bravado hides a growing sense of responsibility;  Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia Organa, the Rebel leader balancing duty, grief, and a complicated attraction to Han;  Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrissian, the charming administrator of Cloud City with divided loyalties; and David Prowse (body) and James Earl Jones (voice) as Darth Vader, the relentless enforcer of the Empire whose pursuit of Luke drives the story;  Anthony Daniels as C-3PO, Kenny Baker as R2-D2, Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca, and Frank Oz as Yoda, the ancient Jedi Master who becomes Luke’s teacher.  This is the second film released in the original trilogy and widely considered the strongest of the series.
Background:  I first saw this film in theaters during its original run in 1980.  I was in my mid-20s, and like most people my age, I had found the first “Star Wars” (1977) entertaining.  Unfortunately, I was a resolute “Trekkie“, NOT a “Star Wars” fan, so I had a natural predisposition to look for faults in this and the original film.  “Star Wars:  The Empire Strikes Back” was one of the earliest movies I remember where the sequel wasn’t just “more of the same” — it was darker, deeper, and (IMHO) better for the story, the acting and (particularly) the FX.  Released in 1980, the film received multiple Academy Award nominations and won two competitive Oscars (Best Sound and Best Visual Effects), plus a Special Achievement Award for sound effects editing.  Historically, it is considered one of the most influential sequels ever made.  It is one of the rare follow-up that expands the universe, deepens the characters, and raises the emotional stakes.  It also contains one of the most famous plot twists in movie history, which has been referenced, parodied, and analyzed for over forty years.
Plot:  The story picks up after the destruction of the Death Star.  The Rebel Alliance is hiding on the ice planet Hoth, where Luke, Han, Leia, and the rest of the resistance team are trying to regroup.  Vader is obsessed with finding Luke and sends probes across the galaxy.  After a major Imperial assault, the Rebels scatter:  Han, Leia, Chewbacca, and C-3PO flee in the Millennium Falcon, while Luke heads to the swamp world of Dagobah to train with Yoda.  Han and Leia’s relationship grows under pressure, but they are eventually captured and taken to Cloud City, where Lando is forced into a deal with Vader.  Luke senses his friends are in danger and abandons his training to confront Vader.  The film builds toward the now-iconic duel between Luke and Vader, where Luke learns a devastating truth about his parentage.  The movie ends on a cliffhanger:  Han is frozen in carbonite and taken away, Luke is injured and shaken, and the Rebels regroup to plan their next move.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong across the board;  excellent for its time;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  Even to this day, “Star Wars:  The Empire Strikes Back” is one of the rare sequels that surpasses the original (not that THAT is saying much).  The story is more mature, the stakes feel higher, and the characters grow cinematically in meaningful ways.  The tone is darker, but it is not grim.  It’s simply more serious about the consequences of war, loyalty, and destiny.  The pacing is steady, the emotional beats mostly land, and the ending (unresolved as it is) is really just a teaser for part three of the trilogy.  This is the film that turned “Star Wars” from a fun space adventure film into a true Sci-Fi film saga (with more promised).
Acting:  Hamill gives a much improved performance than in the original trilogy film. Luke is still young and impulsive, but you can see him wrestling with responsibility and the weight of becoming a Jedi.  Ford is also better as Han — more funny, brave, and vulnerable in ways the first film barely hinted at.  Fisher brings strength and intelligence to Leia, and her chemistry with Ford is much better here than in the first movie, (but IMHO still lacking).  Billy Dee Williams adds charm and style as Lando.  Frank Oz’s performance as Yoda deserves special mention — he brings humor, wisdom, and emotional depth to a character who could easily have been silly.  Vader remains one of cinema’s great villains, and James Earl Jones’ voice work is iconic.
Filming / FX:  The effects still hold up remarkably well for a film made in 1980.  The stop-motion walkers on Hoth, the asteroid field chase, the Cloud City design, and the light-saber duel are all memorable.  The practical sets (especially Dagobah) look realistic and atmospheric.  The sound design is excellent, and John Williams’ score is (again) one of his best, introducing the “Imperial March,” which became Vader’s signature theme.  The film’s look is darker and more textured than the first movie, and it fits the story perfectly.
