Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘DVD’

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 »

You’re Not Acquainted With Royal Princes, Are you?

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

“The King’s Speech” (2010) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical drama “The King’s Speech”, directed by Tom Hooper and starring Colin Firth as Prince Albert, the Duke of York, a reserved, dutiful man whose lifelong stammer becomes a crisis when he unexpectedly finds himself next in line for the throne;  Geoffrey Rush plays Lionel Logue, the unorthodox Australian speech therapist whose methods, humor, and persistence slowly break through Albert’s defenses;  Helena Bonham Carter appears as Elizabeth, the supportive and quietly determined wife who pushes Albert toward help;  Guy Pearce plays Edward VIII, the charming but irresponsible older brother whose abdication triggers the constitutional crisis;  and Michael Gambon plays King George V, the stern father whose expectations weigh heavily on Albert.  The film follows Albert’s struggle to find his voice — literally and figuratively — as Britain edges toward World War II.
Background:  This was my first viewing of “The King’s Speech” in several years.  I saw it with my wife in the theater and then again when we purchased the DVD.  (My first review of this film can be found here.)  The movie was a major critical and commercial success, earning twelve Academy Award nominations and winning four:   Best Picture, Best Director (Tom Hooper), Best Actor (Colin Firth), and Best Original Screenplay (David Seidler).  It also won multiple BAFTAs and became one of the most widely discussed prestige films of its year.  Historically, the film is significant because it dramatizes the transition from Edward VIII to George VI (one of the most unusual successions in British history) and highlights how radio transformed the monarchy by making public speaking a central part of the job.  The story also draws from real therapeutic notes and Logue’s surviving diaries, giving the film a grounded sense of personal struggle.
Plot:  The film opens with Prince Albert (“Bertie”) attempting to deliver a speech at Wembley Stadium, only to be overwhelmed by his stammer.  After years of failed treatments, Elizabeth seeks out Lionel Logue, whose informal manner and insistence on equality (“My house, my rules”) unsettle Albert but eventually earn his trust.  Their sessions mix breathing exercises, physical drills, and personal conversations that force Albert to confront buried frustrations:  his abusive childhood governess and bullying older brother, his father’s harshness, and the pressure of royal expectations.  Meanwhile, Edward VIII’s romance with Wallis Simpson spirals into a constitutional crisis, and his abdication thrusts Albert onto the throne as King George VI.  With war looming, the new king must deliver a crucial radio address to rally the nation.  The final act centers on that speech (prepared with Logue’s help) as Albert fights through fear, doubt, and the weight of leadership to speak to his people with clarity and resolve.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  clean, intimate filming;  a few minor issues;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes . “The King’s Speech” works because it keeps the story personal rather than turning it into a grand historical pageant.  The stakes are national, but the movie focuses on two men in a room trying to solve a problem.  The script balances humor, frustration, and vulnerability without slipping into melodrama.  The emotional payoff (the king finding his voice at the moment his country needs him) feels deserved.  It is a straightforward film, but a very effective one.
Acting:  Firth deserved his Oscar.  He plays Bertie with a mix of dignity, embarrassment, anger, and quiet determination, and he never lets the stammer become a gimmick.  Rush is equally strong — warm, funny, and stubborn in all the right ways.  Their scenes together are the heart of the film.  Helena Bonham Carter brings calm intelligence to Elizabeth, and Pearce makes Edward VIII believably charming and shallow.  Michael Gambon’s King George V is stern but not cartoonish, and his scenes help explain Bertie’s internal knots.  The ensemble works because everyone plays their roles straight and grounded.
Filming / FX:  The filming is clean and intimate.  Hooper uses close-ups and slightly off-center framing to emphasize Bertie’s discomfort and isolation.  The sets (Logue’s shabby office, royal chambers, radio rooms) feel lived-in rather than glossy.  The period detail is solid without being showy.  The sound design is especially important, capturing the tension of pauses, breaths, and the mechanical hum of early radio equipment.  Nothing flashy, but everything supports the story.
Problems:  A few (minor).  The film simplifies some historical relationships, particularly the political tensions around the abdication and the early days of the war.  Edward VIII is portrayed almost entirely as a selfish playboy, which may fit the story, but I don’t know if it’s accurate.  The movie also leans heavily on the therapeutic breakthrough structure:  setback, progress, setback, triumph — which can feel predictable.  The emotional beats land, but the film seems to soften my limited understanding of the harsher edges of royal life in order to keep the tone uplifting.  None of this ruins the film, but it keeps it firmly in the “prestige drama” lane.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  The relationship between Bertie and Logue is warm, funny, and genuinely moving.  The final speech works even though you know exactly how it will end.  The movie is well-paced, well-acted, and emotionally satisfying without being heavy-handed.  It is the kind of film which leaves you feeling like you have watched something both personal and historically meaningful.
Final Recommendation:  Very Highly Recommended.  “The King’s Speech” is a well-crafted, Oscar-winning historical drama anchored by two excellent performances and a story which balances personal struggle with national responsibility.  Its historical significance, strong acting, and emotional clarity make it well worth viewing — whether you are interested in British history, character-driven dramas, or films which show how small personal victories can shape major public moments.  It is a film which earns its reputation and holds up on re-watch (several even).
.
Click here (16 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 »

