| “Darkest Hour” (2017) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the historical drama “Darkest Hour“, starring Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill (newly appointed Prime Minister, stubborn, sharp-tongued, and carrying the weight of a collapsing Europe); Kristin Scott Thomas as Clementine Churchill (steadying presence and emotional ballast); Lily James as Elizabeth Layton (Churchill’s young typist who becomes a quiet witness to his private doubts); Ben Mendelsohn as King George VI (reserved, cautious, and gradually supportive); and Stephen Dillane as Viscount Halifax (the chief advocate for negotiating with Hitler). Directed by Joe Wright, the film focuses on the first month of Churchill’s premiership as Britain faces the real possibility of defeat. | |
| Background: I saw “Darkest Hour” the year after its release when it became available on DVD. I’ve had a long interest in Churchill because he has always reminded me of “Teddy” Roosevelt – a commanding persona and ultimately a force in bending history to his will. He was born to some rank, faced disaster while young (Gallipoli), but toiled his way back to prominence and to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during World War II. The film struck me as a tightly focused character study built around a single towering acting performance. The film arrived during a wave of World War II movies, but this one stayed mostly indoors — war rooms, offices, bunkers, and Parliament chambers — leaning on dialogue and tension rather than battlefield spectacle. Gary Oldman won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his work here, and the film also won for Best Makeup and Hairstyling. It was nominated for several others, including Best Picture. Historically, the movie covers the same period depicted in “Dunkirk” (review here), but from the political side, showing how close Britain came to seeking terms with Nazi Germany. | |
| Plot: The story begins with Churchill being appointed Prime Minister after Neville Chamberlain loses the confidence of Parliament. Churchill steps into office at the worst possible moment: the British Expeditionary Force is trapped at Dunkirk, France is collapsing, and his own party distrusts him. Halifax and Chamberlain push for negotiations with Hitler through Mussolini, arguing that Britain has no realistic military options. Churchill resists, but the pressure mounts. The War Cabinet is split, the King is wary of him, and the military situation worsens by the hour. The film follows Churchill through long nights, tense Cabinet meetings, and moments of private doubt. Elizabeth Layton becomes a small but steady presence as he dictates speeches and wrestles with decisions that could cost millions of lives. The turning point comes when Churchill realizes that negotiations would mean the end of British independence. After a private conversation with King George VI — one of the film’s best scenes — he regains his footing. He then heads to the House of Commons to deliver the “We shall fight on the beaches” speech, rallying Parliament and the country behind continued resistance. | |
| So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; outstanding; convincing and atmospheric; a few; yes. | |
| Any good? Yes. The movie works because it stays focused on the political crisis and the personal strain on Churchill. It doesn’t try to cover his whole life or turn him into a flawless hero. Instead, it shows a man who is stubborn, emotional, and sometimes difficult, but also capable of clarity when it matters most. The pacing is steady, and the tension builds naturally as the situation worsens. Even though we know the outcome, the film makes the stakes feel immediate. | |
| Acting: Gary Oldman disappears into the role. The makeup helps, but it’s the voice, posture, and timing that sell it. He plays Churchill as a man who is both theatrical and deeply human — someone who can bark at staff one minute and show real vulnerability the next. Kristin Scott Thomas brings warmth and grounding as Clementine, and Lily James gives Elizabeth Layton enough presence to matter without overstating her role. Ben Mendelsohn’s King George VI is understated but effective, especially in the scene where he finally backs Churchill. Stephen Dillane’s Halifax is calm, polished, and quietly dangerous in his certainty that negotiation is the only rational path. | |
| Filming / FX: The film relies on tight interiors, low light, and a lot of smoke-filled rooms. The cinematography uses shadows and close framing to emphasize pressure and isolation. The war-room scenes are especially strong, with a sense of cramped urgency. The makeup work on Oldman is excellent — detailed without looking rubbery. The score is restrained and supports the mood without overwhelming it. There are a few stylized shots (like the overhead view of London streets) that feel a bit showy, but they don’t derail anything. | |
