England | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘England’

A Rather Convoluted Lack Of Justice

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Agnes Wickfield, Aunt Betsey Trotwood, Basil Rathbone, Best Picture Nomination, Charles Dickens, David Copperfield (1935) — movie review, Edna May Oliver, England, Frank Lawton, Freddie Bartholomew, General Comments, George Cukor, London, Madge Evans, Maureen O’Sullivan, MGM, Movie Reviews, Mr. Micawber, Mr. Murdstone, Reviews, Roland Young, Strong Movie Recommendation, The Great Depression, Uriah Heep, W. C. Fields, Wikipedia on June 10, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“David Copperfield” (1935) — movie review
[Apologies (in advance) to any post readers who may find this review excessively long / detailed. Although, the movie itself isn’t unusually long, the multiple story lines are each important to the plot and therefore make an adequate review long and convoluted, too. Because I’ve never read the novel, this review had to be “supplemented” by reading other reviews – and particularly Wikipedia (for novel and film). I did try to “incorporate” and not plagiarize. LoL. I’ll try to get back to shorter and more reader friendly reviews going forward.]

Today’s second review is for the classic film adaptation “David Copperfield”, directed by George Cukor and starring Freddie Bartholomew as young David, gentle, observant, and trying to survive a childhood full of loss and cruelty; Frank Lawton as the adult David, earnest and hopeful as he tries to build a life of his own; W. C. Fields as Mr. Micawber, the eternally optimistic debtor whose charm somehow outweighs his irresponsibility; Edna May Oliver as Aunt Betsey Trotwood, sharp‑tongued, fiercely protective, and the first adult to truly stand up for David; Basil Rathbone as Mr. Murdstone, the cold, domineering stepfather who tries to crush David’s spirit in his early years; Maureen O’Sullivan as Dora, the sweet but fragile young woman David marries; Madge Evans as Agnes Wickfield, David’s steady childhood friend and moral compass who quietly becomes the real partner of his adult life; and Roland Young as Uriah Heep, the oily, “’umble” clerk whose false modesty hides a calculating ambition. The film follows David from childhood hardship to adult self‑discovery, weaving together Charles Dickens’ humor, heartbreak, and social criticism.

Background: This is my first viewing of this film. I’ve never read the Dickens’ source novel nor seen any of the other versions. This film was a major production for its time and it received three Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Film Editing, and Best Assistant Director. It’s historically significant as one of the earliest large‑scale Dickens adaptations that tried to capture both the sweep of the novel and the emotional beats of the characters. It’s also remembered for W. C. Fields’ performance as Micawber, which many critics still consider one of the best Dickens character portrayals ever put on screen. The film came out during the Great Depression, and audiences responded strongly to its themes of perseverance, kindness, and the hope that life can get better if you keep going.

Plot: The story begins with David’s birth and early childhood, where he lives happily with his widowed mother until she marries Mr. Murdstone. Murdstone and his equally harsh sister quickly take over the household, imposing strict discipline and emotional cruelty. [Side note: in old England, a widow retained use of real property after a husband’s death, but she didn’t “own” it. If she remarried, the “ownership” of the property passed to the new husband. In this case, to the cruel and abusive Mr. Murdstone and not to the bloodline heir: David.] After David fights back, he’s sent away to a boarding school and later to work in a London bottling factory — a grim, lonely existence. Eventually he runs away to find his Aunt Betsey Trotwood, who takes him in and gives him a real home. From there, the film follows David into adulthood: his friendships with the ever‑optimistic Mr. Micawber and the loyal Traddles; his deepening bond with Agnes Wickfield, who quietly supports him through setbacks and bad choices; his infatuation and marriage to Dora, which turns out to be more fragile than he wants to admit; his growing awareness of Uriah Heep’s scheming; and his eventual discovery of love, purpose, and stability. The story builds toward the exposure of Heep’s fraud, the collapse of several illusions in David’s life, and his gradual realization of who he is and what (and who) he truly wants. It’s a long journey (both funny and sad), but always grounded in the idea that character is shaped by hardship and the people who help you through it.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; very good; classic MGM craftsmanship; a few; yes.

Any good? Yes. “David Copperfield” is a strong adaptation without the novel’s length. The pacing is steady, the emotional beats land, and the film balances humor and hardship in a way that feels more honest than sentimental. It’s not perfect — some sections feel rushed, others linger — but overall it’s a well‑crafted, engaging film that still works almost ninety years later. The story’s themes of resilience, kindness, and personal growth come through clearly.

Acting: Freddie Bartholomew is excellent as young David — expressive, vulnerable, and believable in every scene. Frank Lawton, as the adult David, is solid if a bit understated, but he carries the later sections well enough. W. C. Fields is the standout: his Micawber is warm, funny, and surprisingly restrained (for Fields), and he steals every scene he’s in. Edna May Oliver is terrific as Aunt Betsey — sharp, commanding, and unexpectedly tender. Basil Rathbone makes Murdstone genuinely intimidating, and Roland Young gives Uriah Heep the perfect mix of false humility and quiet menace. Maureen O’Sullivan’s Dora is sweet and appealing, which makes her limitations feel sad rather than annoying. Madge Evans brings a calm, steady presence to Agnes, and even though the film doesn’t give her much time. You still feel why she is the person David should have been leaning on all along. The supporting cast is large, but most of them make their characters feel distinct and memorable.

Filming / FX: This is classic 1930s MGM — polished sets, careful lighting, and a sense of scale that makes the world feel full and realistic. The black‑and‑white cinematography is clean and expressive, especially in the darker childhood scenes. The London sequences look convincingly grimy, and Aunt Betsey’s home feels warm and safe by contrast. There are no special effects to speak of, but the production design does most of the heavy lifting. The crowd scenes, the courtroom, and the various interiors all feel like part of a coherent world. The editing is smooth, and the film has that “studio prestige” look that MGM specialized in during the era.

Problems: A few. The film compresses a very long novel, so some characters and subplots feel rushed or simplified. The transitions between childhood and adulthood are abrupt. Dora’s story line, in particular, feels underdeveloped — she’s sweet, but the emotional impact of her arc is muted compared to the book. Agnes, while present and important, could have used more screen time to fully sell the shift from “friend” to “true partner” for viewers who don’t know the novel (like me – LoL). The tone occasionally swings too quickly between humor and tragedy. And, like many adaptations of its time, the film softens some of Dickens’ harsher social criticism. None of these issues ruin the movie, but they keep it from being a fully complete version of the novel.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s warm, engaging, and surprisingly moving. The performances (especially Fields, Oliver, and the two Davids) give the story real heart, and the film’s mix of humor and hardship feels true to Dickens. I appreciated the craftsmanship, the pacing, and the way the film captures the idea that life is shaped by the people who help you along the way. The Micawber scenes are genuinely fun, and the quieter moments with Agnes and Aunt Betsey give the film emotional weight. It’s not a movie I’d watch every year, but it’s one I’m glad I’ve finally seen.

Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation. “David Copperfield” is a well‑acted, historically significant adaptation of one of Dickens’ greatest novels. Its Best Picture nomination makes sense, and its influence on later Dickens films is clear. If you enjoy classic Hollywood, literary adaptations, or stories about resilience and personal growth, this one is well worth your time. It’s not perfect, but it’s heartfelt, memorable, crafted with care, and it does a respectable job of bringing David, Dora, Agnes, and the rest of Dickens’ world to the screen.

.
Click here (10 June) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Speed Is Good Only When Wisdom Leads The Way

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Around the World in 80 Days (1956) — movie review, Best Picture Oscar, Buster Keaton, Cantinflas, Chaplin-esqe, David Niven, England, Frank Sinatra, General Comments, Hollywood, Inspector Fix, London, Low Moderate Movie Recommendation, Michael Anderson, Mike Todd, Movie Reviews, Passepartout, Phileas Fogg, Princess Aouda, Reform Club, Reviews, Robert Newton, Shirley MacLaine, Spanish, Three Stooges, Victor Young on May 14, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Around the World in 80 Days” (1956) — movie review
Today’s review is for the “epic” adventure‑comedy “Around the World in 80 Days”, directed by Michael Anderson and starring David Niven as Phileas Fogg, the impeccably punctual English gentleman whose life is governed by precision, routine, and an almost mathematical sense of propriety; Cantinflas as Passepartout, Fogg’s newly hired valet whose athleticism, charm, and improvisational instincts carry the film’s physical comedy and much of its heart; Shirley MacLaine as Princess Aouda, the rescued widow who becomes the emotional anchor of the journey; and Robert Newton as Inspector Fix, the dogged (and frequently wrong) detective convinced that Fogg is a bank robber fleeing justice. The film also features a parade of cameos — from Buster Keaton to Frank Sinatra — in a sprawling, colorful, globe‑trotting spectacle that mixes travelogue, comedy, and adventure.