There Must Be A Place For Us In This Great Country

Posted in General Comments, History, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 8, 2026| 11 Comments »

“Milk” (2008) — movie review
Today’s review is for the biographical drama “Milk” (2008), directed by Gus Van Sant and starring Sean Penn as Harvey Milk, the camera-store owner turned activist who became the first openly gay man elected to major public office in the United States;  Josh Brolin plays Dan White, the troubled former fireman / former police officer and fellow supervisor whose resentment and instability escalate into tragedy;  James Franco appears as Scott Smith, Harvey’s partner and early campaign anchor;  Emile Hirsch plays Cleve Jones, the young street kid who becomes a committed organizer;  and Alison Pill portrays Anne Kronenberg, the tough, practical campaign manager who helps push Harvey over the finish line.  Supporting roles include Diego Luna as Jack Lira, Denis O’Hare as Senator Briggs, and Victor Garber as Mayor George Moscone.  The film traces Milk’s rise, his battles, and (a little of) his legacy, set against the political and cultural tensions of 1970s San Francisco.
Background:  I didn’t see “Milk” at the theater on release, but we purchased the DVD to fill out the history lesson of political organization for our kids who were starting to learn about a few of their friends being gay.  I watched the film once with them, to serve as a point of historical reference, but I didn’t think much of the film on that first viewing.  Living most of my life in the Bay Area, I already knew the broad strokes of Harvey Milk’s San Francisco story — the Castro, the marches, the assassinations.  I signed my first voter registration at Harvey Milk’s camera store, on Castro Street, when I turned 18 years old.  My recollection is fading, but I believe I registered for the draft, my SSA card and to vote all in the same week.  LoL.  I had just gotten off of active duty in the Spring of 1978 and was enrolled for my first semester of SFSU (Fall 1978), studying in the campus library when a high school friend walked up to me and asked if I’d heard the news about Supervisor Milk and Mayor Moscone being shot dead at City Hall.  Watching the film now, with some distance from the era and the politics, I found myself equally interested in the personal side of the story as well as the public one.  Released in 2008, the film was both a critical and commercial success.  It received eight Academy Award nominations and won two Oscars:  Best Actor (Sean Penn) and Best Original Screenplay (Dustin Lance Black).  Its historic significance is straightforward:  it brought Harvey Milk’s life to a new generation and cemented his place in American civil rights history.
Plot:  The film opens with archival footage of police raids on gay bars, setting the tone for the world Harvey Milk is about to challenge.  We follow Harvey in his move to San Francisco, where he opens a small camera shop in the Castro District (then known as Eureka Valley), to his growing involvement in local activism.  He organizes boycotts, builds coalitions, and runs for office repeatedly — losing several times before finally winning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977.  The story tracks his clashes with conservative forces, particularly State Senator John Briggs and his Proposition 6 initiative, which sought to ban gay and lesbian teachers from public schools.  Alongside the political battles, the film shows Harvey’s personal relationships, the strain of activism, and the toll it takes on those around him.  The narrative builds toward the assassinations of Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk by Dan White, and then touches on the aftermath that reshaped the city.
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;  grounded and period-accurate;  a few;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Milk” is a solid, straightforward biographical drama.  It doesn’t try to reinvent the genre — it just tells the story clearly and with respect for the people involved.  The film balances the political and personal sides of Harvey’s life without drifting into personal aggrandizement.  It’s also a reminder of how recent these battles were, and how quickly social change can shift when people organize and the time is right.
Acting:  Penn earned his Oscar, plain and simple.  He disappears into the role without turning it into an impersonation.  Brolin gives Dan White a tightly wound frustration that feels believable rather than cartoonish.  James Franco and Emile Hirsch both add warmth and energy, and Alison Pill brings a steady, no-nonsense presence as Kronenberg.  The ensemble works because nobody overplays their part — the performances feel lived-in, not theatrical.
Filming / FX:  The film uses a mix of new footage and archival material, and the blend works very well.  The look of 1970s San Francisco — the storefronts, the clothes, the street scenes — feels authentic without calling attention to itself.  The camera work is simple and functional, which fits the story. There are no flashy effects, just a clean edit and a steady pace.
Problems:  A few.  The film compresses events and simplifies some political dynamics, which is expected in a two-hour movie but still noticeable if you know the history.  Some supporting characters feel underdeveloped, especially compared to the depth given to Harvey.  And while the film tries to show the strain activism placed on Harvey’s personal relationships, those parts sometimes feel rushed.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  It’s a strong, engaging film that tells an important story without preaching.  The performances carry it, and the sense of place — San Francisco in the 1970s — feels familiar and real.  It’s not a perfect film, but it’s a meaningful one.
Final Recommendation:  Strong to Very High recommendation.  “Milk” is historically significant, both for its subject matter and for its recognition at the Academy Awards.  It’s worth watching for Sean Penn’s performance alone, but the film as a whole stands as a clear, accessible portrait of a pivotal moment in gay civil rights history in the US.  Rated R for language and some sexuality, the film remains a powerful reminder of how one person’s persistence and a small group of dedicated people can change a city — and a country.
.
Click here (8 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 »