Problems:  A ton.  The pacing in the middle is slow, particularly during some of the Dagobah training scenes.  C-3PO’s comic relief unnecessarily / frequently undercuts the tension.  The Han-Leia romance, while more effective overall than in the original is never really believable to me.  IMHO Fisher never develops romantic chemistry with either Hamill or Ford.  And the ending (while iconic) is not a “complete” story, which may bother viewers who prefer tidy resolutions.  My main problem with the film (and the series) is the poor science and the multiple continuity errors.  And, this second installment has FAR more of both than in the first.  None of these issues seriously hurt the film, to the point of making it unwatchable, but they are as noticeable on re-watch as they were the first time I saw the film.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  “Star Wars:  The Empire Strikes Back” is one of those movies (and the whole trilogy for that matter) that is still re-watchable with age.  The characters feel more real, the stakes feel more personal, and the emotional moments still land.  The action scenes are exciting, the quieter scenes are thoughtful, and the overall story is better.  Even knowing the twist, the film still works because it’s about more than the reveal — it’s about Luke’s journey, Han and Leia’s relationship, and the growing threat of the Empire.
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended for its cultural impact.  “Star Wars:  The Empire Strikes Back” is widely regarded as one of the greatest sequels ever made, and for good reason.  With its Academy Awards, its historical significance, and its lasting cultural impact, it stands as the emotional and narrative backbone of the original trilogy.  Watch it for the character development, the iconic moments, the excellent effects (for their time), and the way it deepens the entire “Star Wars” universe.  If you enjoy sci-fi, adventure, or classic Hollywood storytelling, this film is worth a viewing.
.
Click here (22 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 »

Howdy, Uh, How’re You Guys Doin’?

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 16, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Abyss – Special Edition” (1989) — movie review
Today’s review is for the science-fiction underwater adventure “The Abyss – Special Edition” (1989), written and directed by James Cameron and starring Ed Harris as Bud Brigman (the foreman of an underwater drilling platform trying to hold his crew together under extreme pressure);  Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Lindsey Brigman (Bud’s estranged wife and the designer of the rig — brilliant, stubborn, and usually correct);  Michael Biehn as Lt. Coffey (the Navy SEAL leader whose stress and paranoia escalate the danger);  Leo Burmester as Catfish (Bud’s loyal right-hand man);  Todd Graff as Hippy (the tech specialist with a pet rat and a healthy distrust of authority);  and Kimberly Scott as One Night (a steady presence who keeps the crew grounded).  Together, they form the core of a story that mixes deep-sea tension, Cold War nerves, and first-contact wonder.
Background:  I first saw “The Abyss” on TV and VHS back in the early 90s, but it was the theatrical cut — the shorter version that trims out a major subplot and changes the tone of the ending.  I’ve seen this extended version on TV / cable, but I’ve had to wait several years now for it to fall to my price point to buy the streaming version.  This Special Edition restores almost 28 minutes of footage, including the entire “tidal wave” sequence and the broader Cold War context.  These additions make the story feel more complete and give the ending a lot more emotional and thematic weight.  Released in 1989, the film earned four Academy Award nominations and won the Oscar for Best Visual Effects — impressive given the era and the technical challenges of underwater filming.  Historically, the movie is significant for pioneering digital water effects (the “pseudopod” sequence) and for being one of the most difficult shoots in Hollywood history.  This was my first time watching the Special Edition all the way through, and it definitely changes how the film plays.