| Problems: A few. The film occasionally leans too hard on the “lonely leader” angle, repeating beats we’ve already seen. The much-discussed “Churchill rides the Underground” scene is the biggest stretch — it’s meant to show him reconnecting with ordinary citizens, but it feels invented (because it is) and a little too neat. Some viewers may also find the pacing slow, especially in the middle third, where the War Cabinet arguments circle the same points. Still, none of these issues break the film. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s a character-driven political drama that stays focused on the moment when Great Britain’s future hung on a handful of decisions. I appreciate that it doesn’t try to make Churchill perfect; it shows him as flawed, emotional, and sometimes unsure, which makes his resolve more believable. The movie pairs well with “Dunkirk” (review here), giving the political context behind the evacuation. Oldman’s performance alone makes it worth watching. | |
| Final Recommendation: Very strong to highly recommended. “Darkest Hour” is a well-acted, well-crafted look at one of the most consequential months in modern history. Oldman’s Oscar-winning performance anchors the film, and the supporting cast keeps the story grounded. The movie has clear historical significance, capturing the moment when Great Britain chose resistance over negotiation. If you’re interested in World War II, political leadership under pressure, or character-driven historical dramas, this one is worth your time. | |
| . | |
| Click here (16 February) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts. | |
Posts Tagged ‘Europe’
He Mobilized The English Language And Sent It Into Battle
Posted in General Comments, History, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Adolf Hitler, Ben Mendelsohn, Benito Mussolini, Best Actor Oscar, Best Actor Oscar (Oldman), Best Makeup Oscar, Best Picture Nomination, British Expeditionary Force, Clementine Churchill, Darkest Hour (2017) — movie review, Dunkirk, Elizabeth Layton, Europe, France, Gallipoli, Gary Oldman, General Comments, Great Britain, History, House of Commons, Joe Wright, King George VI, Kristin Scott Thomas, Lily James, London, Movie Reviews, Nazi Germany, Parliament, Political Leadership, President Theodore Roosevelt, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Reviews, Stephen Dillane, Teddy Roosevelt, United Kingdom, Very Strong to Highly Recommended Movie, Viscount Halifax, War Cabinet, World War II on February 16, 2026| Leave a Comment »
The Education Of An American
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Academy Award Nominations, Aging, Arnold Iselin, Best Art Direction Oscar, Best Picture Nomination, Captain Lockert, David Niven, Dodsworth (1936) — movie review, Edith Cortright, Europe, Fran Dodsworth, General Comments, Harry McKee, Hollywood, Italy, John Payne, London, Maria Ouspenskaya, Marital Infidelity, Mary Astor, Movie Reviews, Paris, Paul Lukas, Pride, Reviews, Rudolph Maté, Ruth Chatterton, Sam Dodsworth, Sidney Howard, Sinclair Lewis, Strong Movie Recommendation, Vanity, Vienna, Walter Huston, William Wyle on January 24, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “Dodsworth” (1936) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the mature, quietly devastating drama “Dodsworth” (1936), directed by William Wyler and starring Walter Huston as Sam Dodsworth (a self-made automobile magnate confronting the limits of success and the fragility of marriage); Ruth Chatterton as Fran Dodsworth (his socially ambitious wife, desperate to outrun aging); Mary Astor as Edith Cortright (the warm, grounded expatriate who becomes Sam’s romantic interest); Paul Lukas as Arnold Iselin (one of Fran’s – several – affairs in Europe); John Payne in his first role playing Harry McKee (Dodsworth’s son-in-law); Maria Ouspenskaya as the elderly mother of one of Fran’s “suitors”; and David Niven in an early role as Captain Lockert (the first of Fran’s fleeting romantic diversions). Adapted from Sinclair Lewis’s novel and Sidney Howard’s play, the film examines pride, vanity, aging, and the search for meaning with a restraint that still feels modern. | |
| Background: This is my first viewing of this film and I did so with no prior knowledge except that it had been a Best Picture Oscar nomination. Released in 1936, “Dodsworth” arrived during a period when studios were experimenting with more mature themes, and Wyler’s direction helped elevate it beyond the typical melodrama of the era. The film received seven Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Walter Huston), Best Supporting Actress (Maria Ouspenskaya), and Best Director. It won the Oscar for Best Art Direction. Historically, it stands as one of the earliest Hollywood films to treat marital dissolution with emotional realism rather than moralizing or melodramatic excess. | |
