Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘France’

What She Said She Thought She Saw

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 26, 2026| 2 Comments »

“Atonement” (2007) — movie review
Today’s review is for the period-drama / romantic-tragedy “Atonement” (2007), starring James McAvoy as Robbie Turner, the housekeeper’s son whose love for Cecilia becomes the center of a life-altering misunderstanding;  Keira Knightley as Cecilia Tallis, the elder Tallis daughter whose relationship with Robbie is shattered by a single accusation;  Saoirse Ronan as Briony Tallis (age 13), the imaginative younger sister whose misinterpretation sets the tragedy in motion;  Romola Garai as Briony (age 18), the wartime nurse trying to make amends;  Vanessa Redgrave as Briony (older), the acclaimed author reflecting on her past;  Benedict Cumberbatch as Paul Marshall, the wealthy chocolate magnate with a dark secret;  Juno Temple as Lola Quincey, the visiting cousin caught in the middle;  Daniel Mays as Tommy Nettle, one of the two soldiers retreating with Robbie in France;  Nonso Anozie as Frank Mace, the other soldier retreating with Robbie;  Brenda Blethyn as Grace Turner, Robbie’s mother (the cook);  and Harriet Walter as Emily Tallis, the Tallis family’s mother.  The cast fits the material well, and the film’s emotional weight comes from how each performance adds to the sense of loss, regret, and the consequences of a single moment.
Background:  Although I have owned the DVD of this film for (probably) a decade, this is my first viewing of this film.  It is only in the last two or three years that I have begun to watch / appreciate this genre of film.  Basically, I had no interest, so I’ve never watched it.  I probably still would not have except this film is on the Best Picture Oscar nominations I am working my way through.  Released in 2007 and directed by Joe Wright, the film was adapted from Ian McEwan’s novel and became both a critical and awards-season success.  It received seven Academy Award nominations and won the Oscar for Best Original Score.  It was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress (Ronan), Best Adapted Screenplay, and several technical awards.  Historically, the film is significant for its blend of literary adaptation, wartime drama, and romantic tragedy — and for how it uses perspective, memory, and guilt to shape the story.  It’s also remembered for its ambitious cinematography, particularly the Dunkirk sequence, which became one of the most talked-about shots of the decade.
Plot:  The story begins in 1935 at the Tallis estate, where thirteen-year-old Briony misinterprets a series of interactions between her sister Cecilia and Robbie Turner.  When a crime occurs on the grounds, Briony’s imagination and certainty lead her to accuse Robbie — a decision that destroys his life and fractures the family.  Robbie is imprisoned and later released on the condition he join the British Army.  Cecilia becomes a nurse, estranged from her family, waiting for Robbie to return.  Briony, now older and beginning to understand the consequences of her actions, trains as a nurse during World War II and attempts to seek forgiveness.  The film follows Robbie’s retreat through France with two fellow soldiers (Nettle and Mace), Cecilia’s quiet resolve, and Briony’s growing awareness of the harm she caused.  The story builds toward a reunion that the film then reframes through the older Briony’s perspective — revealing the difference between what happened, what was hoped for, and what was written as a final attempt at atonement.
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;  excellent;  striking and memorable;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  Technically, “Atonement” is a well-made, emotionally layered film that balances romance, tragedy, and wartime drama.  The story is simple enough:  a misunderstanding with lifelong consequences, but the film uses perspective and memory to deepen the impact.  The pacing is steady and the emotional stakes are clear.
Acting:  McAvoy gives a good performance — grounded, earnest, and believable as someone caught between hope and despair.  Knightley is sharp and controlled, fitting Cecilia’s mix of pride and vulnerability.  Saoirse Ronan is the standout  —  unsettlingly certain, imaginative, and unaware of the damage she’s causing.  Romola Garai carries the middle section with quiet regret, and Vanessa Redgrave’s brief appearance gives the film’s ending its emotional punch.  Cumberbatch is effectively disturbing as Paul Marshall, and the supporting cast (including Mays and Anozie) adds realism to the wartime sequences.  Everyone plays their part straight, which is why the story works.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is one of the film’s strengths.  The long Dunkirk shot is impressive:  emotionally capturing exhaustion, chaos, and futility.  The typewriter-infused score is clever without being gimmicky.  The production design shifts cleanly from the Tallis estate to wartime hospitals to the ruins of France.  The film uses color, sound, and framing to show how memory and guilt distort events.  Nothing feels overdone;  everything supports the story.
Problems:  A few.  The first act relies heavily on Briony’s perspective, which is shown to be flawed almost immediately with second enactments.  The ending, while powerful, may frustrate those (like me) who prefer straightforward closure.  And the film’s emotional distance in some scenes can detract from a lived-in story feeling.  None of these issues break the film, but they’re worth noting.
Did I enjoy the film?  So-so (mostly no).  It’s a thoughtful, well-acted, and visually striking movie.  The emotional weight builds slowly, and the final reveal lands with more force than I expected.  Why didn’t I “enjoy” it, then?  As stated above, it’s just not a movie I would have chosen to watch.  I purchased this as part of a pack of four and it’s the last I’ve watched even though I’ve had the set for quite some time.  In fairness, I did try to watch it a couple of times when I got the collection, but I just never made it past the first five minutes or so.  I just wasn’t in the “right” head-space to sit through it and if it were not on the Best Picture nomination list, I probably still would not have watched it.  So, it is worth viewing, but it’s not a film I would go out of my way to see without a secondary reason.
Final Recommendation:  High moderate to low strong recommendation. “Atonement” is historically significant for its Oscar recognition, its ambitious film making, and its place among the better literary adaptations of the 2000s.  It’s worth watching for the performances, the Dunkirk sequence, the score, and the way the story explores guilt, memory, and the limits of forgiveness.  Rated R for war violence, sexuality, and brief language, the film remains a powerful reminder that a single moment,  a single choice or memory, can have profound effect across a lifetime – yours or another’s.
.
Click here (26 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 »