Background: I first saw this film sometime in the early / mid 1960s at a theater, long before I had any sense of how big a deal it was in its own era. Back then, it was just “the long movie with the balloon and the funny guy running around.” I have a VERY vague memory of this, but as I recall we spent the better part of a whole day at a Cantinflas “review” and watched several movies. This was with several of my cousins and most of the films were entirely in Spanish, so I didn’t really understand much of what was being said, but Cantinflas was really a “Three Stooges / Chaplin-esqe“-slapstick kind of comedy, so it was more visual humor than spoken anyway. In the 1950s, Cantinflas was one of the top movie stars in the “world” and starring in this film was meant to introduce him to the American / English speaking public. Revisiting it now, it’s easier to appreciate the scale of this production. Released in 1956, “Around the World in 80 Days” was a massive hit and went on to win five Academy Awards, including Best Picture. It was produced by Mike Todd (his only film) and it shows the kind of “spare no expense” ambition that only a showman could bring. Historically, the film is significant as one of the last great “travelogue epics,” a genre that showcased exotic locations, huge casts, and big set pieces before television and cheaper travel made such spectacles less novel. It’s also a curious time capsule of 1950s Hollywood attitudes toward culture, comedy, and global adventure.

Plot: The story begins in London, where Phileas Fogg (a man of absolute routine) wagers his fellow Reform Club members that he can circumnavigate the globe in 80 days. With his new valet Passepartout in tow, he sets off immediately. What follows is a series of episodic adventures: a balloon ride (not in the original novel, but iconic here), a bullfighting sequence, train chases, shipboard crises, and a rescue of Princess Aouda from a forced ritual death. Inspector Fix shadows them across continents, convinced Fogg is a bank thief. Delays, mishaps, and cultural encounters pile up as the clock ticks down. The film ends with the famous twist: Fogg believes he has lost the wager, only to discover he gained a day by traveling eastward. He wins the bet — and gains a companion (spouse) in Aouda.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: So-so (with caveats); 1950s “charming”; spectacular for its time; several; mostly no.

Any good? So-so (with significant caveats). “Around the World in 80 Days” is a grand, old‑fashioned spectacle — the kind of film that exists mainly to show you places, faces, and large‑scale set pieces. It’s not a tight narrative; it’s more of a cinematic buffet. The charm comes from the performances and the sheer ambition of the production. It’s leisurely (dragging), colorful, and occasionally meandering, but it (almost) works on its own terms. If you accept it as a 1950s “event movie,” it’s enjoyable. If you expect modern pacing, you will find it painfully slow.

Acting: David Niven is perfectly cast as Phileas Fogg — crisp, controlled, and unfailingly polite. He plays the role with a dry wit that keeps Fogg from becoming a caricature (unlike the rest of the British cast). Cantinflas is the film’s secret weapon. His physical comedy, timing, and athleticism carry entire sequences, and he brings warmth to a story that could otherwise feel mechanical. Shirley MacLaine does what she can with a role that is… let’s say “of its time.” She brings sincerity and presence, even if the script doesn’t give her much agency. Being honest, I did not recognize her at all in this role and yet still found it strange they had cast someone who was so obviously white to play the role of an Indian (sub-continent) princess. Robert Newton is barely tolerable as Inspector Fix — part antagonist, part comic relief. I just didn’t find him amusing. The cameos are a mixed bag, but they add to the film’s “big show / Hollywood” energy / reputation.

Filming / FX: The filming is the movie’s biggest strength. Shot in 13 countries with thousands of extras, the film uses widescreen cinematography to show off landscapes, cities, and elaborate sets. The balloon sequence is iconic, even if scientifically dubious (absurd). The bullfighting scenes, train sequences, and shipboard moments are all staged with visually impressive scale. The film’s pacing is leisurely (most of the time too leisurely) but the visuals are consistently interesting. The score by Victor Young (which won an Oscar) was the most interesting thing about the film – with multiple transitions between classical and popular music. The editing is straightforward, and the film’s travelogue structure gives it a “unique” rhythm.

Problems: Several. The film is long — VERY long — and some sequences are included mainly to show off locations rather than advance the story. The cultural portrayals are dated (racist), sometimes uncomfortably so, reflecting 1950s Hollywood / American stereotypes. The pacing drags frequently, particularly in the middle third. The cameos, while amusing for someone with a knowledge of Hollywood from that era, occasionally disrupt the narrative flow. You’re caught looking for them and / or wondering who that familiar face was. The romance subplot is thin to the point of non-existence. Finally, there is just no basis for believing the characters made the trip in the allocated time and the film doesn’t really bother to track the time very closely on a calendar – and there is a reason for that. It just doesn’t track… If you are willing to turn off your brain and pretend your a child enjoying the scenic wonders of the world, then none of these issues ruin the film, but they keep it firmly in the “classic but extremely flawed” category.

Did I enjoy the film? Mostly no. It’s not a movie I’d re‑watch again without a very good reason. It tries to be an enjoyable, sprawling adventure with charm, humor, and a sense of cinematic showmanship that’s rare today – and it misses at almost every turn. Cantinflas is delightful. He is why I was taken to see the film as a child. Niven is pitch‑perfect, and the film’s scale is still very impressive. It’s a pleasant, old‑fashioned epic that expects patience and a willingness to enjoy the ride. It probably made for a good afternoon out when TV was still rare in the home.

Final Recommendation: Low Moderate. “Around the World in 80 Days” is a colorful, ambitious, historically significant Best Picture winner that showcases the height of 1950s Hollywood spectacle. While its pacing and cultural portrayals show their age, the film remains an impressive production (if little else). If you’re interested in classic cinema, large‑scale epics, or the evolution of Hollywood showmanship, it’s worth watching. Just be prepared for a LONG journey — fitting, given the title.

.
Click here (14 May) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Charming With Arrow, Sword Or Smile

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alan Hale Sr., Basil Rathbone, Best Art Direction Oscar, Best Film Editing Oscar, Best Original Score Oscar (Korngold), Best Picture Nomination, CGI, Claude Rains, England, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Errol Flynn, Eugene Pallette, Friar Tuck, General Comments, Golden Age of Hollywood, King Richard, Little John, Lucilla, Maid Marian, Melville Cooper, Michael Curtiz, Movie Reviews, Olivia de Havilland, Prince John, Reviews, Robin Hood, Sheriff of Nottingham, Sherwood Forest, Shrek, Sir Guy of Gisbourne, Sir Robin ("Hood") of Locksley, Technicolor, The Adventures of Robin Hoodd (1938) — movie review, Una O’Connor, Very Highly to Must See Movie Recommendation, William Keighley on May 5, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Adventures of Robin Hood” (1938) — movie review
Today’s review is for the classic Technicolor swashbuckler “The Adventures of Robin Hood”, directed by Michael Curtiz and William Keighley, and starring Errol Flynn as Robin Hood (the bold, laughing outlaw who defies tyranny with charm, skill, and a sense of justice); Olivia de Havilland as Maid Marian (initially loyal to the crown, gradually moved by Robin’s courage and compassion); Una O’Connor as Bess (Marian’s sharp-tongued, loyal handmaiden who sees more than she lets on); Basil Rathbone as Sir Guy of Gisbourne (cold, ambitious, and eager to crush Robin for personal and political gain); Claude Rains as Prince John (scheming, vain, and delighted to tax England into misery); Melville Cooper as the Sheriff of Nottingham (smug, petty, and all too happy to enforce Prince John’s cruelty for his own benefit); Eugene Pallette as Friar Tuck (jovial, stubborn, and surprisingly handy with a staff); and Alan Hale Sr. as Little John (Robin’s loyal second-in-command — big-hearted, strong, and always ready for a fight). Together, they bring to life one of early Hollywood’s most enduring adventure tales — bright colors, sword fights, and all.

Background: I’ve seen this movie several times over the years — mostly on TV as a kid and now streaming in a beautifully restored version. “The Adventures of Robin Hood” is one of the crown jewels of the Golden Age of Hollywood. It was nominated for four Academy Awards and won three: Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, and Best Original Score (Erich Wolfgang Korngold). Historically, it’s significant as one of the earliest major films shot entirely in three-strip Technicolor — and it remains one of the best uses of that process. The movie also cemented Errol Flynn’s status as the definitive Robin Hood for generations. This is one of those films that helped define the adventure genre itself.