Plot:  The story begins when an American nuclear submarine crashes near a deep ocean trench.  A Navy SEAL team is sent to investigate and commandeers an underwater drilling platform (“Deep Core“) as their base of operations.  Bud and Lindsey, who are in the middle of a divorce, are forced to work together as the crew tries to support the SEAL mission.  As a hurricane approaches the surface support ships, strange events begin happening around the wrecked sub and platform, including lights, currents, and an encounter with a mysterious water-based entity.  As tensions rise, Lt. Coffey becomes increasingly unstable due to pressure sickness and the stress of a potential Cold War confrontation.  He attempts to use a recovered nuclear warhead to “neutralize” the unknown presence.  Bud and the crew try to stop him, leading to underwater chases, near-drownings, and a desperate attempt to disarm the warhead.  Bud volunteers for a one-way dive into the trench to disable the bomb manually.  The Special Edition expands the ending:  the alien species – “Non-Terrestrial Intelligence” (NTIs) reveal they have the power to destroy humanity and nearly do so with massive tidal waves — but they stand down after reading Bud’s messages to Lindsey and seeing examples of human compassion.  The film ends with the NTIs raising one of their enormous ships to the surface, bringing Bud and the crew safely back to daylight.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong across the board;  impressive for its time;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  The Special Edition is a much better film than the theatrical cut.  The added scenes give the story more context and make the ending feel more emotionally earned rather than abrupt – as in the original.  The movie balances tension, character drama, and a sense of discovery in a way that still works today.  The underwater setting feels dangerous and claustrophobic, and the emotional core — Bud and Lindsey’s relationship — holds the whole thing together.  The restored Cold War subplot also gives the NTIs’ final decision more weight.  Overall, it’s a strong mix of sci-fi, adventure, and human drama.
Acting:  Harris and Mastrantonio carry the film.  Harris plays Bud as a working-class leader who cares deeply about his crew, and his emotional scenes feel honest rather than forced.  Mastrantonio is excellent as Lindsey — sharp, determined, and vulnerable without losing her edge.  Their chemistry sells the relationship even when they’re arguing.  Biehn does a convincing job as Coffey, showing the gradual slide into paranoia / depth related psychosis without turning it into a cartoon.  The supporting cast is steady, with Graff and Burmester adding some needed humor and warmth.  Nobody feels out of place, and the ensemble works well together.
Filming / FX:  The production was famous for being one of the hardest shoots ever, and it shows — in a good way.  The underwater sets look real because they are real.  The sense of weight, pressure, and danger comes through in almost every scene.  The digital water effects (the pseudopod) were groundbreaking at the time and still hold up surprisingly well.  The Special Edition’s tidal wave sequence is ambitious and adds scale to the story.  The lighting, sound design, and practical effects all contribute to a believable underwater world.  Some shots look dated now, but most of the film’s visuals still work because they’re grounded in physical sets and real water.  As an aside, I’d heard of “super‑oxygenated” fluids in the 1970s when I was high school, but I’d never seen the technology demonstrated in a Hollywood film before.  I thought that was “cool”!
Problems:  A few.  The movie is long — especially in this Special Edition — and some viewers may find the pacing slow in the middle (I didn’t).  The Cold War subplot, while important, can feel heavy-handed at times.  Coffey’s descent into paranoia is effective, but the film leans on it a bit too much to drive the conflict.  Some of the underwater dialogue is hard to hear (a common issue with diving scenes).  And the final rescue / revival scene, while emotional, stretches believability.  My personal problem is the use of “NTI“, implying they are from outer space (like “The Day The Earth Stood Still“) rather than a parallel or more advanced Earth species which just happened to evolve in the deep-water ocean (like “Atlantis” in various Aquaman films).  Other than superior technology, there was nothing to indicate the “aliens” were from off-world.  None of these issues break the film, but they stand out on a first viewing.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  The Special Edition feels like the version Cameron probably always intended.  The story is more complete, the themes are clearer, and the ending lands better.  The underwater setting is still unique, and the characters feel real enough that you care what happens to them.  The movie has tension, heart, and a sense of wonder that many modern sci-fi films lack.  I fully enjoyed it – as I expected to — especially the expanded ending, which gives the film a more hopeful and thoughtful conclusion.
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended. “The Abyss – Special Edition” is a well-made, ambitious sci-fi adventure that holds up remarkably well.  Its Oscar-winning visual effects were groundbreaking, and the restored footage adds depth and meaning to the story.  Rated PG-13 for language and some intense scenes, it’s suitable for most viewers.  If you like character-driven science fiction, underwater adventure, or James Cameron’s earlier work, this version is definitely worth your time.  The Special Edition is the better cut — more complete, more emotional, and more satisfying.