| Plot: Sam Dodsworth, having sold his successful automobile company, retires “early” (mid-50’s) and takes his wife Fran on a long promised grand European tour. Sam is resistant, but hopes for shared adventure; Fran hopes for reinvention. Actually, she hoping it will somehow stop her from aging. As they travel from London to Paris to Vienna, Fran becomes increasingly infatuated with the attention of younger, more cosmopolitan men. Sam, bewildered but patient, tries to accommodate her restless vanity. Their marriage fractures as Fran pursues flirtations and then outright affairs, insisting she needs “life” and “youth” more than the stability Sam offers. Sam, wounded but dignified, eventually meets Edith Cortright, an American expatriate living quietly in Italy. Her warmth and grounding contrast sharply with Fran’s insecurity and pretension. When Fran’s final attempt at remarriage collapses under the weight of her own deceptions, she begs Sam to return. The film’s climax hinges on whether Sam will resume the life he knows or embrace the possibility of a new one. In fact, he appears to choose both. | |
| So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; superb; elegant and restrained; a few; absolutely. | |
| Any good? Yes. “Dodsworth” is a surprisingly modern-feeling drama about aging, ego, and emotional honesty. Its power lies in understatement: the film trusts its audience to understand the quiet devastation of a failing marriage without resorting to theatrics. It’s a mature film for mature viewers — and that’s meant as a compliment. | |
| Acting: I have no prior viewing experience with most of this cast. In receiving a Best Actor nomination for this role, Walter Huston delivers what might be a career-defining performance as Sam Dodsworth. His portrayal is layered: proud yet vulnerable, bewildered yet dignified. Ruth Chatterton’s Fran is almost equally compelling — infuriating and painfully recognizable as someone terrified of becoming “considered” old. Mary Astor brings warmth and intelligence to Edith, grounding the film’s emotional arc. Even the smaller roles (including a young David Niven) add texture. The ensemble is uniformly strong, but Huston’s quiet heartbreak is what you remember. | |
| Filming / FX: Wyler’s direction is clean and unobtrusive, letting the performances carry the emotional weight. The cinematography by Rudolph Maté uses framing and shadow to emphasize emotional distance, particularly between Sam and Fran. The production design — which won the film its Oscar — convincingly evokes European sophistication without overwhelming the story. There are no “effects” in the modern sense, but the film’s visual restraint is part of its strength: it feels intimate, lived-in, and emotionally believable. | |
| Problems: A few. Fran’s character, while psychologically rich, frequently / repeatedly veers into shrillness. It’s difficult to say if this may be more a reflection of the era’s acting conventions or a flaw in the writing. Some supporting characters appear briefly and vanish just as quickly, leaving their arcs feeling underdeveloped. For me, the main issue was the sound of music occasionally overpowered the sound of dialogue making it difficult to hear what was being said. The second big issue was it was just hard for me to believe the couple had been married for 20 years and this was the “out-of-the-blue” indication Fran Dodsworth has shown that she is insufferably insecure about her age. I went along with it for the movie, but it was too much to believe and in the end, I was just waiting for her to get her comeuppance. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Absolutely. “Dodsworth” is a grown-up film about grown-up problems — a rarity in any era. I found it emotionally honest, beautifully acted, and surprisingly moving. It’s the kind of film you’ll think about after the credits roll. | |
| Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation. “Dodsworth” is a landmark of mature Hollywood storytelling — historically significant for its Oscar recognition, its literary pedigree, and its nuanced treatment of marital disintegration. Watch it for Walter Huston’s extraordinary performance, Wyler’s restrained direction, and the film’s timeless exploration of pride, aging, and second chances. It’s not a flashy film, but it is a deeply human one — and well worth your time. | |
| . | |
| Click here (24 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. | |
A Shadow In The Sewers Of Vienna
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Academy Award for Best Cinematography (Black-and-White), Alexander Korda, Alida Valli, Anna Schmidt, Anton Karas, Bernard Lee, Carol Reed, Europe, General Comments, Graham Greene, Harry Lime, Holly Martins, Joseph Cotten, Major Calloway, Movie Reviews, Orson Welles, Reviews, Robert Krasker, Sergeant Paine, Strong Movie Recommendation, The Third Man (1949) — movie review, Trevor Howard, U.S. National Film Registry, Vienna on January 21, 2026| 2 Comments »
| “The Third Man” (1949) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the post-war noir masterpiece “The Third Man” (1949), directed by Carol Reed and starring Joseph Cotten as Holly Martins (a pulp Western novelist stumbling into a moral labyrinth); Alida Valli as Anna Schmidt (the loyal, wounded actress whose love binds her to a “ghost”); and Orson Welles as Harry Lime (the charming, amoral black-marketeer whose shadow looms over every cobblestone in Vienna). Supporting roles include Trevor Howard as Major Calloway (the weary British officer trying to impose order on chaos) and Bernard Lee as Sergeant Paine (a policeman torn between duty and admiration). Together, they populate a Vienna carved into occupation zones, where ruins, secrets, and divided loyalties shape every encounter. | |