Plot: With King Richard held captive abroad, Prince John seizes power in England and begins bleeding the people dry through oppressive taxes. Sir Robin of Locksley rebels, forming a band of outlaws in Sherwood Forest to protect the poor and resist John’s tyranny. Robin’s daring raids, cheerful defiance, and sense of justice make him a hero to the people — and a target for Prince John and Sir Guy. Marian, initially skeptical of Robin, gradually sees the truth of the suffering around her and becomes an ally. The story builds through ambushes, disguises, archery contests, and sword fights, culminating in Robin’s rescue of King Richard and the downfall of Prince John’s plot. It’s straightforward, energetic, and told with absolute confidence.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; iconic performances; gorgeous Technicolor visuals; a few dated moments; absolutely.

Any good? Yes. This is one of the great adventure films — joyful, confident, and completely unashamed of being a big, colorful swashbuckler. The story is simple, but it’s told with such energy and sincerity that it still works today. The pacing is brisk, the action is fun, and the tone is light without being silly. It’s the kind of movie that knows exactly what it wants to be and delivers it with style.

Acting: Errol Flynn is perfect as Robin Hood — charismatic, athletic, and effortlessly charming. He plays Robin with a grin that makes the whole rebellion feel fun rather than grim. Olivia de Havilland brings warmth and intelligence to Marian, giving the romance more weight than you might expect. Basil Rathbone is excellent as Sir Guy — sharp, controlled, and dangerous — and his final duel with Flynn is still one of the best sword fights ever filmed. Claude Rains is delightfully oily as Prince John. The supporting cast (Pallette, Hale, and the rest) rounds things out with humor and heart.

Filming / FX: The Technicolor photography is the standout. The colors are bright, bold, and almost storybook-like — greens, reds, and golds that pop off the screen. The sets and costumes are lavish, and the outdoor Sherwood Forest scenes feel alive. The action scenes are cleanly staged, with real stunts, real swords, and real arrows (some of which were famously shot by professional archers into stuntmen wearing padded armor — not CGI!). The score by Korngold is sweeping and heroic, and it basically set the template for adventure-movie music for decades. Everything feels handcrafted and vibrant.

Problems: A few . The tone is very “1930s Hollywood,” which means some characters are broad and the dialogue can be theatrical. The romance is sweet but moves quickly. Prince John and Sir Guy are fun villains, but not especially deep. Some of the humor is dated, and the movie’s sense of medieval England is more fantasy than history. None of this hurts the film — it’s just part of its era and charm.

Did I enjoy the film? Absolutely. This is one of those movies that always puts a smile on my face. The energy, the color, the sword fights, the music — it all works. It’s light, fun, and endlessly re-watchable. Flynn’s performance alone is worth the time, and the whole production has a confidence and joy that modern adventure films sometimes lack. It’s pure entertainment, done with craftsmanship and heart.

Final Recommendation: Very highly recommended to MUST see. “The Adventures of Robin Hood” is a landmark in adventure film making — historically important, visually stunning, and still wildly entertaining. Its Oscar wins reflect the quality of its production, and its influence can be seen in everything from later Robin Hood adaptations to modern action-adventure movies. If you enjoy classic Hollywood, swashbucklers, or just want to see one of the most charming heroes ever put on screen, this film is essential. It remains a joyful, colorful, and wonderfully crafted classic. Final note: You MUST see this movie if you really want to understand “Shrek“… LoL

.
Click here (5 May) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

They Just Need A Little Pride

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged 918th Bomb Group, Best Sound Recording Oscar, Best Supporting Actor Oscar (Jagger), Brigadier General Frank Savage, Colonel Keith Davenport, Combat Fatigue, Dean Jagger, England, Gary Merrill, General Comments, General Pritchard, Gregory Peck, Henry King, High to Very Highly Recommended Movie, Hollywood, Hugh Marlowe, Lieutenant Colonel Ben Gately, Major Harvey Stovall, Millard Mitchell, Movie Reviews, Paul Stewart, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, Reviews, Twelve O’Clock High (1949) — movie review, U.S. Army Air Forces, World War II on April 6, 2026| 2 Comments »

“Twelve O’Clock High” (1949) — movie review
Today’s review is for the World War II drama “Twelve O’Clock High”, directed by Henry King and starring Gregory Peck as Brigadier General Frank Savage, the hard-driving commander brought in to rebuild a demoralized bomber group and push them back to combat readiness; Hugh Marlowe as Lieutenant Colonel Ben Gately, the former “dead-end” officer Savage forces to grow into a real leader; Gary Merrill as Colonel Keith Davenport, the well-liked but exhausted commander whose compassion has started to undermine discipline; Dean Jagger as Major Harvey Stovall, the group’s adjutant and quiet moral center, whose memories frame the story; Millard Mitchell as General Pritchard and Paul Stewart as the group’s flight surgeon. The film focuses on the psychological toll of daylight bombing missions and the strain placed on the men who must lead others into near-certain danger.

Background: I first saw this film sometime in the early 1960s on broadcast TV sometime around when the TV series also ran (1964-67), long before I had any real sense of the historical context behind it. I remembered it mainly as “the Gregory Peck bomber movie” until I revisited it years later and realized how much more was going on beneath the surface. Released in 1949, “Twelve O’Clock High” was both a critical and commercial success. It received four Academy Award nominations and won two — Best Supporting Actor (Dean Jagger) and Best Sound Recording. It is historically significant as one of the earliest major Hollywood films to deal honestly with combat fatigue (what we now call PTSD) and the psychological cost of command. The story was based on real U.S. Army Air Forces experiences in England during the early years of the war, when daylight bombing missions suffered catastrophic losses.

Plot: The film opens in 1949 with Major Stovall returning to an abandoned airfield in England. Seeing a familiar artifact triggers his memories, and the story shifts back to 1942. The 918th Bomb Group is struggling: morale is low, losses are high, and Colonel Davenport, although beloved, has become too protective of his men to enforce discipline. General Pritchard removes Davenport and assigns Brigadier General Frank Savage to take command. Savage arrives like a hammer. He tightens discipline, reassigns officers, grounds Gately for incompetence (more like cowardice), and pushes the group to rebuild its confidence through training and strict standards. The men resent him and even attempt a mass transfer, but Savage refuses to bend. Gradually, the group improves. Gately grows into a capable leader, the crews regain their edge, and the 918th becomes one of the most effective units in the theater. But the pressure on Savage mounts. After a series of brutal missions, he finally cracks (mentally and physically) just as the group achieves its greatest success. The film ends with Stovall walking away from the post-war abandoned air field, reflecting on the cost of leadership and the price paid by those who carry the burden.

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; stark and effective; a few (minor); yes.

Any good? Yes. “Twelve O’Clock High” is one of the stronger World War II dramas I’ve seen, mainly because it focuses on leadership under extreme pressure instead of turning itself into a standard action picture. The film is about responsibility: who carries it, who breaks under it, and how much weight one person can bear before something gives. It’s not a “rah-rah” war movie. It’s steady, serious, and surprisingly modern in how it treats psychological strain. The pacing is deliberate, but it works for the story being told.

Acting: Gregory Peck gives one of his best performances as General Savage. He plays the character as rigid, demanding, and sometimes harsh, but never cruel. You can see the cost of every decision building behind his eyes long before the breakdown comes. Dean Jagger earned his Oscar — his quiet, reflective presence gives the film its emotional anchor. Gary Merrill is strong as Davenport, showing how compassion can become a liability when it blinds a leader to what the mission requires. Hugh Marlowe handles Gately’s arc well, moving from embarrassment to competence without overplaying it. The supporting cast feels authentic, with the kind of understated performances that fit a military setting.

Filming / FX: The film uses a mix of staged footage and real wartime aerial combat film, and the combination still works (chillingly). The flying sequences are tense without being flashy, and the black-and-white cinematography gives everything a stark, documentary feel. The interiors (briefing rooms, offices, barracks) are shot plainly, which fits the tone. There are no special effects in the modern sense, but the aerial footage is effective and sometimes unsettling. The sound design (which won an Oscar) adds weight to the missions, especially the engines and anti-aircraft fire.

Problems: A few. The film’s pacing can feel slow in the early going, particularly during the long stretches of command meetings and disciplinary scenes. Some of the supporting characters blur together, especially among the flight crews. The film also softens certain historical realities (the actual casualty rates were even worse than depicted) but that’s more a limitation of the era than a flaw in the storytelling. The framing device with Stovall is effective, but it takes a while to get going. None of these issues disrupt / spoil the film.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s a serious, thoughtful war movie that focuses on leadership and the psychological cost of command rather than spectacle. Peck’s performance carries the film, and the story still feels relevant because the pressures it depicts haven’t changed. The breakdown scene remains powerful, and the film’s final moments (quiet, reflective, and honest) land well. It’s not a movie I’d watch constantly, but it’s one I’m glad I revisited (and will do so again).

