Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Central Intelligence Agency’

$366,400 American Dollars Cash

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

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

Read Full Post »

Most Americans Don’t Want Freedom… They Want Security

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

“Snowden” (2016) — movie review
Today’s review is for the biographical political-tech-thriller “Snowden”, directed by Oliver Stone and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden, the young intelligence contractor whose growing alarm over mass surveillance pushes him toward a life-altering decision;  Shailene Woodley as Lindsay Mills, Snowden’s girlfriend, whose relationship becomes strained as his secrecy deepens;  Melissa Leo as Laura Poitras, the documentary filmmaker who helps bring Snowden’s story to the world;  Zachary Quinto as Glenn Greenwald, the journalist whose reporting ignites the global debate;  Tom Wilkinson as Ewen MacAskill, the veteran reporter providing balance and caution;  and Rhys Ifans as Corbin O’Brian, the composite mentor figure representing the intelligence establishment’s worldview.  Supporting roles include Nicolas Cage as Hank Forrester, a sidelined intelligence analyst who hints at the system’s long-standing excesses, and Timothy Olyphant as a CIA operative who embodies the “ends justify the means” mentality.  The film follows Snowden’s path from idealistic Army recruit to disillusioned NSA contractor, showing how a series of small realizations accumulate into a moral crisis.
Background:  I first watched this film with my brother pre-COVID.  He was a massive conspiracy theorist and saw the NSA and CIA behind every political occurrence – domestic or international.  This is my third viewing since COVID and second in the last year, but I’ve just never gotten around to reviewing the film.  I first heard about Edward Snowden back in 2013 when the news broke about the NSA’s mass-surveillance programs.  At the time, I didn’t know what to make of him:  whistleblower, traitor, hero, something in between,  and frankly, I still don’t have a neat label.  Released in 2016, “Snowden” did not receive any Academy Award nominations, but it is historically significant because it dramatizes one of the most consequential intelligence leaks in modern history.  The film is based partly on Luke Harding’s book “The Snowden Files” and partly on the real-life documentary “Citizenfour” (which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature).  While the movie takes dramatic liberties, it captures the broad arc of Snowden’s transformation and the global debate his disclosures triggered about privacy, security, and government power.
Plot:  The film moves between two timelines:  Snowden’s interviews with journalists in a Hong Kong hotel room in 2013, and the earlier years that led him there.  We see him join the Army, wash out due to injury, and then enter the CIA as a bright, patriotic computer specialist. Under Corbin O’Brian’s mentorship, Snowden learns the technical and political realities of intelligence work.  As he moves through various assignments (Geneva, Japan, Hawaii) he becomes increasingly disturbed by the scope of surveillance programs that sweep up data from ordinary citizens with little oversight.  His relationship with Lindsay suffers as he becomes more secretive and stressed.  Eventually, Snowden decides he cannot stay silent.  He gathers classified documents, contacts Poitras and Greenwald, and meets them in Hong Kong to reveal what he has taken.  The film ends with the publication of the leaks, Snowden’s flight to Russia, and a brief appearance by the real Edward Snowden discussing the consequences of his choice.