| Background: This film was recommended by several friends and family as a “must see”. I’m really just starting to “get into” noir films. Released in 1949, “The Third Man” emerged from the creative collaboration of director Carol Reed, producer Alexander Korda, and writer Graham Greene. Shot largely on location in a bomb-scarred Vienna, the film became an international sensation, winning the Academy Award for Best Cinematography (Black-and-White) and earning additional nominations for its editing and direction. Over the decades, it has been widely regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, preserved in numerous “best of” lists and celebrated for its atmospheric visuals, iconic score, and Welles’s unforgettable presence. Its historic significance lies in its portrayal of post-war Europe, its pioneering noir style, and its influence on generations of filmmakers. | |
| Plot: Holly Martins arrives in Vienna at the invitation of his old friend Harry Lime — only to discover that Lime has died in a suspicious traffic accident. As Martins investigates, he encounters conflicting accounts of Lime’s final moments, including hints of a mysterious “third man” present at the scene. His search draws him into the city’s black market, the moral compromises of the occupation, and the orbit of Anna Schmidt, whose devotion to Lime complicates Martins’ pursuit of truth. When Martins finally learns the truth — that Lime is alive and orchestrating a deadly penicillin racket — the story accelerates toward betrayal, confrontation, and one of cinema’s most iconic chase sequences through Vienna’s sewers. The film closes on a note of emotional austerity, with Anna’s final walk past Martins serving as a quiet, devastating coda. | |
| So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; superb; iconic and innovative; minor; absolutely. | |
| Any good? Yes. “The Third Man” is considered a landmark of film noir and post-war cinema. Its blend of mystery, moral ambiguity, and atmospheric tension remains compelling more than seven decades after its release. The film’s pacing, tone, and thematic depth — loyalty, corruption, identity — give it enduring resonance. | |
| Acting: Joseph Cotten anchors the film with a performance that balances naïveté, stubbornness, and steady disillusionment. Alida Valli brings quiet strength and emotional gravity to Anna, grounding the story’s romantic and tragic elements. Trevor Howard’s Major Calloway is crisp, authoritative, and weary in equal measure. But it is Orson Welles, appearing only briefly, who dominates the film’s mythology. His Harry Lime is magnetic, sinister, and oddly likable — embodied perfectly in the famous Ferris wheel scene and the “cuckoo clock” monologue. Welles’s presence supposedly elevates the film from noir to myth. | |
| Filming / FX: Robert Krasker’s Oscar-winning cinematography is the film’s beating heart. The tilted angles, deep shadows, wet cobblestones, and stark contrasts create a visual language that defines black-and-white noir. Vienna itself becomes a character — its ruins, alleys, and sewers forming a labyrinth of moral decay. The use of location shooting was groundbreaking for its time. Anton Karas’s zither score, initially an odd choice, became iconic; its jaunty melancholy underscores the film’s tension and irony. The sewer chase remains a masterclass in editing, lighting, and spatial storytelling. | |
| Problems: Only minor ones. Some viewers may find the pacing deliberate by modern standards, particularly in the early investigative sequences. A few supporting characters verge on caricature, though this is partly intentional, reflecting Martins’ outsider perspective. The film’s moral universe is bleak, which may not appeal to all audiences. But these are quibbles in a film of such craftsmanship. I am not usually a person with a “dark view” of the universe and this is a rather “dark” film. I’m not sure exactly why this film didn’t bother me, but I must admit to liking this film (“enjoy” might be too strong a word). | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Absolutely (as a film commenter, not personally). “The Third Man” is atmospheric, intelligent, and visually mesmerizing. Its blend of noir tension, post-war realism, and philosophical undertones makes it a film that rewards repeated viewing. The Ferris wheel scene alone is worth the price of admission, and the final shot is considered one of the greatest endings in cinema. | |
| Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation. “The Third Man” is an achievement in film noir and post-war cinema, winner of the Academy Award for Best Cinematography and regarded as one of the greatest noir films ever made. Its performances, visuals, score, and moral complexity make it essential viewing for anyone interested in classic cinema, noir, or the evolution of post-war storytelling. Watch it for Welles’s magnetic presence, Cotten’s unraveling idealism, and the haunting beauty of a Vienna caught between ruin and rebirth. | |