Final Recommendation: Highly to Very Highly recommended. “Twelve O’Clock High” is a well-acted, historically significant World War II drama that deals directly with combat fatigue, leadership pressure, and the human cost of sustained stress. Its Academy Award wins and nominations are well deserved, and its influence on later military films is clear. If you’re interested in World War II history, leadership studies, or character-driven drama, this is a film worth viewing. It remains one of the more thoughtful entries in the war / military leadership genre(s).

.
Click here (6 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 »

1 More From 2 To 3 (99 To 100)

Posted in Faith Family and Friends, Family and Friends, Family History, General Comments, tagged #47DonTheFelon, England, Faith Family and Friends, Family History, General Comments, Happy Birthday Mom on April 3, 2026| 2 Comments »

Happy Birthday to my mom!!

In England, when you have your 100th birthday, you get a letter of congratulations (happy birthday) from the King / Queen. I think that would be a nice tradition to start here (except I support “NO KINGS HERE!!). Anyway, one last one to go to the BIG 100!!!

.
Click here (3 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 »

Revisiting And Revising A Cinematic Tyrant

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Admiral Hood, Anthony Hopkins, Breadfruit, Cape Horn, Captain Bligh and Mr. Christian, Captain William Bligh, Caribbean, Charles Churchill, Daniel Day-Lewis, England, Fletcher Christian, General Comments, HMS Bounty, Laurence Olivier, Liam Neeson, Lieutenant William Bligh, Mel Gibson, Moderate To Strong Movie Recommendation, Movie Reviews, Pacific Ocean, Pitcairn Island, Reviews, Richard Hough, Roger Donaldson, Tahiti, The Bounty (1984) – movie review, Vangelis, West Indies on January 15, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Bounty” (1984) – movie review
Today’s review is for the historical maritime drama “The Bounty” (1984), directed by Roger Donaldson and starring Anthony Hopkins as Lieutenant William Bligh (the disciplined and ambitious commanding officer whose reputation has swung between capable navigator and legendary tyrant); Mel Gibson as Fletcher Christian (the charismatic but increasingly strained master’s mate whose loyalty erodes under pressure); Daniel Day-Lewis as John Fryer (the resentful sailing master whose friction with Bligh shapes the ship’s internal tensions); Liam Neeson as Charles Churchill (a brooding seaman drawn into the mutineers’ orbit), and Laurence Olivier as Admiral Hood (presiding over the court-martial that frames the narrative). With this cast and a more restrained approach than earlier versions, the film tries to retell the “Bounty” story without the usual hero-villain simplifications.

Background: This is the third of the three “Bounty” films I’m familiar with. I hadn’t seen this one before, and with Hopkins and Gibson both early(ish) in their careers, it seemed like a good time to fill the gap. Released in 1984, “The Bounty” was conceived as a corrective to earlier Hollywood versions of the mutiny — the 1935 (review here) and 1962 (review here) films — both of which leaned heavily into the “tyrant Bligh vs. noble Christian” myth. Donaldson’s film, drawing on Richard Hough’s book “Captain Bligh and Mr. Christian“, aims for something closer to the historical record. While the film did not win any Academy Awards, it was noted for its authenticity, its location shooting in the South Pacific, and its attempt to restore complexity to figures long flattened by legend. Its historic significance lies in being the first major cinematic treatment to depict Bligh as an extraordinarily capable (and lucky) navigator and Christian as a man unraveling under pressure, rather than a simple clash between good and evil.

Plot: Told through the framing device of Bligh’s court-martial, the film recounts the ill-fated voyage of HMS Bounty in the late 1780s. Tasked with transporting breadfruit from Tahiti to the Caribbean, Bligh pushes his crew hard — first through the failed attempt to round Cape Horn, then across the vast Pacific. The long stay in Tahiti loosens discipline and deepens personal entanglements, especially for Christian. Tensions rise as Bligh’s strict expectations collide with a crew that has grown comfortable and resentful. The mutiny itself is quick and brutal, leaving Bligh and his loyalists cast adrift in an open boat. The film follows both paths: Bligh’s extraordinary 3,600-mile navigation to safety, and Christian’s doomed attempt to build a new life on Pitcairn. The court-martial scenes bookend the narrative, forcing the viewer to reconsider where blame — and tragedy — truly lies.

For me, one of the most interesting differences between the three films is the initial relationship between Bligh and Christian. In the 1935 version, Christian is portrayed as an up-from-the-ranks professional sailor, who has been assigned to the voyage, but doesn’t really want to be there. In the second (1962), Christian is an aristocrat who has been assigned by the Admiralty and who is hoping for some professional fame / “reputational profit” from the voyage. It seems as if Bligh wishes to take him down a peg or two. In the 1984 version (this one), Christian is a “friend” of Bligh’s who has been requested (BY Bligh). Christian has sailed with Bligh before and is aware of Bligh’s character traits. Bligh signals he wants Christian along because he (Bligh) has more confidence in Christian as Master’s Mate than he does in his assigned Master (Fryer). Once at sea, Bligh gives Christian a “sea commission” to acting Lieutenant, which puts Christian over Fryer in shipboard rank.

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; immersive and convincing; a few; yes.

Any Good? Yes. “The Bounty” works as a thoughtful, character-driven retelling of a story focused on clashing personalities, expectations, and pressures instead of the story earlier films turned into a morality play. Its strength lies in its restraint — the film trusts the viewer to sit with ambiguity rather than forcing a moral verdict. It is not a swashbuckler; it is a study in leadership, pride, and how quickly order can fall apart when trust erodes.

Acting: Anthony Hopkins delivers a strong performance as Bligh — stern, ambitious, wounded by slights real and imagined, yet undeniably competent. He avoids the sadistic stereotype of the prior versions and instead portrays a man whose rigidity becomes his undoing and which helps the film’s more balanced approach. Mel Gibson’s Christian is equally layered: charming, uncertain, and increasingly overwhelmed by the weight of command as the voyage wears him down. Their dynamic is the film’s emotional core, built on mismatched expectations and a slow breakdown in communication. Daniel Day-Lewis, even in an early role, brings simmering resentment as Fryer, while Liam Neeson adds physical presence and quiet menace. Laurence Olivier lends gravitas to the court-martial scenes, grounding the film’s historical framing. The ensemble works with each performance contributing to the film’s moral complexity.

Filming / FX: Shot on location in Tahiti and aboard a full-scale replica of the Bounty, the film’s visual authenticity shows. The cinematography captures both the beauty and isolation of the Pacific, while the shipboard scenes feel lived-in and practical. The storm scenes, the failed rounding of Cape Horn, and the longboat voyage rely on physical effects that hold up remarkably well. Vangelis’ score adds a steady, atmospheric layer without overwhelming the film.

Problems: A few. The pacing can feel uneven, particularly in the transition from Tahiti’s slow rhythms to the sudden eruption of the mutiny. Some supporting characters are sketched lightly, leaving motivations that aren’t always clear – basically unexplained. The film’s commitment to ambiguity — which is one of its strengths — may frustrate viewers who want a firmer stance on who was right or wrong. But these are minor issues in a film that aims for realism over melodrama.

Did I Enjoy the Film? Yes. “The Bounty” is a rewarding watch if you’re interested in a more grounded version of the story rather than the older Hollywood myth. The performances are strong, the atmosphere is convincing, and the film treats the mutiny as a human failure rather than a simple tale of good and evil. It sticks with you because it doesn’t oversimplify.

Final Recommendation: Moderate to strong recommendation. “The Bounty” is a thoughtful, well-acted, and historically grounded retelling of one of maritime history’s most famous mutinies. While it did not win Academy Awards, its significance lies in its corrective approach — restoring complexity to Bligh and Christian and show the mutiny as a complicated breakdown, a tragedy of human frailty, rather than a simple tale of good and evil. If you appreciate films that blend historical authenticity with character-driven drama, this one is worth your time.

Final Note: The HMS Bounty was too small a ship to justify a full ranked “Captain” in the British Navy. Lieutenant William Bligh was the commanding officer of the ship and therefore, by naval tradition, would be addressed as “Captain” by the ship’s crew. Given the films’ notoriety, “Captain Bligh” is now a part of popular culture and in the films.