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;  clean and effective;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Snowden” is a steady, accessible political drama that focuses more on the human side of the story than on the technical details.  It doesn’t try to overwhelm the viewer with jargon.  Instead, it shows how a series of small compromises and realizations can push someone toward a drastic decision.  The film is not a thriller in the traditional sense.  It’s more of a character study wrapped in a political argument.  And it works on / within its own terms / framework.
Acting:  Gordon-Levitt gives a controlled, thoughtful performance.  He captures Snowden’s quiet mannerisms and internal conflict without turning him into a caricature.  Woodley brings warmth and frustration to Lindsay, grounding the story in the personal cost of Snowden’s secrecy.  Melissa Leo and Zachary Quinto are convincing as the journalists trying to understand the magnitude of what they’re hearing.  Rhys Ifans is particularly effective as O’Brian — calm, confident, and unsettling in his certainty that surveillance is simply the price of modern life.  Nicolas Cage’s small role adds a touch of melancholy, hinting at how long concerns about overreach have existed inside the system.
Filming / FX:  The filming is clean and straightforward.  Oliver Stone uses a mix of handheld shots, muted colors, and digital overlays to show how surveillance systems operate without turning the movie into a tech demo.  The scenes in the Hong Kong hotel room are tight and tense, relying on close‑ups and quiet conversations.  The visual effects are minimal:  mostly screens, interfaces, and a few stylized sequences showing data flows, and they serve the story rather than distract from it.  The film’s pacing is steady, and the editing keeps the dual timelines clear.
Problems:  A few.  The film simplifies some of the technical and legal issues, which is understandable but occasionally makes the story feel too neat.  Some characters, particularly the intelligence officials, are drawn broadly, leaning toward archetypes rather than fully developed people.  The romance subplot sometimes feels like it’s there to break up the political material rather than deepen it.  And the final cameo by the real Snowden, is interesting, but kind of breaks the fourth wall.  None of these issues spoil the film.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s a thoughtful, steady drama that raises important questions without shouting at the audience.  I appreciated that it focused on Snowden as a person:  his doubts, his health issues, his relationship — rather than turning him into a symbol.  The film doesn’t demand that you agree with Snowden’s choices;  it simply shows how he arrived at them.  It’s not a movie I’d re-watch often, but it held my attention and made me think.
Final Recommendation:  Strong for the film / MUST see for the political threat it establishes for the viewer:  so, strong to must see recommendation.  “Snowden” is a well-acted, accessible political drama that captures the tension and moral weight of one of the most significant intelligence leaks in recent history.  While it didn’t receive Academy Award recognition, its historical significance is clear, and the film provides a solid entry point into the debate over privacy, surveillance, and government power.  If you’re interested in modern politics, civil liberties, or character-driven dramas based on real events, it’s worth watching.  Just remember:  the real story is still unfolding and will get MUCH worse in the next few years as Artificial Intelligence takes over the surveillance. “A word to the wise should suffice…“
.
Click here (8 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 »