.
Click here (16 March) 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 »

Good Things Never Last, Mister Denham

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 22, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“King Kong” (2005) — movie review
Today’s review is for the 2005 remake “King Kong,” directed by Peter Jackson and starring Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow (a struggling vaudeville performer whose compassion becomes the emotional anchor of the story);  Jack Black as Carl Denham (the reckless filmmaker whose ambition puts everyone in danger);  Adrien Brody as Jack Driscoll (the playwright who ends up playing reluctant hero);  Kyle Chandler as Bruce Baxter (the preening movie star who talks brave and runs early);  Evan Parke as Ben Hayes (the steady, competent first mate who actually keeps the Venture functioning);  Thomas Kretschmann as Captain Englehorn (the cautious skipper trying to balance risk and responsibility);  Jamie Bell as Jimmy (the young deckhand looking for direction);  Colin Hanks as Preston (Denham’s overworked assistant);  and Andy Serkis as Kong (the giant ape brought to life through motion-capture with surprising emotional detail).  The film revisits the 1933 classic with modern effects, expanded character beats, and a three-hour runtime that tries to turn a monster movie into a full adventure epic. (IMHO – it succeeds.)
Background:  With this review, I’ve seen / reviewed the three significant versions of “King Kong,” (1933 review here and 1976 review here) and each one reflects the era that made it.  I watched this on my DVD copy and am still waiting for the streaming version to drop to my price point ($5).  The 2005 version arrived two years after Peter Jackson wrapped-up “The Lord of the Rings,” and he had the budget, the team, and the industry goodwill to attempt a massive remake of the original 1933 version (review here).  With a production cost of over $200 million, it was one of the most expensive films ever made at the time.  It earned strong reviews, solid box office, and three Academy Awards — Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, and Best Visual Effects.  Historically, it stands as an early showcase of large-scale digital creature work and motion-capture acting, setting a template for the next decade of blockbuster film making.
Plot:  Set in 1933, the story follows Carl Denham, a filmmaker on the verge of losing his career.  Desperate for a hit, he recruits Ann Darrow and playwright Jack Driscoll for a rushed voyage aboard the Venture.  Denham’s real target is the uncharted Skull Island, where the crew encounters hostile natives, prehistoric creatures, and the giant ape (which the natives call) Kong.  Ann is captured and offered to Kong, who forms a protective bond with her.  The crew mounts a rescue, battling dinosaurs, insects, and the island’s dangers.  Kong is eventually subdued and shipped to New York, where Denham turns him into a stage attraction.  Predictably, Kong breaks free, rampages through the city, and climbs the Empire State Building with Ann.  The film ends with the famous biplane attack and Kong’s fall, followed by Denham’s “beauty killed the beast” line.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong;  impressive but uneven;  several;  YES.
Any good?  Yes.  “King Kong” (2005) is a big, earnest, sometimes overlong adventure film that succeeds more often than it stumbles.  It’s ambitious, emotional, and visually striking.  When it works, it works because Jackson leans into the sincerity of the original story rather than trying to reinvent it.  The heart of the film is the connection between Ann and Kong, and that part lands.  If anything, it is significantly better than the original version here.
Acting:  Naomi Watts is the film’s anchor.  Her scenes with Kong feel committed and believable, even when she’s reacting to empty space.  Jack Black’s Denham walks a line between funny and irritating;  sometimes the manic energy fits, sometimes it feels too broad.  Adrien Brody gives Driscoll a quiet steadiness, though the script doesn’t always give him much to do beyond “rescue Ann.”  Kyle Chandler has fun skewering movie-star vanity as Bruce Baxter, and Evan Parke’s Hayes brings a grounded, professional presence that makes the Venture feel like a real working ship.  Thomas Kretschmann’s Englehorn is cautious and pragmatic, and Jamie Bell’s Jimmy gives the crew a younger perspective.  Colin Hanks does solid work as Preston, the assistant who spends most of the film trying to keep Denham from sinking the production.  Andy Serkis’s Kong remains the standout — expressive, physical, and surprisingly emotional.
