Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Ed Harris’

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 »

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 »

It’s Not The Plane, It’s The Pilot

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 22, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Top Gun:  Maverick” (2022) – movie review
Today’s review is for the high-octane legacy sequel “Top Gun:  Maverick” (2022), starring Tom Cruise as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (the aged but still rebellious naval aviator who’s spent decades dodging promotion and command authority), Miles Teller as Lt. Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw (the son of Maverick’s late best friend Goose, now a pilot with a chip on his shoulder and a voice full of resentment), Jennifer Connelly as Penny Benjamin (a bar owner and single mother with a history of romantic entanglement with Maverick), Jon Hamm as Vice Admiral Beau “Cyclone” Simpson (a by-the-book commander unimpressed by Maverick’s reputation, and himself a former “Top Gun” honor graduate), and Glen Powell as Lt. Jake “Hangman” Seresin (a cocky hotshot who channels the original Maverick’s swagger with less conscience).  The film also features Ed Harris, Monica Barbaro, Lewis Pullman, and a brief but poignant appearance by Val Kilmer as Admiral Tom “Iceman” Kazansky.  This sequel arrives 36 years after the original “Top Gun” (1986), and somehow manages to be both a nostalgic throwback and a surprisingly emotional meditation on legacy, loss, and the limits of speed.
Background:  I came to “Top Gun:  Maverick” with tempered (but high) expectations.  I had heard a lot of good things about it, but I’ve heard the same thing loads of times for other sequels which were never quite as good as their marketing.  The original “Top Gun” (review here) was iconic for its style, soundtrack, and testosterone — but not exactly for its depth.  I wasn’t sure a sequel could offer more than recycled dogfights and callbacks (it does both).  But “Maverick” surprised me.  Released in 2022 after multiple pandemic delays, the film became a box office juggernaut and earned six Academy Award nominations, winning Best Sound.  It was also nominated for Best Picture — a rare feat for a sequel in the action genre.  Watching it now, I see why.  Beneath the roar of jet engines and the gleam of aviator sunglasses, there’s a story about aging, mentorship, and the ghosts some carry far past their utility.
Plot:  Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell has spent decades avoiding promotion, preferring the cockpit to the desk.  When a hypersonic test program he’s assigned to is to be shut down, Maverick is reassigned — by orders of his old rival Iceman — to train a new generation of Top Gun graduates for a near-impossible mission:  destroy a uranium enrichment site deep in enemy territory, requiring low-altitude flying, precision bombing, and a steep escape climb.  Among the trainees is Rooster, Goose’s son, whose strained relationship with Maverick threatens the cohesion of the team.  As Maverick battles bureaucracy, guilt, and the limits of his own mortality, he must decide whether to lead from the classroom or the sky.  The film builds toward a final act that blends old-school aerial combat with modern stakes, and reminds us why Maverick still flies.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  grounded and charismatic;  stunning and immersive;  a few;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Top Gun: Maverick” is more than just a sequel — it’s a resolution (for Maverick’s career).  It honors the original without being too shackled by it.  The film balances adrenaline with emotion, spectacle with sincerity.  It’s a story about second chances, about teaching what you’ve learned the hard way, and about flying not because you’re fearless, but because you love it anyway.  It’s a rare blockbuster that earns its sentiment.
Acting:  Tom Cruise delivers one of his most restrained performances in years.  His Maverick is still cocky, but now haunted — by Goose’s death, by Rooster’s resentment, and by the ticking clock of relevance.  Cruise’s physical commitment is legendary, but it’s the quiet scenes — with Iceman, with Penny, with Rooster — that give the film its heart.  Miles Teller is excellent as Rooster — his simmering anger and vulnerability feel earned.  Jennifer Connelly brings warmth and maturity to Penny, but (IMHO) her character / feels more like another step in Maverick’s career wind down.  At least she didn’t seem to have the height issue / problem the love interest (Kelly McGillis) had in the first film.  LoL.  Glen Powell steals scenes as Hangman, successfully balances walking the tightrope between arrogance and charm.  Jon Hamm is solid as Cyclone, though his role is mostly functional.  Val Kilmer’s brief appearance is moving as his real-life health struggles mirror Iceman’s, and the scene between him and Cruise is a masterclass in restraint and emotional payoff.
Filming / FX:  The aerial sequences deliver and are what make the film.  Shot with IMAX cameras and real fighter jets, the film avoids CGI overload and instead delivers visceral, kinetic dogfights that make you feel every G-force.  The sound design — Oscar-winning — is thunderous.  The cinematography captures the grandeur of flight.  The editing is crisp, especially in the final mission sequence, which builds tension with precision.  The use of music — Lady Gaga’s “Hold My Hand” and a reprise of Kenny Loggins’ “Danger Zone” — is nostalgic without being overbearing.  The film’s visuals are sleek, sun-drenched, and unapologetically cinematic.
Problems:  Mostly minor.  The plot is thin — essentially a training montage leading to a mission — but that’s by design.  Some of the supporting pilots are underdeveloped, and the enemy is faceless and unnamed, which feels geopolitically evasive (i.e. “correct”).  The romantic subplot, while charming, is underwritten but the “action” film is better for it.  And while the film nods to Maverick’s recklessness, it never fully addresses the consequences of his choices.  My “biggest” technical issue is that through-out the training scenes, the radar only seems to work forward an up.  This allows the “instructor” to sneak up on the trainees from below and behind.  Yeah, right.  My “biggest” reality issue with the film is Cruise’s / Maverick’s obvious age.  While it might be possible for Maverick to be a private sector test pilot (but not at Mach 10) into his very late 50s, he could NEVER be a fighter pilot at that age.  I don’t care if he had multiple Presidential Administrations protecting his career.  But these are Hollywood v. reality quibbles in a film that knows exactly what it wants to be (Hollywood).
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “Top Gun:  Maverick” is a rare sequel that marginally equals its mega-hit original.  It’s thrilling, emotional, and unexpectedly reflective.  Watching it felt like reconnecting with an old friend — one who’s matured, still rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but is ready to give up the “edge” for a return to a WWII P-51 Mustang.  The film’s central message — that it’s not the plane, it’s the pilot — resonates.  And in a cinematic landscape dominated by franchises, this one keeps its legs / wings.
Final Recommendation:  Strong Recommendation.  “Top Gun:  Maverick” is more than just a nostalgia trip — it’s a high-flying, heart-thumping, and surprisingly soulful film that honors its predecessor while charting its own course.  If you’ve seen the original, this is essential viewing.  If you haven’t, it still works — because the story isn’t just about flying.  It’s about teaching, healing, and choosing to fly anyway.  Rated PG-13 for intense action and some language, but largely family-friendly.  Strap in.
.
Click here (22 November) 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