You Must Be Important… You Got The Whole Plane To Yourself

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

“Zero Dark Thirty” (2012) — movie review
Today’s review is for the modern-era manhunt thriller “Zero Dark Thirty” (2012), directed by Kathryn Bigelow and starring Jessica Chastain as Maya — a young CIA analyst whose entire professional life narrows down to one target;  Jason Clarke as Dan — an interrogator whose questionable methods (torture) define the film’s early tone;  Kyle Chandler as Joseph Bradley — the Islamabad station chief juggling politics and field pressure;  Jennifer Ehle as Jessica — a senior analyst whose confidence and experience shape Maya’s early years;  Mark Strong as George — the D.C. overseer pushing for results;  and Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt as members of SEAL Team Six, the boots on the ground for the final raid.  Supporting roles include Harold Perrineau, Edgar Ramirez, Reda Kateb, Fares Fares, and James Gandolfini (in a brief role as the CIA Director).  Together they form the backbone of a procedural story built around the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Background:  I never saw this film in theaters.  I caught it much later (2020-ish) on streaming after hearing it was “the” movie about the bin Laden raid.  The “delay” was mainly because I heard and took on board the political noise around it — torture debates, accuracy debates, and whether the film was too close to real events.  This was only my second viewing of this film.  Released in 2012, “Zero Dark Thirty” received five Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actress (Chastain).  It won one Oscar for Best Sound Editing (shared).  Historically, it stands out as the first major dramatization of the bin Laden operation and one of the few films to tackle the post-9/11 intelligence world with this level of procedural detail.
Plot:  The film follows Maya, a CIA analyst assigned to Pakistan who becomes convinced that a courier named Abu Ahmed is the key to finding bin Laden.  The story moves through years of interrogations, bombings, dead ends, bureaucratic stalls, and occasional breakthroughs.  Maya pushes her superiors, fights internal skepticism, and eventually identifies a suspicious compound in Abbottabad.  After months of surveillance and political hesitation, SEAL Team Six is cleared to conduct the raid.  The final act covers the nighttime assault, the identification of the body, and Maya’s quiet reaction once the mission is complete.
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 performances;  clean, grounded filming;  a few issues;  mostly no.
Any good?  Yes – with a notable qualification.  It’s a long, steady procedural that avoids big speeches and sticks to the grind of intelligence work.  It’s not an action movie except for the last half hour.  Most of the film is people arguing, waiting, and trying to connect dots.  If you like that kind of slow burn, it works. If you don’t, it may feel like homework.  But as a dramatization of a real-world manhunt, it’s compelling.
Acting:  Jessica Chastain carries the film.  Her Maya is driven, frustrated, and increasingly isolated.  She doesn’t play her as a superhero — more like someone who refuses to let go of a thread.  Jason Clarke is memorable in the early interrogation (torture) scenes, balancing confidence with burnout.  Kyle Chandler and Mark Strong both do well as the “management” layer.  The SEAL actors don’t get much character development, but they feel believable as professionals.  Jennifer Ehle adds some warmth and experience before her character’s arc ends abruptly.  Overall, the cast fits the material.
Filming / FX:  Bigelow keeps the camera work straightforward.  The film uses a lot of handheld shots, dim rooms, and dusty exteriors. Nothing feels glossy or overly Hollywood.  The raid sequence is the standout — shot mostly in darkness with night-vision effects that look practical rather than flashy.  The explosions and gunfire are realistic without being overdone.  The sound design is excellent, which makes sense given the Oscar win.  There’s no “incredible” CGI spectacle here;  it’s mostly grounded environments and real locations (or convincing stand-ins).
Problems:  A few minor;  one major.  The film compresses a decade of intelligence work into a single narrative, which means some events feel simplified or too convenient.  The torture scenes are uncomfortable, but the film doesn’t always make clear what was useful and what wasn’t — which is part of why it stirred controversy.  Maya’s character is also written as a near-mythic lone wolf at times, which doesn’t match how intelligence agencies actually function (IMHO).  The pacing drags in the middle third, especially during the long stretches of surveillance.  And while the raid is well done, the geography inside the compound can be confusing on a first viewing.  MY main problem with the film is the portrayal of the Americans ready acceptance of torture and the implication that it was a source of useful / timely information.  Historically, torture has rarely worked – for timely information or otherwise – and one of the big criticisms of this film was the idea that the torture produced useful / actionable intelligence.  I am not denying the Americans conducted torture.  I am saying I found (and find) the acceptance of it (torture) – individually and organizationally – to be HIGHLY objectionable to me as a U.S. citizen.  These people were breaking the law and should have been held accountable, not celebrated in film or let off in real life.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes and no – mostly no.  The depiction of interrogation / torture, ruined the film for me.  This is not a “fun” movie to start with, even if it is interesting and well-made.  The procedural approach kept me engaged, and the final raid is tense even though we know the outcome.  I appreciated that the film didn’t try to turn Maya into an action hero or force a big emotional payoff.  It’s a serious movie about a serious subject, and it mostly sticks to that lane.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate Recommendation (because of the torture scenes and lack of accountability – otherwise, strong to highly recommended).  “Zero Dark Thirty” is historically significant as the first major film to depict the bin Laden raid and one of the few to tackle the post-9/11 intelligence world in detail.  With its Oscar win for Sound Editing and multiple nominations, it stands as a notable film of the 2010s.  Watch it for Chastain’s performance, the grounded procedural style, and the well-executed final act.  It’s not perfect, but it’s a solid, serious film about a major moment in recent history.
.
Click here (28 January) 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 »