.
Click here (15 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 »

You Eat Life Or Life Eats You

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Best Picture Nomination, Breadfruit, Bronislau Kaper, Captain William Bligh, England, Fletcher Christian, General Comments, HMS Bounty, Hugh Griffith, Lewis Milestone, Maimiti, Marlon Brando, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, MGM, Moderate To Strong Movie Recommendation, Movie Reviews, Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) — movie review, Pacific Ocean, Reviews, Richard Harris, Richard Haydn, Seaman John Mills, Tahiti, Tarita Teriipaia, Trevor Howard, Ultra Panavision 70, West Indies on January 14, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sweeping historical adventure “Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962), directed by Lewis Milestone and built around three central performances: Marlon Brando as Fletcher Christian (the aristocratic first officer whose idealism and polished manners slowly give way to frustration and rebellion), Trevor Howard as Captain William Bligh (a rigid disciplinarian whose command style pushes his crew to the edge and then past the breaking point), and Richard Harris as Seaman John Mills (a voice of the lower deck caught between duty, survival and conscience). Supporting roles include Hugh Griffith as the ship’s perpetually drunken ship’s doctor, Richard Haydn as the fussy Purcell, and Tarita Teriipaia as Maimiti, whose presence symbolizes the seductive pull of Tahitian life. With its massive sets (a full-size Bounty replica), Ultra Panavision 70 photography, and Brando’s famously idiosyncratic performance, the film attempts to retell one of maritime history’s most mythologized uprisings.

Background: Released in 1962 by MGM, this version of “Mutiny on the Bounty” was conceived as a prestige epic — lavish, expensive, and intended to rival the studio’s earlier 1935 adaptation (review here). The production became notorious for delays, rewrites, and Brando’s on-set eccentricities, ultimately ballooning the budget to one of the largest of its era. Despite a mixed reception, the film earned seven Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Cinematography, and Best Music Score, though it did not win in any category. Over the years, it has settled into a reputation as a visually impressive but uneven retelling of the Bounty story, notable for its scale and for shifting the focus from simple tyranny to a broader clash of values.

Plot: Set in the late 1700s, the story follows the HMS Bounty as it sails from England to Tahiti to collect breadfruit plants for transport to the West Indies. Captain Bligh, obsessed with efficiency and discipline, imposes increasingly harsh measures on the crew. Fletcher Christian, who starts out detached and aristocratic, becomes disillusioned with Bligh’s cruelty and increasingly sympathetic to the men under his command. When the Bounty reaches Tahiti, the crew experiences a level of ease and freedom that stands in sharp contrast to life aboard the ship. Christian’s loyalties shift, and when Bligh’s punishments escalate, Christian finally leads a mutiny. The aftermath includes Bligh’s long open-boat journey, Christian’s attempt to build a new life with the mutineers, and the eventual collapse of their fragile settlement. The film ends on a sober note: rebellion solves one problem but creates others.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; committed but uneven; spectacular; several; mostly.

Any Good? Yes — mostly. The film aims high and delivers a large-scale adventure with clear themes about authority, conscience, and the appeal of a simpler life. It isn’t as tight or focused as the 1935 version, but it tries to give the mutiny more psychological weight. The pacing can drag, especially in the middle, but the overall story still works.

Acting: Brando delivers one of his most unusual performances — mannered, eccentric, and at times bordering on parody, yet undeniably compelling as the film progresses. His Fletcher Christian is less a rugged seaman (than Clark Gable’s version) than a conflicted aristocrat, torn between privilege and principle he becomes a reluctant rebel. Trevor Howard is excellent as Captain Bligh, portraying him not as a cartoon tyrant but as a man whose rigid worldview blinds him to the humanity of those he commands. Richard Harris brings energy and frustration to his role, grounding the lower-deck perspective. The Tahitian cast, particularly Tarita, adds warmth and authenticity, though their roles are shaped more by the film’s romanticism than by historical nuance. Overall, the acting is strong, but Brando’s choices dominate the film and throw the tone off balance.

Filming / FX: The film’s biggest strength is its look. Shot in Ultra Panavision 70, the widescreen vistas of the Pacific are breathtaking — emerald islands, turquoise waters, and the imposing silhouette of the Bounty under full sail. The ship itself, a full-scale reconstruction, is a marvel of production design. The storm scenes, Tahitian sequences, and open-sea shots are staged with grandeur and precision. Bronislau Kaper’s score supports the film well, mixing orchestral sweep with lighter island material. There are no modern visual effects, but the practical scale and location shooting give the film a physical authenticity rarely matched today.

Problems: Several. The pacing is uneven, particularly in the second act, where the film lingers on Tahitian idylls which slows the story down; Brando’s performance, while interesting, sometimes clashes with the rest of the cast; the script softens some of the harsher historical realities and leans into a romantic view of both the mutiny and Tahitian life; Bligh is written as more complex than the usual absolute villain, which is good, but it occasionally weakens the dramatic pressure leading up to the mutiny; and, the final act feels rushed compared to the long middle stretch.

Did I Enjoy the Film? Mostly. “Mutiny on the Bounty” is long and occasionally slow, but it’s also impressive to look at and has enough character conflict to stay interesting. The themes about leadership and responsibility still land. Brando’s performance is uneven but memorable, and the production values alone make the film worth watching.

Final Recommendation: Moderate to strong recommendation. “Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962) is a large, ambitious, and sometimes frustrating epic, but it’s also a distinctive entry in Hollywood’s widescreen era. It didn’t win any of its seven Oscar nominations, but its scale, its cast, and its place in the long line of Bounty adaptations give it lasting interest. If you enjoy maritime history, character-driven conflict, or Brando’s experimental period, this version is worth your time. It isn’t a definitive telling of the story, but it remains a striking and memorable one.

.
Click here (14 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 »

What Hurts Is That You And I Can Never Be Friends

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Arthur Edeson, Best Picture Oscar, British Navy, Captain William Bligh, Charles Laughton, Charles Nordhoff, Clark Gable, England, Fletcher Christian, Franchot Tone, Frank Lloyd, General Comments, HMS Bounty, James Norman Hall, Mamo Clark, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Midshipman Roger Byam, Movie Reviews, Movita Castaneda, Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) — movie review, Portsmouth, Reviews, Strong Movie Recommendation, Tahiti, The Broadway Melody on January 10, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Mutiny on the Bounty” (1935) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical adventure drama “Mutiny on the Bounty” (1935), directed by Frank Lloyd and starring Charles Laughton as Captain William Bligh (a tyrannical commander whose cruelty drives his men to desperation), Clark Gable as Fletcher Christian (the charismatic officer who leads the mutiny), and Franchot Tone as Midshipman Roger Byam (a conflicted witness caught between loyalty and conscience). Supporting roles include Movita Castaneda as a Tahitian love interest, and Mamo Clark as a symbol of the island’s allure. With its ensemble, the film dramatizes one of history’s most infamous naval uprisings, blending spectacle, moral conflict, and human endurance.

Background: I know I’ve seen this version of this title at least once as a child / youth, but I really can’t tell you when it might have been. LoL. Released by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in 1935, “Mutiny on the Bounty” was adapted from the novel by Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall. With a budget of nearly $2 million, it grossed over $4.5 million worldwide. The film won the Academy Award for Best Picture at the 1936 Oscars and was the third time a film won Best Picture and was the highest grossing film of the year, and uniquely, all three leading men (Laughton, Gable, Tone) were nominated for Best Actor — a rare occurrence in Academy history. Its legacy lies in its sweeping dramatization of maritime rebellion and its enduring influence on naval adventure cinema. By the way, the previous two films with the double honor were “The Broadway Melody” (review here) and “It Happened One Night” (review here). Coincidentally, the latter also starred Clark Gable.

Plot: Set in 1789, the HMS Bounty sails from Portsmouth, England to Tahiti under Captain Bligh’s harsh command. His brutal discipline — floggings, starvation, and humiliation — alienates the crew. Fletcher Christian, notably serving under orders and against his request is initially loyal, but grows increasingly disillusioned and ultimately leads a mutiny, casting Bligh adrift with loyalists in a small boat. Midshipman Byam, who tried to prevent the mutiny, is later caught in the fallout when the British Navy seeks justice. The narrative balances tropical romance, seafaring hardship, and courtroom reckoning, culminating in Byam’s trial and the enduring question of whether rebellion was justified.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; commanding and layered; sweeping and authentic; some historical liberties; absolutely.

Any Good? Yes. “Mutiny on the Bounty” is a landmark adventure film, combining spectacle with moral inquiry. It dramatizes tyranny, loyalty, and rebellion with intensity, while respecting the mythic scale of the event.

Acting: Charles Laughton dominates as Bligh, embodying cruelty with chilling precision — his clipped voice and rigid posture make him unforgettable. Clark Gable, notably without his trademark mustache, delivers charisma and conviction as Christian, balancing heroism with vulnerability. Franchot Tone provides nuance as Byam, the moral fulcrum of the story. The ensemble performances elevate the film into timeless drama.

Filming / FX: Arthur Edeson’s cinematography captures both the claustrophobic shipboard tension and the lush beauty of Tahiti. The seafaring sequences are staged with convincing realism for the era. The storm and mutiny scenes are particularly well-crafted, blending spectacle with narrative clarity.