As You Wish…

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

“The Princess Bride” (1987) — movie review
Today’s review is for the fantasy-adventure romance “The Princess Bride” (1987), directed by Rob Reiner and starring Cary Elwes as Westley (the devoted farm boy turned Dread Pirate Roberts);  Robin Wright as Buttercup (the strong-willed young woman whose love drives the story);  Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya (a swordsman fueled by a lifelong quest for justice);  Chris Sarandon as Prince Humperdinck (a scheming nobleman who hides cruelty behind charm);  and Christopher Guest as Count Rugen (the cold, calculating six-fingered man).  Supporting roles include Wallace Shawn as Vizzini (the self-proclaimed genius);  André the Giant as Fezzik (the gentle giant with a poet’s heart);  Billy Crystal as Miracle Max, and Peter Falk as the grandfather reading the tale to his skeptical grandson (Fred Savage).  With its ensemble, the film blends fairy-tale adventure, comedy, romance, and swashbuckling action into a story that has become a modern classic.
Background:  I find this difficult to admit but this was my first viewing of this movie!  LoL – always late to the party.  Of course I’d seen the sword fight and the drinking poison challenge scene multiple times on YouTube over the last decade, but I’d just never gotten around to actually viewing the film.  I’m also a bit surprised more of my friends or family haven’t recommended this film as I feel confident most have seen it.  I have also owned the DVD – probably since sometime in the early 2000s, as I know I’ve heard my kids quote lines from it frequently.  At the time, I didn’t understand why people were so attached to it.  After watching it, I understand completely.  Released in 1987 by 20th Century Fox, the film was adapted from William Goldman’s novel of the same name.  It had a modest budget of about $16 million and earned roughly $30 million at the box office — respectable, but not the cultural phenomenon it has become.  Over the years, it has grown into one of the most beloved films of its era, largely through home video and television broadcasts.  It didn’t win any Academy Awards, but its historic significance lies in its unusual ability to appeal across generations: part fairy tale, part comedy, part adventure, and part satire, yet sincere in all of them.
Plot:  The story is framed as a grandfather reading a book to his sick grandson.  The tale follows Buttercup, who believes her true love Westley has died at sea.  She reluctantly agrees to marry Prince Humperdinck, unaware that Westley has returned — now disguised as the Dread Pirate Roberts.  Buttercup is kidnapped by Vizzini, Inigo, and Fezzik, only for Westley to pursue and rescue her.  Inigo seeks revenge against the six-fingered Count Rugen, while Humperdinck plots a war using Buttercup as a pawn.  The story weaves sword fights, duels of wit, rodents of unusual size, miracles, and narrow escapes, building toward Inigo’s confrontation with Rugen and Westley’s final rescue of Buttercup.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  charming and committed;  simple but effective;  a few;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “The Princess Bride” is one of the rare films that balances humor, adventure, romance, and sincerity without tipping too far in any direction.  It’s light on its feet but not shallow, and it holds up remarkably well almost forty years later.
Acting:  Cary Elwes and Robin Wright play their roles with earnestness, which is what makes the humor work.  Elwes handles both the swashbuckling and the deadpan comedy with ease.  Wright gives Buttercup more backbone than the typical fairy-tale heroine.  Mandy Patinkin is the standout — his performance as Inigo Montoya is heartfelt, funny, and surprisingly moving.  Wallace Shawn’s Vizzini is memorable in his short screen time, and André the Giant brings warmth to Fezzik.  Chris Sarandon and Christopher Guest make an effective pair of villains:  one oily, one icy.  The cast understands the tone perfectly — sincere enough to care, loose enough to enjoy.
Filming / FX:  The film’s production values are modest by today’s standards, but they work surprisingly well – even today.  The sword fight between Westley and Inigo is still one of the best choreographed in Hollywood — fast, clean, and fun.  The sets look like storybook illustrations brought to life, which fits the framing device.  The “Rodents of Unusual Size” are obviously people in suits, but that’s part of the charm.  Mark Knopfler’s score is gentle and memorable.  Nothing here is flashy, but everything serves the story.
Problems:  A few.  Some of the sets look stage-bound, and the special effects are dated.  Buttercup doesn’t get as much character development as modern audiences might prefer.  The final act rushes a bit, especially Westley’s recovery scene.  But none of these issues undermine the film’s appeal.  If anything, the simplicity is part of why it endures.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes. It’s funny, warm, and endlessly quotable.  It’s also one of the few films that works equally well for children and adults, each finding something different to appreciate.  It’s comfort viewing in the best sense.
Final Recommendation:  Strong to Very High Recommendation.  “The Princess Bride” (1987) is historically significant as a film that grew from modest success into a cultural touchstone, beloved across generations and still widely quoted today.  Rated PG, it remains essential viewing for fans of adventure, comedy, or fairy-tale storytelling.  Watch it for Patinkin’s unforgettable performance, Elwes and Wright’s earnest charm, and the reminder that sometimes a simple Grandfather’s storytelling, well told, is enough.
.
Click here (7 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 »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started