Function Follows Form

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Bricklayer” (2024) – movie review
Today’s review is for the espionage action thriller:  “The Bricklayer” (2024), starring:  Aaron Eckhart as Steve Vail (a former CIA operative turned bricklayer, reluctantly pulled back into “the game”);  Nina Dobrev as Kate (a junior CIA agent assigned to assist Vail, sharp but green);  Clifton Collins Jr. as Radek (a rogue ex-operative with a vendetta and a body count);  Tim Blake Nelson as O’Malley (the CIA director, juggling damage control and desperation);  Ilfenesh Hadera as Tye (station chief in Greece, Vail’s former lover and intel broker);  Oliver Trevena as Patricio (Vail’s old friend, caught in the crossfire);  Ori Pfeffer as Sten (a former informant turned gangster, and a key to unraveling the plot).
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film and I approached it with cautious optimism.  I am a fan of Eckhart and seen him in several movies I’ve really enjoyed (“The Core“, “Battle: Los Angles“).  I’ve seen Eckhart play both hero and villain convincingly.  I am unfamiliar with Dobrev.  I bought / watched this film on the strength of Eckhart.
Plot Summary:  Three journalists are murdered in a month, and the CIA is being framed.  One of the victims, Greta Becker, was a vocal critic of U.S. intelligence.  Enter Steve Vail, a former CIA field agent now laying bricks to forget his past.  He’s recruited by Director O’Malley and paired with Kate, a junior agent.  The prime suspect?  Radek — Vail’s old friend and presumed – dead operative, now on a revenge spree.  The trail leads to Greece, where Vail reconnects with Tye and confronts Sten, a gangster with ties to Radek.  Through a mix of brute force, clever tracking, and emotional manipulation, Vail and Kate uncover a conspiracy rooted in betrayal, botched missions, and the ghosts of covert operations.  The climax involves hidden documents in a brick wall (yes, really), a pool party ambush, and a final confrontation that’s more personal than political.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Mostly;  solid;  slick but uneven;  several;  yes, with reservations.
Acting:  Eckhart brings his grizzled (eh, 56 years old) charm to Vail — he’s weary and sarcastic, but still lethal.  Dobrev’s Kate is competent but underwritten;  her arc feels rushed.  It seems as if there is meant to be a sequel where Vail and Kate have a relationship, but that is left up in the air.  Collins Jr. chews scenery as Radek, but his motivations are more sketched (tragic loss of family) than explored (CIA betrayal).  Nelson’s O’Malley is a bureaucratic cipher, and Hadera adds emotional depth (to Vail) as Tye.  Pfeffer’s Sten is a highlight-“low-life” — oddly charismatic, but slimy and dangerous.
Filming / FX:  The filming is polished — Thessaloniki looks gorgeous, and the action sequences are well-staged.  The FX are frequent and effective:  shootouts, explosions, falls, car chases, and one particularly brutal hand-to-hand fight.  The pacing is mostly brisk with a few slow spots in-between the action / fight set pieces.
Problems:  Several.  The plot leans heavily on spy troupes — rogue agents, hidden files, double-crosses.  Kate’s character is underdeveloped, and her dynamic with Vail implies “relationship”, but in the end seems “just” mentor / mentee leading to a possible sequel (with relationship).  The emotional beats (especially Vail’s guilt over Radek’s past) are presented but never fully explored as their personal interactions are actually limited – more flashbacks than real-time.  The bricklayer metaphor is clever but overused — yes, secrets are hidden in brick walls, and, yes, it feels like a gimmick.  Even Vail’s explanation of the choice of profession doesn’t “save” the metaphor.  As usual, professional assassins don’t kill the lead with their first shot(s).  He is injured but recovers miraculously.  The main one-on-one battle is visually interesting, but overlooks the fact that Vail already defeated the baddie in a one against many hand-to-hand fight, so it’s unlikely Vail would have lost the second time.  And, of course, while the whole of the film is “good”, isn’t anyone else getting tired of these geriatric and pre-geriatric stars in action movies?  Either we have NO new young actors to fill these roles or we need to get busy using AI to create them.  (I think they’re out there waiting to be discovered…)
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes, mostly.  It’s a competent thriller with flashes of depth.  Eckhart’s Vail is a compelling lead, and the international setting adds scenery.  Nothing here is groundbreaking, but it’s entertaining.  It’s not that hard to see the bones of a better film underneath the mortar.  (That’s some masonry humor…)
Final Recommendation:  Moderate to Strong Recommendation.  “The Bricklayer” is a solid entry in the spy thriller genre.  If you’re a fan of Eckhart (I am), globe-trotting action, or stories about redemption and revenge, it’s worth a watch.  I enjoyed it as what it is – an action movie with an actor I like.  I’m not sure it was / is good enough to squeeze a sequel out of it, but I’ll watch it if there is.  LoL
.
Click here (1 October) 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 »

Truth, Consequences, and Collateral Damage

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Politics, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 30, 2025| 2 Comments »