Problems: According to my AI-assistant (Copilot), historical accuracy is sacrificed for drama: Bligh’s real-life seamanship and survival skills are underplayed, while Christian’s heroism is romanticized. The Tahitian subplot leans toward exoticism, and pacing occasionally drags in courtroom sequences. Yet these flaws are minor compared to the film’s thematic resonance. I didn’t independently verify these “facts” as I’m not sure how much they would have altered my opinion of the film – after all, this is Hollywood. I do acknowledge Bligh’s seamanship MUST have been incredible (and lucky) as I’ve heard it referenced in other contexts (films, books and novels).

Did I Enjoy the Film? Yes. The film is compelling, both as spectacle and moral parable. Watching Laughton’s Bligh unravel, Gable’s Christian seize command, and Tone’s Byam wrestle with conscience makes for entertaining cinema.

Final Recommendation: Strong Recommendation. “Mutiny on the Bounty” (1935) is historically significant as the Best Picture winner at the 1936 Academy Awards, and it remains one of the definitive naval adventure films. Rated for its intense themes and violence, it is essential viewing for fans of maritime history, courtroom drama, or classic Hollywood spectacle. Watch it for Laughton’s tyrannical command, Gable’s heroic defiance, and the enduring question of when “mutiny” becomes justified.

.
Click here (10 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 »

Worming My Way Into You

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alabama, Billy Wirth, Body Snatchers, Body Snatchers -- movie review, Borg, Cannes Film Festival, Carol Malone, Donald Sutherland, England, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Forest Whitaker, Gabrielle Anwar, General Platt, Jack Finney, Major Collins, Marti Malone, Meg Tilly, Moderate Movie Recommendation, Movie Reviews, R. Lee Ermey, Reviews, Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: Voyager, Steve Malone, Terry Kinney, Tim Young on July 6, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Body Snatchers” (1993) — movie review
Today’s review is for the Sci-Fi / horror film: “Body Snatchers” (1993), starring Gabrielle Anwar as Marti Malone (teenage protagonist / narrator), Terry Kinney as Steve Malone (EPA scientist / Marti’s father), Meg Tilly as Carol Malone (Marti’s stepmother turned pod-person), Billy Wirth as Tim Young (chopper pilot / Marti’s lust interest), R. Lee Ermey (post commander General Platt) and Forest Whitaker as Major Collins (paranoid medical officer). This is the third movie adaptation of Jack Finney’s 1955 novel “The Body Snatchers“.

Background: This version is the 1990s reboot of the genre-defining “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (1956), and follows the more acclaimed (but less “classic”) 1978 remake with Donald Sutherland. This version shifts the setting to a remote military base in Alabama, exchanging small-town (socialist) paranoia for institutional (military) conformity. The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 1993 and then had a very limited U.S. release in 1994. I was living in England at the time and never heard about the release, let alone went to see the film in theater. I also have never seen this version on TV… So, this was my first viewing of this version.

Plot: Marti Malone arrives at an Army base with her family — dad Steve, stepmom Carol, and half-brother Andy. The dad works for the EPA and is assigned to evaluate the base’s handling of toxic material. It’s estimated to take about a month, so he has brought along his whole family. From the jump, things feel off. A soldier grabs Marti in a gas station restroom and warns her: “They get you when you sleep.” And sure enough, sleep becomes the event horizon for becoming Alien. Alien pods slither tendrils into mouths and ears, duplicating the human they are going to replace. When the replacement is ready, the original bodies disintegrate into ash. The replacements look identical, but lack emotion — reduced blinking, lacking emotional warmth, just eerie calm. As the base is overrun by the aliens, Marti must fight to survive, even as one-by-one her own family is replaced. In the end, Marti’s new boyfriend pilots a helicopter escape, there is a tragic reveal (Hans Gruber FX “falling” scene), and a voice-over (Marti’s narration) that suggests the invasion is already global.

So, is this film any good? Acting? Special effects? Sci-Fi? Any problems with the movie? Was it an enjoyable film? So-so, so-so, so-so (but they at least had the budget to try), no, lots, and yes.

Any good? It’s not a classic like the ’56 original, but it’s decent enough. The horror is more touchy-feelie / wormy instead of the understated original (which mainly used “darkness” and music to raise audience apprehension). The pod “scream” in this version is more TV-ish, than chilling and I found the swampy setting more distracting than useful or explanatory.

Acting? Mostly pretty basic… The closest anyone comes to “acting” is Meg Tilly after her transformation. Her challenge / statement scene to the dad — “Where you gonna go? Where you gonna run? Where you gonna hide?” — is the most “scary / dramatic” scene in the film. Gabrielle Anwar is competent as an “underage” teenager in the lead, but they can’t make up their mind how much sleep is required to transform her. Forest Whitaker’s descent into amphetamine madness is dramatic and well acted but mainly memorable for being the result of a series of bad professional decisions (by the character, not the actor). He’s doing the best he can to follow the script when it (the script) doesn’t make any sense for a person in his position / authority on the military base. The character’s suicide is arguably every bit as dramatic as Tilly’s lines, but just didn’t ring true for me. I thought he was going to take as many aliens as he could with him and save the last round for himself – not start with himself. Maybe that’s just me…

Sci-Fi? Science – none… LoL! Alien spores who somehow traverse space, pods, and replication — no explanation provided. The original movie from the ’50s had hints of McCarthyism about a “Borg-like” loss of individuality in rigid (read: “Communist“) societies. In case you’re not sure already, the military base setting shouts “conformity” societal issues loud and clear.

Special Effects? Unsurprisingly, the alien transformation “process” is much better than the ’56 version. The pod births and deaths are slimy / gooey. The “host body disintegration into dust” scenes at least offer an explanation of what happened to the “host”. Not having viewed the ’78 remake, I can’t compare it, yet. It original body issue was never addressed in the ’56 original. If that ’78 version comes down to my price point, I’ll be “all in” to at least view it to see if it splits the difference between the original and this third version. LoL

Problems with the film? If I actually stop and think about it, I’m sure I can point out plenty. I won’t – think about it. I’ll just list a few. My list isn’t in any particular order of importance. First, the version I have to stream hasn’t “really” been updated to Hi-Def/4K, even though it’s “labeled” as HDX. Lots of it look fuzzy around the edges – made for TV. The movie has a peculiar problem with “time”. The main one is it’s not quite 90 minutes duration, so it has to slow for “interaction” and then jump to get the story moving again – which gets annoying. Next, how long does it take for the transformation to happen? When the family moves in, they get some pods delivered in four boxes (one for each family member), but the pods don’t seem to develop at the same pace and the family sleeps at least multiple nights. How close does a pod have to be for the process to work? The post commander’s wife is nowhere near a pod and we never see any tendrils, but she’s suddenly an alien? Unlike the original, this version uses “worms” / tendrils which seem to require physical contact with the human. The pods seem to get harvested from the base swamp. Okay, good “growth environment” for a plant, but why would a pod (the “first” one) initially choose a human to take over? It seems as if the pods would choose the dominant life-form (alligator or large snake) in the swamp, not one which is some distance from the water. Anyway, points for trying to explain some of the logical failings of the original film, but minus points for not thinking your explanations through.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes – despite all the above criticism. It’s creepy and wormy but aside from the lack of production value, it’s not really “that” bad of a movie. The idea that you or your loved ones could be replaced while you sleep is universally scary without being “horror”. The military setting does automatically add the psychological aspect of uniformity – irrespective of “real world” validity. All in all, it is an okay addition to the semi-generational series even if it’s never going to be considered a star in the franchise firmament.

Final recommendation: Moderate — if you’re a fan of the franchise, enjoy mildly scary, teen (but non-teen slasher) 90s horror with a dash of “Borg” assimilation, or if you want to know how the early 90s interpreted the fear of losing one’s humanity, “Body Snatchers” (1993) is worth 90 minutes. Outside of this franchise, I think you’d get more from actually watching the various Star Trek series (TNG and Voyager) featuring the Borg in multiple episodes. But, then again, I AM a Trekkie…

Final note: The film is rated “R”. There is some brief frontal nudity (Tillis) and later brief breast nudity (Anwar), some cigarette smoking, and some underage drinking (a beer). I don’t remember any swearing, but there might have been some. In any case, you’ve now been cautioned…

.
Click here (6 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 »

2 To 3 (98 To 100)

Happy Birthday to my mom!!

In England, when you have your 100th birthday, you get a letter of congratulations (happy birthday) from the King / Queen. I think that would be a nice tradition to start here. (Not that my mother would like anything from #47DonTheFelon.) Anyway, two to go…!!