Filming / FX:  The visual effects are the film’s biggest strength and also its biggest source of excess.  Kong himself looks terrific — detailed, expressive, and weighty.  The Empire State Building finale still holds up . Skull Island is more mixed.  The dinosaur stampede is chaotic to the point of distraction, and some digital environments feel overloaded.  The insect pit sequence is effective visually but “really” makes NO sense and goes on FAR too long.  The cinematography captures both Depression-era New York and the wildness of Skull Island, but the film’s length makes some of the spectacle feel repetitive.  The sound work — which won Oscars — is excellent.
Problems:  Several.  The biggest issues in any EPIC are always filling the time and evening out the pacing.  At over three hours, the film takes too long to get moving and too long to wrap up.  Some action scenes feel extended simply because the effects team could extend them.  The tone shifts abruptly — adventure, horror, slapstick, romance — sometimes all in the same stretch.  There is no explanation how or why the natives are on the island, let alone in this movie, except to cut stone figurines and unusually located architecture.  A few characters are thinly written, and the film occasionally leans too hard on nostalgia instead of trusting its own ideas.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes!  The emotional beats between Ann and Kong work, and the final act is strong.  The film’s ambition is admirable, and many individual moments (and battles) are memorable.  But the length and uneven pacing keep it from being a film I’d revisit very often.  It’s impressive, heartfelt, and occasionally exhausting.
Final Recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended with caveats.  “King Kong” (2005) is a technically impressive and emotionally sincere remake that honors the original while expanding its scope.  With three Academy Awards and a notable place in early-2000s blockbuster history, it’s worth watching for its creature work, its performances, and its attempt to turn the already classic monster story into a full-scale epic.  Just be prepared for a LONG runtime and some uneven stretches along the way.
.
Click here (22 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The Ape Who Walks Like A Man (And Swims)

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 20, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“King Kong” (1976) — movie review
Today’s review is for the 1976 remake of the film classic:  “King Kong” (1933) (review here).  This version is directed by John Guillermin and stars Jeff Bridges as Jack Prescott (a bearded and long-haired, idealistic primate paleontologist who stows away looking for evidence of a legendary creature);  Jessica Lange in her film debut as Dwan (an aspiring actress rescued at sea and swept into the expedition’s chaos);  and Charles Grodin as Fred Wilson (the oil-company executive whose greed drives the entire mess).  Supporting roles include John Randolph as the Petrox chairman, Rene Auberjonois as Roy Bagley, and Ed Lauter as the ship’s captain.  The film replaces the 1933 “filmmaker expedition” with a corporate one, but the basic idea remains:  a giant ape, a woman, and a world not built for either of them.
Background:  I was in the Army when this first came out, so I never saw it on the “big” screen.  I first saw this version on TV sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s, but still long after I’d seen the 1933 original – although it (the original) was its own distant memory.  Back then, this was “the” King Kong for for the 70s-80s generation — the one with the World Trade Center posters and the big mechanical ape that was supposed to be the future of special effects. Released in 1976, the film was a major box-office hit and won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects (shared with “Logan’s Run”).  It’s also historically significant for launching Jessica Lange’s career and for being one of the most heavily marketed films of the decade.  The hype was enormous;  the movie itself…  (IMHO) far less so, but still (I guess) memorable.
Plot:  Fred Wilson, an executive for the Petrox oil company, charters a ship to a mysterious island hidden by a permanent fog bank.  He hopes to find untapped oil reserves.  Jack Prescott sneaks aboard, convinced the island hides a giant creature. Along the way they rescue Dwan, the lone survivor of an unexplained yacht explosion.  Once on the island, the crew discovers a native tribe performing a ritual for “the god” — Kong.  Dwan is kidnapped and offered as a sacrifice, and Kong carries her off.  Jack and the crew mount a rescue, while Wilson sees dollar signs and decides to bring Kong back alive as a corporate PR stunt.  Kong is captured, shipped to New York, and displayed in a tacky Petrox publicity stunt.  Predictably, he breaks free, searches for Dwan, and climbs the World Trade Center towers.  The military intervenes, and Kong falls to his death in a hail of gunfire while Dwan and Jack watch helplessly.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  No;  amateur;  the filming is poor, but I guess the FX were impressive for their time;  many;  no.