“Fair Game” – Director’s Cut (2018) — movie review
Today’s review is for the political biographical drama “Fair Game” – Director’s Cut (2018), starring Naomi Watts as Valerie Plame (a covert CIA operative whose career is destroyed by a political leak), and Sean Penn as Joseph C. Wilson (her husband, a former ambassador to Gabon turned whistleblower whose public dissent triggers the political backlash), David Andrews as Lewis “Scooter” Libby (Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney;  portrayed as a key figure in the leak of Plame’s identity), Adam LeFevre as Karl Rove (Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush;  depicted as part of the political machinery retaliating against Wilson), Tom McCarthy as Jeff Novak (a fictionalized composite journalist representing the media’s complicity in the leak narrative), Bruce McGill as Jim Pavitt (CIA Deputy Director of Operations;  represents the agency’s internal response and institutional pressures), Michael Kelly as Jack Valerie’s (colleague and confidant within the CIA), Noah Emmerich as Bill (Valerie’s friend and fellow operative, offering emotional and professional support), Ty Burrell as Fred (a CIA analyst, pragmatic and skeptical), and Iris Bahr as CPD Agent (a composite character representing internal CIA perspectives and bureaucratic friction).
Background:  I first saw this film several years ago when it was streaming on my cable box.  Watching it again now, with the benefit of hindsight and a few more political scandals under our belt, the film reignites my outrage and makes the threat of a criminal Administration feel even more relevant.  It’s not just a story about about the weaponization of political office, news or truth.  It’s about the cost of speaking it (truth).  It’s a film about the real world impact of having leaders lacking the moral framework to “do the right thing” and their willingness to do what they can get away with (morally right or wrong) rather than what they should.
Plot Summary:  The film dramatizes the real-life fallout from former Ambassador Wilson’s public challenge to the Bush administration’s justification for the Iraq War, and the retaliatory exposure of Plame’s identity.  In the film, Valerie Plame is a CIA officer working undercover on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.  Her husband, Joe Wilson, is asked to investigate claims that Iraq is attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.  He finds no evidence and later publishes an op-ed in “The New York Times” challenging the Bush administration’s justification for the Iraq War.  In fact, he establishes it was virtually impossible for the amount of yellowcake to have been mined and transported without anyone’s knowledge – simply based on the volume and logistics required to move such volume (500 TONS!! That’s 50-60 full truck loads that nobody notices!).  In retaliation, Plame’s identity is leaked to the press — effectively ending her undercover career and putting her contacts and missions at risk.  The film follows the unraveling of their professional and personal lives as they confront betrayal, media scrutiny, and political pressure.  The movie’s story is a bit of a slow burn, but the tension builds as the couple fights to reclaim their integrity and their relationship.
So, how’s the film?  The Acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I like the film?  Short answers:  The film is infuriating – but good, the acting is very good, nothing special (filming or FX), minor, “like” or “enjoy” are too strong of words for how this film made me feel.
Filming / FX:  Other than some documentary style footage of visiting other countries (Niger), there are no “special” filming tricks or FX in this film.  As an aside, I have not seen the theatrical release (2010), so I don’t know what’s “extra” in the Director’s Cut (2018) (my version) that isn’t in the original.
Problems:  There are only two worth mentioning:  1)  This film is targeted for adult audiences.  It’s talking about Federal crimes being initiated from within the White House and as long as Mr. Libby was willing to take the fall and then get let off, there are NO consequences for the Republican Party.  If fact, it emphasizes the opinion that as long as you’re in charge of the government, you can get away with anything – even Federal crimes.  As such, the film assumes a level of political sophistication that might leave casual viewers confused.  (And, by the way, how has allowing that attitude towards criminal action being acceptable worked out for us?)  2)  Because of these actions by the Administration, foreign “actors” / agents who were friendly to the United States were almost certainly tortured and killed.  And NOBODY at the CIA or in the Administration gave a damn!!  Which begs the question, why would anybody in ANY foreign country ever trust the U.S. again – EVER!
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s not a popcorn thriller, but it’s a compelling drama that demands adult attention.  It’s a film about consequences — personal, political, and moral.  Watching it now, it is easy to see how Watergate, IranContra, and WMD have led us step by step to having the current felon / con-artist / mob-boss wannabe in the Oval Office.  As Nixon stated:  “If the President does it.  It’s legal.”  Even when it isn’t!!
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended — especially if you’re interested in post-9/11 politics, media manipulation, and the human cost of government overreach.   “Fair Game” is a reminder that truth isn’t just inconvenient — it can be dangerous.  And sometimes, standing up for what’s “right” can be costly.
.
Click here (30 August) 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 »