.
Click here (3 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 »

And The Truth Will Set You Free

Posted in History, Other Blogs, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged #47DonTheFelon, America First, American Politics, Baltic States, China, David Frum, Economics, Edmund Burke, England, Evil, Former President George W. Bush, Good, History, I Didn't Have My Glasses On, Japan, Lele Saa, NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Other Blogs, Pax Americana, Philosophy, Poland, Politics, Quotes, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Russia, SEATO, Slava Ukraini, South Korea, Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, Spain, Taiwan, Triumph, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin, War on March 1, 2025| 7 Comments »

No, the meeting did not go badly for Ukraine. It exposed in the most undeniable, unequivocal way possible the pro-Putin commitments of the president and vice president. That was information Americans and allies needed to have clear before them.
9:56 AM · Feb 28, 2025

– David Frum
Speechwriter for Former President George W. Bush

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

– Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

– Edmund Burke (generally attributed to)


art credit: Lele Saa (a Spanish illustrator living in England)
The illustration was posted on one of the blog sites I follow: I Didn’t Have My Glasses On
The specific post was: Slava Ukraini
Please visit the original site if you have a few spare moments…

[I find it difficult to express the amount of disgust I have for our current American Presidential administration.

Americans and our former allies (NATO and SEATO) should make NO mistake, BOTH Russia and China are authoritarian nuclear superpowers and are intent on supplanting the United States as the world’s dominant national actor – economically and militarily.

President Trump may or may not be a “puppet” of Russian leader Putin, but Trump is not acting in the long term “best” interests of the United States or our allies. While all three of the superpowers have the ability to destroy the world, none have the ability to unilaterally command the rest of the world’s nations to do their bidding – and, yes, I include the United States under that limitation.

There is no “Pax Americana” without our allies support.

I am opposed to Ukraine signing any mineral treaty with the United States in exchange for “security”. A U.S. guarantee of security is purely an illusion for the Ukranians (and the rest of the “free” world). There can be no U.S. backed guarantee of security for any country as long as we have our current convicted criminal in the Oval Office. Let’s be clear: President Trump is a man without honor and a contract, which is all a treaty is, means less to him than the paper it is written on. Trump has a lifetime history of ignoring his side of any contract and he has been responsible for the failure of many businesses which made the mistake of delivering on their side of a contract before full payment has been made by his companies.

All of the NATO allies should take full account of President Trump’s actions and recognize there is NO Article V, guarantee of mutual support and defense by the United States any longer (now or in the future). When it is possible for an unethical criminal to be elected President of the United States (and then re-elected), all of our allies must assume it will happen again and base their current and on-going security policy free of illusion.

For now, the other NATO countries are fortunate that Ukraine has so weakened Russia over the last three years, that it will take years for Russia to rebuild their conventional forces so that Russia is again a major ground threat to ALL of Europe. The key for a free Europe is to start developing your security forces NOW, not in two years time when Russia completes their rebuild and finally crushes Ukraine or 3-4 years from now or when Russia invades Poland or the Baltic States.

Unfortunately, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have not had an immovable object (like Ukraine) to blunt / spend the buildup of conventional Chinese forces as Ukraine as done to Russia for the benefit of the rest of Europe and the Middle East. So, what was true for NATO is now equally valid for SEATO: you cannot rely on the United States for mutual defense.

Trump’s “America first!” really means “America Alone…” to the rest of the world.

A word to the wise should suffice.

— kmab]

.
Click here (1 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 »

40 Years – And Still Dreaming With A Higher Love…

Posted in Faith Family and Friends, Family History, Included Video, Videos, tagged Dan Hartman, England, Family History, Higher Love -- music video, I Can Dream About You -- music video, Included Video, Liverpool, Merseyside, MTV, Quotes, San Francisco, Steve Winwood, Streets Of Fire, Vevo, YouTube on August 28, 2024| 2 Comments »

Forty years (and a few months) ago I met my wife. She was visiting from Liverpool, England and we spent the better part of two weeks playing tourists in San Francisco. She returned to Merseyside and we exchanged letters and phone calls (VERY expensive back then). At just about the same time she returned home, the movie “*Streets of Fire” was released. One of the big songs from the film received a LOT of play on MTV (yes, back then they showed “music videos”) and on the radio. The song was: “I Can Dream About You*“, which was lip-synced in the movie, but was actually sung by Dan Hartman. The song reminded me of Hil (my wife) and I bought the extended version on an “LP” to play over and over (to the point of ad nauseam for my roommates).

To make a longer story shorter, forty years ago TODAY she came back to me. I proposed in late October and we were married in early December!

Here’s the song I played over and over while she was away…



And, yes, I still play it (on YouTube, now), and, yes, I still dream about her!

And, being a sentimentalist, here’s another song which reminds me to be grateful for her coming back to me…



My Hil’s return brought me a higher love!

.
Click here (28 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 »

Refreshing My Look Ahead (Back)

Posted in 2022 Book Review, Book Review, History, Reviews, tagged 2022 Book Review, 2034: A Novel of the Next World War, Admiral James Stavridis (Ret.), Bernard Burrows, Book Review, China, Disclaimer, East Germany, England, France, Henry Kissinger, Ian McGeoch, Japan, John Barraclough, John Strawson, John W. Hackett, Kenneth Hunt, National Guard, NATO, NCO, Niccolò Machiavelli, Norman Macrae, Russia, Shah of Iran, South Africa, Strong Book Recommendation, The Economist, The Third World War: August 1985, Tom Clancy, U.S. Army Reserves, Ukraine, USSR, Warsaw Pact, West Germany on May 2, 2022| Leave a Comment »

[Another LONG post… You’ve been warned! (LoL) — kmab]

The Third World War: August 1985 (1978©) — book review
This review is for the fictional portrayal (as a “future history”) of a “realistic” invasion of NATO allied European countries by the Warsaw Pact in August of 1985. The book was “written” primarily (et al) by (Ret.) British General John W. Hackett in consultation with a number of experts gathered to discuss how such an invasion might occur, what might lead up to it and what might be the end-of-war results. The “advisors” were listed as: John Barraclough (Air Chief Marshal), Kenneth Hunt (Brigadier), Ian McGeoch (Vice-Admiral), Norman Macrae (a deputy editor at “The Economist“), John Strawson (Major-General), and, Bernard Burrows (British Diplomatic Service).

The book was a best-seller in England back in 1978. It was published in the U.S. in early 1979 as a hardback and then released as a paperback in 1980. I initially read the paperback version. I believe it was shortly after I was released from the Active Reserves, but my memory isn’t that precise anymore. In any case, this review is of a re-reading of the book after my reading of “2034: A Novel of the Next World War” earlier this year. (review here: A Novel War). The author of that book, (ret) Admiral James Stavridis, cited this book as a primary inspiration for his work. This prompted my re-interest in the original…

During my (almost) two years in the Reserves I was assigned to a unit which tested and evaluated the readiness of National Guard units from California, Arizona and New Mexico. The officers would establish “war-game” scenarios for the Guard officers and I (as an NCO) would embed with the line units to evaluate actual field performance. We were artillery evaluators, so I watched Guard batteries fire cannons / howitzers, but I gained an understanding of scenario development and large scale tactical war-gaming. This led to a post-service interest in military style board games which carried on for most of the ’80s. I lost interest when gaming shifted to computers and became “mostly” shoot-em-up’s instead of (IMHO) about strategy.

Basically, the plot of this book is the leaders of the USSR feel their position as a superpower is being threatened by political and economic factors which are worsening (for them). They feel there has been a significant / progressive decrease in NATO’s readiness over the last decade and this may be their last / best opportunity to remove a potential military threat (NATO) and further subjugate the buffer countries of Eastern Europe who are members of the Warsaw Pact. The plan is a crushing invasion of Western Europe (West Germany and the low-lands) which leaves the USSR in command up to the border of France. The invasion fails because in the years between the book’s publishing (1978) and the date of the “future-history” event (August 1985), Europe (specifically Great Britain) comes to its senses and reverses the general military decline of the late ’60s to ’70s. The NATO forces are able to slow the advance of invasion (without the use of tactical nuclear weapons) and allows reinforcements to arrive from the U.S. just in the nick of time.

In a striking foreboding of the current (2022) invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the invasion portrayed fails because of (in no particular order of importance):
1) an inability to dominate the air despite superior numerical assets;
2) a failure of logistics (fuel and ammunition) by the Warsaw Pact, (it is believed the invasion will take less than two weeks AND there will not be enough time for the U.S. to resupply NATO forces);
3) resistance by the native forces (in this case, the West German army / reserves) is surprisingly effective; and,
4) the centralized command and control characteristic of authoritarian political systems, does not promote the flexibility / initiative of junior officers (and NCOs) to seize military opportunities when they arise, so opportunities for significant breakouts are lost.