| . | |
| Click here (21 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. | |
Painting Heaven On A Ceiling
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Charlton Heston, Europe, Fresco Painting, General Comments, Good to Strong Movie Recommendation, High Art, Hollywood, Irving Stone, Italy, Laurence of Arabia, Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, Movie Reviews, Pope Julius II, Reviews, Rex Harrison, Roman Catholic Church, Sistine Chapel, The Vatican on July 31, 2025| Leave a Comment »
| “The Agony and the Ecstasy” (1965) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the historical art-biopic: “The Agony and the Ecstasy” (1965) starring Charlton Heston as Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni and Rex Harrison as Pope Julius II and the “rough” dating is 1507AD to 1513AD. | |
| Background: This is another older movie from the Hollywood “technicolor, epic movie era” I wanted to watch to increase my knowledge of “art” and general “high” culture. Heston and Harrison are (were) pretty good actors “back in the day,” so I thought it might be an interesting movie to sit through even though it’s fiction (historic novel) and not factual biography. | |
| Basic Plot: Based on Irving Stone’s novel, the film dramatizes the tension-filled painting of the Sistine Chapel ceiling in the Vatican — a story of ego, vision, theology, art, political and economic power. This movie is not an art history lesson, or simply a duel between genius and patron — it’s a film that paints faith and breathes human vulnerabilities into art. Michelangelo, who was a famed sculptor and a reluctant painter, is commanded by Pope Julius II to paint the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel ceiling. What follows is a spiritual and creative conflict which took four years to complete (1508AD to 1512AD). Pope Julius wanted glory for the Church (and his own legacy). Michelangelo wanted truth — transcendent and unfiltered. Their arguments move from verbal sparring to illness and near-collapse, as Michelangelo paints the ceiling not as saints and martyrs — but as a grand Biblical testament, from Creation to redemption. At its core, this is a story of two men wrestling with mortality, legacy, art and the act of divine creation (Biblical and in “Art”). | |
| So… is this movie any good? The acting? The visuals / FX? Any problems? Did I like it? Short answers: Yes; Heston smolders (as usual), Harrison pontificates (as always); magnificent painted sequences; a touch 1950s-60s theatrical; yes, it (particularly the last few seconds where they show the finished work) stirs thought and awe. | |
| Acting: Charlton Heston is a Michelangelo whose pain and defiance feels real to the viewer. He’s part artistic prophet, part obsessive craftsman, and yet Heston never lets the character dip too far into “excessive” melodrama despite the temptation of baggy clothes and thunderous speeches. Rex Harrison is a sharp autocrat with an iron will as Julius II — a Pope who is political, military and a strange combination of comedic and poetic. Their chemistry is what “makes” and keeps the film interesting – particularly if the modern viewer doesn’t know about or realize the history of the Church in the development of Italy or Europe. | |
| Filming / FX: The ceiling sequences are filmed with almost reverence, and the stage recreation of the Sistine Chapel is astonishing in detail (to me – never having visited it). Panoramic shots, the physicality of scaffolding work (designed by Michelangelo), and dramatic lighting elevate the film from costume drama to (again) almost stunning reality. Film art as cinematic rapture – like viewing the Arizona plateaus in a Ford western or the Saudi dessert in “Laurence of Arabia“. | |
| Problems: Two, and both minor in the scheme of things – dated language / dialogue is more theatrical / stagy 1950s-1960s than Renaissance Italy; and, what little we see of the Pope’s grand battle is just that – very little and really didn’t add much to the film (IMHO). I guess it was meant to establish the Pope’s other attempt to be a historic figure, but it didn’t really work for me. | |
| Final Recommendation: Good to Strong (beautifully shot and well enough acted, but it feels dated) — especially for fans of classic historical cinema / epics, religious art, or character studies built on principle rather than plot twists. The casting of the two leads is spot on! I’d say you need to watch this with a cheese board and baguette, a glass of red wine and coffee-table picture book about the Sistine Chapel to really appreciate the art over the film. | |
| Final Thought: Michelangelo’s hesitations to accept this commission were real. Back then, aspiring painters served an apprenticeship of 5-7 years just making paint color (mixtures) for their “masters” before they even had much chance to hold a brush let alone actually paint a commissioned work. Michelangelo was a fully trained sculptor, but not fully trained as a painter. In essence, he learned large fresco painting AND how to maintain correct proportions / perspectives on a curved surface as “on-the-job” work-training. LoL …And he had to do this on a self-designed scaffold almost 70 feet above the floor of the chapel! | |