Any good?  No.  This film tries to be a straightforward adventure movie with a 1970s gloss — part disaster film, part creature feature, part romance.  It doesn’t have the mythic punch of the 1933 original, and while and occasionally ambitious, it fails (IMHO) to be entertaining.  With a little more effort, this might have been acceptable as a “camp” movie, but no, I believe it was an actual attempt at “adventure”.  LoL.
Acting:  It is hard to believe that anyone who participated in this film EVER got another acting job in movies.  They are ALL uniformly terrible and unbelievable.  This is the weakest performance I’ve ever seen Jeff Bridges give.  Jessica Lange, in her debut, is practically unwatchable and it doesn’t matter if she’s in a romantic scene or supposedly drama.  I have never been a fan of Charles Grodin and although he leans hard into corporate sleaze, he just can’t carry it off.  The good news is Kong stomps him.  LoL.  Even the monkey thought his performance was that bad.
Filming / FX:  The effects are a mixed bag.  Rick Baker’s performance in the Kong suit is the best part of the whole film — in the close-ups, he does manage to make Kong expressive.  The pure physical aspects are far less convincing.  Kong stands and walks erect.  Apes don’t walk like men!  They barely (and rarely) stand erect like men…  And apes don’t cross rivers!  They are heavier than water and sink.  But whatever…  The much-hyped full-size mechanical Kong barely worked and was used sparingly.  The miniature work and rear projection show their age, but for 1976, the film was a technical achievement and probably deserved its Oscar.  The New York finale on the Twin Towers is still striking, even if the compositing is rough by modern standards.  Finally, although this was supposed to be a hi-definition version, my viewing experience was mostly grainy.  I checked my settings and the “problem” didn’t appear to be on my end.
Problems:  Plenty.  The pacing drags in the through-out.  Dwan is rescued in a life raft, but show NO physical effects of being lost at sea for ANY length of time.  Not even a mild sunburn.  The oil-company plot feels dated and sometimes silly.  Kong’s size seems to change depending on the shot.  The romance between Dwan and Kong is played more earnestly than it probably should be.  And the “Petrox roadshow” sequence is unintentionally funny (make that STUPID) — a giant ape in chains while Grodin shouts about corporate branding.  The film leans heavily on 1970s fashion and dialogue, which hasn’t aged gracefully.  There are also a host of continuity errors, not the least of which are:  1) Kong is approached by three gun-ships;  he manages to smash one;  he is continued to be attacked by THREE gun-ships, so he smashes one again;  and then, 2) when he falls from the top of one of the Twin Towers as Dwan stands near-by (at the top), she is standing next to him on the ground faster than an elevator could possibly have brought her down.
Did I enjoy the film?  No.  It’s mostly so bad it’s tedious, and worse, it has little to no charm.  The New York finale still (barely) works, and the cast sinks the movie even when the script doesn’t.  It’s probably not the worst Kong movie, but it’s also FAR from the best.
Final Recommendation:  Skip it to Very Low recommendation.  “King Kong” (1976) is more of a time capsule of 1970s blockbuster filmmaking — ambitious, flawed, and ultimately forgettable.  It did win the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects and holds historic significance for its marketing campaign, its use of the World Trade Center, and Jessica Lange’s debut.  If you are desperate for creature features, practical effects, or 1970s adventure films, it’s barely worth watching once.  It may not be a definitive Kong, but it’s a relevant chapter in the character’s long cinematic history.
.