Darmok And Jalad At Tanagra

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 18, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Today’s review is for the movie “Arrival” (2016), which is a drama / thriller / SciFi film (mostly drama and SciFi) starring Amy Adams as Dr. Louise Banks (Linguist), Jeremy Renner as Dr. Ian Donnelly (Physicist), Forest Whitaker as Colonel G. T. Weber, Michael Stuhlbarg as Agent Halpern, Mark O’Brien as Captain Marks, Tzi Ma as General Shang (Head of Chinese military).
Background:  I watched this film a couple of years ago, but neglected to review it.  I didn’t really remember it well enough to review, so I had to re-watch it.  (Darn!)  I enjoyed it again.
Plot:  Earth is visited by twelve LARGE space ships which hover at various stops around the planet.  Each of the nations where a ship has landed tries to communicate with their ship.  At first all the nations share communication.  Then they stop.  Dr. Banks, who is teaching at a university, is approached by the U.S. military (Col. Weber and Captain Marks) to try to contact the ship which has “landed” in Montana.  When Dr. Banks arrives, she is met by Dr. Donnelly and National Security / CIA Agent Halpern.  Blah, blah, blah…  Dr. Banks has continuous “dreams / memories” about her daughter who has died as a young teen from some aggressive illness.  The two Doctors make contact and begin communicating with the aliens.  Certain parts of the government believe it is a mistake to communicate / trust the aliens and attempt to blow up the alien ship.  The attempt fails but one of the aliens (nick-named “Abbott”) is mortally injured.  The other nations are about to attack the ships in their area when Dr. Banks figures out what the aliens want.  She believes the aliens have come to give us a “tool” (their language) so we (as a species) will survive to help them in 3,000 years.  She convinces the Chinese General to not attack and the world is saved.  The two Doctors “make” a baby…   Not quite a “happily ever after” since we know what happens to the child.
The thrust of the movie is that we (humans) are limited in that our experiences limit our thoughts and our limited thoughts limit our language.  The aliens experience “time” differently and think of it differently, so they express “time” in their language differently.  Once we (humans) are able to “speak” their language, we will “see / experience” time differently.  So, Dr. Banks was able to “see” the future of her life with her daughter.
Is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  Will you learn anything about linguistics from a SciFi movie?  Is the film entertaining?  Yes, good to very good, yes, and yes (but I’d say more “intellectual” than entertaining.
Any good:  The movie was well received by critics (lots of award nominations) and made money (cost $50M, made $300M).  The story has holes in it but the obvious ones didn’t slap you in the face and call you “stupid”.  This is an “intellectual” SciFi film, not an action or horror film.
Acting:  I thought the acting was pretty good to very good.  Obviously, Adams carried the bulk of the story and she did a very good job.  I’ve seen her in multiple films now, and she’s a reliably good-to-very good actress.  I also liked Tzi Ma, Whitaker and Renner in their roles – all very believable.  I didn’t find Stuhlbarg believable in his role.  I’m not sure why.  I just didn’t.  IMHO the standout (non-star role) was O’Brien as the fearful Captain Marks.  You could say his acting was overdone or that it was “spot-on”.  I felt it was on the mark.  He’s a relatively low level, young officer in WAY over his head and terrified.  I don’t know him (O’Brien) from any other roles and it’s been almost 10yrs since this casting…
Learn anything:  No.  I don’t know anything about linguistics and this was mostly gobbledygook to me.  Does language really work the way depicted?  It doesn’t seem like it (to me), but I’m willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt.
Entertaining:  Surprisingly yes!  I thought it was slow in lots of places and quite confusing the way it seemed to alternate between Dr. Banks memories (dreams) and reality, but it all got wrapped up as part of the story.  So, it was resolved and the slowdowns (delayed time / timing) seemed intentional and part of the film’s presentation.
Final recommendation:  Strong to High!  I ran a gamut of feelings about the pace / flow of the movie, but in the end, felt it was interesting, thoughtful and it worked.
Note:  The post title is from a “Star Trek (The Next Generation)” episode where two characters are placed in danger in order to learn to communicate with each other.  One (Picard) survives and learns to communicate with the alien race.  In this film Dr. Banks survives and learns the heptapods’ language.
.
Click here (18 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 »

Spy Novel TV

Posted in Quotes, Reviews, Series (TV or Streaming) Review, TV Series, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 17, 2023| Leave a Comment »