| . | |
| Click here (31 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. | |
Rut-Roh
Posted in General Comments, tagged 2023 Atlantic Storms, Canada, Disclaimer, Europe, Florida, France, General Comments, Huricane Katrina, Hurricane Franklin, Hurricane Idalia, Hurricanes, Images, Ireland, Mexico, New Orleans, U.K., Weather on August 27, 2023| Leave a Comment »
| I know I’m a worrywart and don’t know beans about weather forecasting, but why do I feel like we have another Katrina in the making… | |
 August 2023 Atlantic Storms Image |
|
 August 2023 Atlantic Storms Image (forecast) |
|
| What we see in the images are two tropical hurricanes and one Atlantic storm. The one currently over Mexico is named: “Idalia“. The one east of Florida is named: “Franklin“. The third system is to Franklin’s East and is currently unnamed. It is currently headed North by (slightly) North-West. | |
| At the moment, the assumption seems to be the hurricanes will “just” miss each other in time and continue as independent storms… (Hopefully, this is what will happen.) | |
| My conjecture is this “may” not happen, and, in fact, there is a good chance one of two other things may… | |
| 1) Idalia pulls Franklin towards the West and they combine into a massive hurricane sliding up the Atlantic seaboard. Or, | |
| 2) Idalia doesn’t join with Franklin, but instead is itself pinned against the Atlantic coast all the way to Canada. This might occur if the third (unnamed) storm continues North-West and slows and pins Franklin in front of Idalia. | |
| If either of these scenarios occurs, there will be terrible flooding all along the coast. If neither of these happen, it seems most likely all three storms (the unnamed, Franklin and Idalia) will take their turns hammering northern Europe – specifically, Ireland, the U.K., France and the Netherlands. | |
| Hopefully, none of these things occur and these are wild imaginings of an unqualified doomsayer. But I have this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach which feels an awful lot like watching TV the week before Katrina hit New Orleans. | |
| Disclaimer: both images were snipped off of images I found on the web. Both are partial cuts from larger images. I make no claim of ownership to the original images. | |
| . | |
| Click here (27 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. | |
The More Things Change…
Posted in History, My Journal, Politics, Quotes, tagged Europe, France, Harper's Weekly, History, My Journal, Politics, Quotes, Russia on January 25, 2013| Leave a Comment »
| It is a gloomy moment in history. Not for many years – not in the lifetime of most men who read this paper – has there been so much grave and deep apprehension; never has the future seemed so incalculable as at this time. | |
| In France the political caldron seethes and bubbles with uncertainty; Russia hangs as usual like a cloud, dark and silent upon the horizon of Europe… | |
| It is a solemn moment, and so no man can feel an indifference – which, happily, no man pretends to feel – in the issue of events. | |
| Of our new troubles no man can see the end. … It is no time for idleness, for trifling, for forgetfulness. The complexion of every country, and of the world, rests at last upon the character of individuals. | |
| — From: “Harper’s Weekly“; dtd: 10 October 1857 |
|
| […The more things stay the same. — kmab] | |
| . | |
| Click here (25 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. | |
-
Join 2,104 other subscribers
Ripple’s In Time…
Translate
Look For Stuff…
Ripple Crests
-
Recent Ripples In The Continuum
Older Ripples In The Continuum
Ripplets (Tags)
#DumbDonald #IncompetentDonald #LyingDonald 2023 Warriors Regular Season American Politics Anonymous Attitude Basketball Books Carl Sagan Courage Diet Disclaimer Dr. Leo F. Buscaglia Economics Education Eleanor Roosevelt Environment Faith Family Family and Friends Favorite Lines Fear Freedom General Comments God Golden State Warriors Happiness Health Highly Recommended Movie History Hope Humor Images Included Video Knowledge Leadership Learning Life Love Mark Twain Movie Reviews Movies Music My Journal National Basketball Association NBA On Life Other Blogs Philosophy Pictures Poems Poetry Politics Quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson Reading Recommended Reading Reviews Running Science Sports Steph Curry Strong Movie Recommendation Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas Time Time Magazine Truth Vevo Warren Buffett Wired Magazine Wisdom Work Writing YouTubeRipple Riders
Ripple Stats
- 328,404 hits
Kevin Barrett's Blog 
The Money Was On The Screen
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Ben Lyon, Europe, General Comments, Germany, Hollywood, Howard Hughes, James Hall, Jean Harlow, John Darrow, London, Moderate Movie Recommendation, Monte Rutledge, Movie Reviews, Oxford, Reviews, Roy Rutledge, Royal Flying Corps, The Avaiator, World War I, YouTube.com on June 11, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Rate this:
Share this:
Read Full Post »