When the war quickly (the “war” lasts weeks) devolves into a war of attrition, failure is viewed as inevitable and hard-liners in the Politburo decide to consolidate their gains for future armistice negotiations by the use of a limited (against only one city) nuclear strike. The result, however, is not fear and negotiation, but instead, fury and retaliation via a similar limited nuclear strike by Great Britain and the U.S. against a Russian city; (and like falling dominoes) the Warsaw Pact allies turn on the USSR to avoid nuclear annihilation; the Soviet military / security services stage a coup, over-throw the hardliners, and cease further combat; the non-Russian border states (the “-stans”) declare independence from the USSR; and, the rest of the world struggles with the effects of a new world order. The “war” is barely a month old before it is over. Because the book is written as a “recent” history of past events, it does not attempt to forecast / describe long term results of the war except to relate the world has to deal with unaccounted for Soviet nuclear weapons / warheads and large stocks of conventional weapons scattered around the global (mainly Africa).

Is this a “good” book? Is it realistic as a predictor of future conflict (lethality, if not participants)? Is it entertaining or interesting? Do I recommend this book? With the exception of the final question, the answer to all of these is (are): yes to so-so…

The book is not a “good” novel. There are no specified individual characters driving the action, so you cannot (as a reader) identify and grow with anyone. In this sense, although fictional, the book is written with more of an academic or journalistic feel. It is very much an military style “after-action” report. If you are comfortable with this writing style, you will enjoy the writing / book. If you are not, you will not. I did. Was the book able to realistically describe combat and the results (devastation) of war? Yes! Although, saying this, there was an obvious Western bias of vivid description of the destruction of the British city and virtually nothing about the similar (or much worse) destruction of the Russian city. (Very much: “Yeah, we took out one of theirs as payback…”) Is the book entertaining or interesting? This is the toughest question because every reader’s tastes varies so much… I was not “entertained”; but, I did find the book interesting. I particularly “enjoyed” the parts the authors get terribly wrong, because as a reader I (we) have 40+ years of hind-sight. There is no China – Japan alliance; the Shah is no longer in charge of Iran (or, rather, wasn’t in 1985); South Africa did not fall to external forces; and, East Germany did not resist consolidation with West Germany after the fall of the USSR.

Final recommendation: strong recommendation. I think most veterans (particularly my age group) will find this book relatable. I think most civilian “military” readers / historians – and quite a few regular historians – will, too. For political science readers, the “states” interests, goals, and stances will seem Machiavellian / Kissinger-ian (is that a real word?). Yet, they ring true – even 40 years later. It is entirely obvious why this book could seem as an inspiration for a future – updated version (a la “2034“), and I believe (I read) this book served as a similar inspiration for several of Tom Clancy’s works which followed. At any rate, I do remember “enjoying” the initial read from “way-back-when”, and don’t feel the re-read was less so. My reaction to “2034” was reinforced: this version is much better than the more recent book. If you have read “2034“, I recommend you read “WW3:1985” for the comparison value, if nothing else.

Final disclaimer: I purchased this book at normal / sale price (for an old / used book) and no compensation has been provided to me by anyone for my opinions in this review.

.
Click here (2 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 »

Early Knowledge

Posted in 2020 Book Review, Book Review, Education, History, Philosophy, Reviews, Science and Learning, tagged 2020 Book Review, A Classical Primer: Ancient Knowledge For Modern Minds -- book review, Cambridge, Dan Crompton, England, Greek History, Philosophy, Roman History, Strong to High Book Recommendation, Western Classics on May 8, 2020| Leave a Comment »

“A Classical Primer” (2012©) — book review
This review is for the book: “A Classical Primer: Ancient Knowledge For Modern Minds“, written by Dan Crompton. Crompton studied Classics and Linguistics while attending Cambridge in England. This book (or an earlier version) seems to be part of a series of books loosely titled: “I Used to Know That .. Book Series“. This book is #19 of #28. I guess they are things you should have been taught in grammar or high school and either you weren’t paying attention or you’ve dumped the extraneous information from you primary memory core. For me, it’s probably a bit of both.

Apparently, a “classic” (in western sensibilities) has to do with either Greek or Roman history. The first chapter is the longest and to me the least interesting. The book is 194 pages and the first 58 are specifically about the languages – letters, words, cases, tenses, prefixes and suffixes – and how much of this is carried forward today into English (American and British). Like I said, mostly not particularly interesting…

After that, come chapters on history, literature (Greek, then Roman), philosophy, architecture and finally science / technology. The author is casual in tone and entertaining. I felt I was actually getting information which was interesting and (maybe) useful. As an aside, I was watching a news clip today and they flashed by a building and I thought, “Wow! Ionic / Corinthian mixed columns!” I never recognized the differences before, so seeing them never meant anything to me before.

As mentioned, this is a short (and small) book with relatively large print and, therefore, a very fast read. Final recommendation: Strong to highly. If you know little to nothing about “Classics”, this book will be a useful and enjoyable introduction. I don’t remember EVER getting taught ANY of this stuff in school (other than the geometry portion), but then I never went out of my way to delve into any of this stuff. If it was taught, it certainly wasn’t emphasized.

Anyway, I find it interesting to get reminded how much I don’t know about the world (and history). My greatest fear (well, one of them anyway) is that I might die uneducated. Reading this “primer” type of book reminds me how far I have to go to avoid that fate, but the author taps you on the forehead in a fun way and I think that’s among the best ways of getting your eyes opened to the world around you. Slowly, slowly…

.
Click here (8 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 »

Making Little Ones Out Of Bigger Ones

Posted in Diets, Faith Family and Friends, Family and Friends, Health, Science and Learning, tagged CA, campus, Diet, ECG, Electrocardiogram, England, ESWL, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Family, Health, John Muir Hospital - Concord, Kidney Stones, Lithotripsy Procedure, Liverpool, Medicine, Science, Sparkling Heart Emoji on September 11, 2018| 4 Comments »

Yesterday I went to the hospital for an Electrocardiogram (ECG) in preparation for my Lithotripsy today. Basically, I need to have a kidney stone reduced in size so I can (less) painfully pass it / them. The following is a description of the today’s procedure and is taken from the John Muir Hospital web site…

Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Passing a kidney stone can be very painful. Shock wave lithotripsy is a treatment that helps by breaking the kidney stone into smaller pieces that are easier to pass. This treatment is also called extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Lithotripsy takes about an hour. It’s done in a hospital, lithotripsy center, or mobile lithotripsy van. You will likely go home the same day. This treatment is not used for all types of kidney stones. Your healthcare provider will discuss whether this is the right treatment for the type of stone you have.



Energy waves strike the stone, which begins to crack.
The stone crumbles into tiny pieces.

During the procedure
• You get medicine to prevent pain and help you relax or sleep during lithotripsy. Once this takes effect, the procedure will start.
• A flexible tube (stent) with holes in it may be placed into your ureter, the tube that connects the kidney and the bladder. This helps keep urine flowing from the kidney.
• Your healthcare provider then uses X-ray or ultrasound to find the exact location of the kidney stone.
• Sound waves are aimed at the stone and sent at high speed. If you’re awake, you may feel a tapping as they pass through your body.

After the procedure
• You’ll be closely watched in a recovery room for about 1 to 3 hours. Antibiotics and pain medicine may be prescribed before you leave.
• You’ll have a follow-up visit in a few weeks. If you received a stent, it will be removed. Your healthcare provider will also check for pieces of stone. If large pieces remain, you may need a second lithotripsy or another procedure.

Possible risks and complications
• Infection
• Bleeding in the kidney
• Bruising of the kidney or skin
• Blockage (obstruction) of the ureter
• Failure to break up the stone (other procedures may be needed)

Passing the stone
It can take a day to several weeks for the pieces of stone to leave your body. Drink plenty of liquids to help flush your system. During this time:
• Your urine may be cloudy or slightly bloody. You may even see small pieces of stone.
• You may have a slight fever and some pain. Take prescribed or over-the-counter pain medicine as instructed by your healthcare provider.
• You may be asked to strain your urine to collect some stone particles. These will be studied in the lab.

I had the procedure done twice before back in the 1990’s while I was living in Liverpool, England. Hopefully, I’m good for another 20 – 25 years. (LOL)

A big shout-out to the office staff, nurses and doctors at John Muir Hospital – Concord, CA, campus! You were all terrific and I felt VERY well cared for!

I am home and resting comfortably. And, another shout-out to my lovely wife (Hil) for driving me back and forth and looking after me in my recovery at home! 💖

Just a side note: my weight at the hospital yesterday was: 332lbs. My weight today (at the hospital) was 330lbs. 2lbs difference. My weight at home yesterday was: 325lbs. Today it was: 324lbs. A 1lb difference. I was wearing virtually the same clothes (shoes, shorts and underwear). I was wearing a change of underwear, but they were the same types of briefs and V-neck T-shirts. I just thought this was “interesting”.

.
Click here (11 September) 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.