“Jack Ryan”  —  (Seasons 1 – 4) (2018, 2019, 2022, and 2023)
Today’s review is for the four season / 30 episode Amazon Prime video series “Jack Ryan” starring:  John Krasinski as Dr. Jack Ryan (main character / hero / CIA analyst), Wendell Pierce as James Greer (Jack’s senior agent / friend), Abbie Cornish as Dr. Cathy Mueller (Jack’s love interest), Michael Kelly as Mike November (a recurring role / field agent who can do a little of everything) and Michael Peña as Domingo Chavez (a former Navy SEAL and a senior CIA operative).  The series is an action / drama / spy thriller which (to my mind) tries to impress everyone with the need for and effectiveness of the Central Intelligence Agency.  There have been numerous public relations shows (movies and TV) for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over the decades and this series tries to do positive PR for the CIA.  It mostly succeeds.
There are (to date) four seasons:
Season 1 (eight episodes):  Islamic terrorists want to release nerve gas to kill the President and several members of the Cabinet.  Curiously, the goal doesn’t seem to be to cripple the U.S., just to continue the disruption of the country with the goal of keeping terror in our hearts.
Season 2 (eight episodes):  Jack (Greer and November) are in the middle of political warfare in a corrupt Venezuela to determine their Presidential election.  Of course, the CIA is on the side of the noble female and against the reelection of the corrupt current President.  The U.S. interest is in a mineral which Venezuela has recently discovered and a plot by a U.S. Senator to profit off of the discovery.
Season 3 (eight episodes):  Jack stops a plot to re-create the former Soviet Union by detonating an untraceable tactical nuclear bomb in a former Soviet country.
Season 4 (six episodes):  Jack, newly promoted to the CIA’s acting deputy director (for internal affairs), must stop a Mexican drug cartel joining up with an international terrorist organization trying to release biological weapons in Texas.  It is never really explained why either a cartel or a terrorist organization want to do this.  The impression is that it’s only for the money.
Running time is from 40-64 minutes of 30 episodes, so you’re looking at a 25+ hour commitment for viewing all episodes and seasons.
So, is the series any good?  The acting?  The drama?  The action?  And, do I recommend your investing your time watching it?  The short answers are all:  it’s an okay series and, if you like this genre, you’ll like the series.
Background:  I have been a big fan of Tom Clancy (the character’s creator and novels author) for many years.  I’ve read several of his books and seen most of the theatrical adaptations over the decades, so I’m very familiar with the title character.  I own and have seen the other five movies, although I’ve not viewed any of them recently.  I have also read several of Clancy’s other “series” / works.  Generally, his works are very detailed and specific in how military technology is actually used (and intended for use) and therefore his writing style is action / drama oriented and translates well to cinema.  It is rarely ever original, though.  (IMHO)  That is not a criticism of his work, after all, a murder mystery is a murder mystery is a murder mystery…  It’s the fleshing out of the characters and the clues which make the difference for us as readers or viewers.  The bottom line is you know what you’re going to get when you start one (book or movie) and the question is really:  does it deliver.
The series (all four years) is entertaining and does deliver within those limits.  It delivers reasonably good character and story development.  The action(s) is reasonably paced with “something” happening in every other episode and alternates between character development and action.  Note:  the action is “entertaining”;  it is not “realistic”.  As for the show itself, I (personally) felt all / each of the four years were too long (too many episodes) and they could have all been shortened to the 3 to 4 hour length (each) and been just as entertaining.  In fact, the first three seasons (eight episodes each) were mostly sub-hour episodes and the fourth season was six episodes of mostly full-hour episodes.  But, then (I guess), the “series” would have been just LONG movies and not a true episodic TV series.  The running theme in the series is that our enemies are foreign and domestic.  Each of the seasons turns on someone high in the U.S. government betraying us (the country) for profit.
Of all the characters and scenes in the series, I found Michael Peña as Domingo Chavez was my favorite.  The Ryan character is consistently played as a “Boy Scout” / good-guy who does things for the “right” reasons.  (Mostly BORING.)  Chavez is NOT.  He is a stone cold assassin type killer.  Not a murderer (for no reason);  but a weapon, you point at the enemy when you want to get the job done and who defines himself by his relentlessness.  My favorite scene in all four seasons is:  the good guys have broken into the bad guys lair, taken him prisoner and retrieved the triggering device(s).  They are about to leave (leaving the bad guy alive) when the bad guy calls out to them (roughly – not a direct quote):  “You can’t do this!  Not to me!  I will track you down and kill you and your families!”  Chavez turns and shoots him in the head.  Everyone else looks at Chavez, but he doesn’t even shrug.  A completely missed opportunity in the dialogue was Chavez should have quipped:  “YOU won’t,” in a classic 007 / James Bond style response.
Final recommendation:  moderate to strong.  To quote Abraham Lincoln:  “For people who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like.”  I did – but like I said, a bit too long.  I imagine the series would have been better viewing spaced out instead of binged in three sittings as I did it.  The series has apparently concluded as the lead actor (Krasinski) was only contracted for four years.  The concluding scene leaves a perfect opening for a spin-off “team” series, but I think they will need a new center piece if Krasinski doesn’t return.
.
Click here (17 July) 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 »

Until Integrity, Decency, Wisdom, And Humility Return

Posted in Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on June 4, 2018| 5 Comments »