Click here (20 February) 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 »

We Can’t Defeat Their Technology, We’ve Got To Beat THEM…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 23, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“War of the Worlds” (1953) — movie review
Today’s review is for the landmark science fiction thriller “War of the Worlds” (1953), starring Gene Barry as Dr. Clayton Forrester (a scientist caught between rational inquiry and existential dread), Ann Robinson as Sylvia Van Buren (a pastor’s daughter whose faith and compassion anchor the human response), Les Tremayne as Maj. Gen. Mann (the military’s pragmatic voice of defense), and Robert Cornthwaite as Dr. Pryor (a colleague embodying scientific skepticism).  Directed by Byron Haskin and produced by George Pal, the film translates H. G. Wells’ 1898 novel into Cold War‑era anxieties, where alien invasion becomes a metaphor for both technological hubris and human vulnerability.
Background:  Some of my earliest memories of TV were of the westerns we watched regularly.  One of those shows was “Bat Masterson” which starred Gene Barry.  I don’t remember seeing this film in black and white, so I must have first viewed it after we got a color TV set in the early 1960s.  This was the first “invasion of Earth” movie I can recall seeing – but obviously I’d seen some of the individual “monster from outer space” movies.  LoL.  Anyway, this movie set MY early personal standard for the genre.  Released in 1953 by Paramount Pictures, “War of the Worlds” was the first major cinematic adaptation of Wells’ novel.  It arrived at a time when nuclear fears and Cold War tensions were palpable, and its imagery of annihilation resonated deeply.  The film won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects in 1954, cementing its place as a milestone in science fiction cinema.  It has since been preserved in the U.S. National Film Registry for its cultural and historical significance.
Plot:  The story begins with a meteor crashing near a small California town. Dr. Clayton Forrester investigates, only to discover that the “meteor” is a Martian war machine.  Soon, more cylinders land across the globe, unleashing devastating heat rays and force fields impervious to human weaponry. Cities fall, armies collapse, and humanity teeters on extinction.  Amid the chaos, Clayton and Sylvia struggle to survive, their journey culminating in Los Angeles as civilization crumbles.  The Martians’ sudden demise — felled not by bombs but by Earth’s microbes — underscores Wells’ original theme:  human survival lies not in might, but in the overlooked forces of nature.
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 archetypal;  groundbreaking and iconic;  a few dated elements;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “War of the Worlds” remains one of the most influential science fiction films from its era.  It reframes Wells’ Victorian cautionary tale into a Cold War allegory, where annihilation feels imminent and salvation uncertain.  Its pacing is steady, the stakes immense, and its thematic resonance enduring.
Acting:  Gene Barry delivers a steady, rational performance as Dr. Clayton, embodying the scientist as reluctant hero.  Ann Robinson’s Sylvia balances vulnerability with quiet strength, her preacher’s daughters faith contrasting with Clayton’s empiricism.  Les Tremayne and Robert Cornthwaite lend credibility to the military and scientific perspectives.  Really, all of the performances are archetypal rather than deeply nuanced, but they serve the film’s allegorical intent.
Filming / FX:  The film’s Oscar-winning special effects remain iconic.  The Martian war machines — sleek, manta‑like craft with pulsating heat rays — are unforgettable.  Miniatures, matte paintings, and sound design (including Paul Frees’ narration) create a sense of awe and terror.  George Barnes’ cinematography captures both pastoral calm and urban devastation, while Leith Stevens’ score heightens tension without overwhelming.
Problems:  A few.  The romantic subplot between Clayton and Sylvia is undeveloped, serving more as narrative glue than emotional depth.  The film’s religious overtones, while thematically consistent, may feel heavy-handed to modern viewers.  Many effects, though groundbreaking in their day, show their age on close inspection.  The biggest logical problem with the film is the faulty biology.  If we have bacteria and viruses which can wipe out the aliens in days, then they almost certainly have their own versions which would kill humanity and probably all life on earth.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “War of the Worlds” is both thrilling and sobering.  It entertains with spectacle while provoking reflection on human fragility.  Watching the Martians succumb to microbes is both ironic and humbling — a reminder that survival often comes from forces beyond human control.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “War of the Worlds” (1953) is a cornerstone of cinematic science fiction — a film that marries spectacle with allegory, fear with faith.  Watch it for its historic significance, its Oscar‑winning effects, but its enduring message is that humanity’s survival depends less on strength than on humility before nature.
.
Click here (23 December) 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 »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started