[The following is an opinion / editorial written by former Director of the CIA — John Brennan, titled:  “I will speak out until integrity returns to the White House“
The editorial appeared in the Washington Post Newspaper on 1 June 2018.  It also appeared on the Post website:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/
The specific link to the editorial is:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-brennan-i-will-speak-out-until-integrity-returns-to-the-white-house/2018/05/31/afbccafa-64e8-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?utm_term=.7a7512618b79
All rights are reserved by the Washington Post.  I am posting the editorial on my blog site in its entirety simply because I feel an urgent need to address (to “speak out” about) the problems with the Trump Administration.
For those not familiar with the name, John Brennan served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency from March 2013 to January 2017.
  —  kmab]
My first visit to the Oval Office came in October 1990, when I was a 35-year-old CIA officer.  Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait two months before, and President George H.W. Bush wanted to discuss the implications of a U.S.-led military coalition that would ultimately push the Iraqis out.
I remember the nervousness I felt when I entered that room and met a president of the United States for the first time.  By the time the meeting ended, his intellectual curiosity, wisdom, affability and intense interest in finding the best policy course to protect and promote U.S. interests were abundantly evident.
Over the next quarter-century, I returned to the Oval Office several hundred times during the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.  The jitters that accompanied my first Oval Office visit dissipated over time, but the respect, awe and admiration I held for the office of the presidency and the incumbents never waned.  The presidents I directly served were not perfect, and I didn’t agree with all of their policy choices.  But I never doubted that each treated their solemn responsibility to lead our nation with anything less than the seriousness, intellectual rigor and principles that it deserved.  Many times, I heard them dismiss the political concerns of their advisers, saying, “I don’t care about my politics, it’s the right thing to do.”
The esteem with which I held the presidency was dealt a serious blow when Donald Trump took office.  Almost immediately, I began to see a startling aberration from the remarkable, though human, presidents I had served.  Mr. Trump’s lifelong preoccupation with aggrandizing himself seemed to intensify in office, and he quickly leveraged his 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. address and his Twitter handle to burnish his brand and misrepresent reality.
Presidents throughout the years have differed in their approaches to policy, based on political platforms, ideologies and individual beliefs.  Mr. Trump, however, has shown highly abnormal behavior by lying routinely to the American people without compunction, intentionally fueling divisions in our country and actively working to degrade the imperfect but critical institutions that serve us.
Although appalling, those actions shouldn’t be surprising.  As was the case throughout his business and entertainment careers, Mr. Trump charts his every move according to a calculus of how it will personally help or hurt him.  His strategy is to undercut real, potential and perceived opponents;  his focus is to win at all costs, irrespective of truth, ethics, decency and — many would argue — the law.  His disparagement of institutions is designed to short-circuit legitimate law enforcement investigations, intelligence assessments and media challenges that threaten his interests.  His fear of the special counsel’s work is especially palpable, as is his growing interest in destroying its mandate.
For more than three decades, I observed and analyzed the traits and tactics of corrupt, incompetent and narcissistic foreign officials who did whatever they thought was necessary to retain power.  Exploiting the fears and concerns of their citizenry, these demagogues routinely relied on lies, deceit and suppression of political opposition to cast themselves as populist heroes and to mask self-serving priorities.  By gaining control of intelligence and security services, stifling the independence of the judiciary and discrediting a free press, these authoritarian rulers followed a time-tested recipe for how to inhibit democracy’s development, retard individual freedoms and liberties, and reserve the spoils of corrupt governance for themselves and their ilk.  It never dawned on me that we could face such a development in the United States.
On the international front, Mr. Trump pursues policies that are rooted in uninformed campaign promises, a determination to upend actions of his predecessors and an aversion to multilateral engagements.  His ad hoc and frequently impulsive approach to national security is short-sighted and dangerous, as allies and partners are left uncertain about U.S. strategy and objectives.
The impact of the Trump presidency will be felt for many years to come.  Most worrisome is that his use of falsehoods, his mean-spirited and malicious behavior, and his self-absorption will be emulated by many young Americans — indeed, young people globally — who look to the president of the United States as a role model.
The damage also will be felt by the millions of Americans who believe in Mr. Trump because of their concern about being left behind in a rapidly changing globalized world.  These Americans have a legitimate gripe that politicians and political parties of all stripes have failed to deliver on the promise that America is the land of opportunity for all, irrespective of race, creed or place of residence.  At a time when deep-seated fears of socioeconomic and cultural change need to be addressed honestly and without prejudice, Mr. Trump grandstands like a snake-oil salesman, squandering his formidable charisma and communication skills in favor of ego, selfishness and false promises.
Many have condemned my public criticism of Mr. Trump, arguing that as a former CIA director, I should bite my tongue.  My criticisms, however, are not political;  I have never been and will never be a partisan.  I speak out for the simple reason that Mr. Trump is failing to live up to the standards that we should all expect of a president.
As someone who had the rare privilege of directly serving four presidents, I will continue to speak out loudly and critically until integrity, decency, wisdom — and maybe even some humility — return to the White House.
.
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 »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started