Blade Or String

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 6, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Chevalier” (2023) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical drama “Chevalier”, directed by Stephen Williams and starring Kelvin Harrison Jr. as Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges, the violinist, composer, and fencer whose talent pushed him into the highest circles of French society;  Samara Weaving as Marie-Josephine, the noblewoman whose voice and affection become central to Bologne’s artistic life;  Lucy Boynton as Marie Antoinette, the queen whose early support helps elevate him;  Minnie Driver as La Guimard, the opera star who sees him as a threat;  Ronkẹ Adékoluẹjo as Nanon, Bologne’s mother, whose presence forces him to confront his past;  Marton Csokas as La Boëssière, Joseph’s fencing master;  and Alex Fitzalan as Philippe, Marie-Josephine’s jealous and controlling husband.  The film dramatizes the life of a man whose accomplishments were nearly erased by history.
Background:  I had no prior knowledge of the historic figure, of this movie prior to watching it, and (really) not much knowledge of French history.  I purchased the film completely on a whim and had no idea if this was going to be pure fiction or based on a “real” figure in history.  A “Chevalier” is a titled knight in France.   The “de Saint-Georges” means “of the lineage of Saint-Georges” which was from Bologne’s father’s side.  “Chevalier” came out in 2022 (my version says 2023) and immediately drew attention for telling the story of Joseph Bologne, a real historical figure whose music and achievements were largely ignored for centuries.  Bologne / Chevalier was a Black (Afro-Caribbean) composer and virtuoso violinist in pre-Revolutionary France, admired by many of his contemporaries.  The film didn’t receive any Academy Award nominations, but it was noted for its cultural importance — bringing a forgotten artist back into the conversation.  Like most biopics, I’m confident it takes liberties, but it succeeds in highlighting a remarkable life that deserved far more recognition.
Plot:  The movie follows Bologne from his childhood in Guadeloupe to his arrival in France, where his father places him in elite training.  Bologne excels in fencing, violin, and composition, eventually earning the title “Chevalier de Saint-Georges.”  His talent brings him into the orbit of Marie Antoinette, who becomes both patron and friend.  Bologne sets his sights on leading the Paris Opera, but racism and court politics stand in his way.  His relationship with Marie-Josephine inspires him artistically but puts them both at risk due to her husband’s jealousy and the rigid social rules of the time.  As revolutionary tensions rise, Bologne must decide whether to stay close to power or stand with those fighting for change.  The film blends romance, ambition, and the early rumblings of revolution.
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;  stylish and effective;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Chevalier” is a strong, engaging historical drama.  It’s not a strict history lesson — it’s a dramatization — but it captures the emotional truth of a man whose brilliance was limited by the society around him.  The story is feels clear and the film gives Joseph Bologne the spotlight he appears to deserve.
Acting:  Kelvin Harrison Jr. is terrific.  He plays Bologne with confidence, frustration, and flashes of anger that feel earned.  His performance scenes — especially the violin duel — are some of the best moments in the film.  Samara Weaving brings warmth and sadness to Marie-Josephine.  Lucy Boynton’s Marie Antoinette is charming but unpredictable, which fits the character.  Minnie Driver leans into the role of La Guimard with sharp edges, giving the film a memorable antagonist.  Ronkẹ Adékoluẹjo adds emotional weight as Bologne’s mother.  The cast overall is very strong.
Filming / FX:  The movie looks great.  The costumes, sets, and lighting create a vivid sense of the period without feeling stiff.  The musical sequences are shot cleanly, letting the performances speak for themselves.  The fencing scenes are crisp and easy to follow visually.  The score mixes classical elements with modern touches, giving the film a contemporary feel without breaking the period setting.  It’s not an FX-heavy movie, but the production design is consistently solid.
Problems:  A few.  From side reading for this review, I gather the film simplifies parts of Bologne’s life, which may bother viewers who know his history or French history (I know very little of either).  Some characters — especially the antagonists — feel a bit too straightforward.  The romance, while important to the plot, sometimes leans into melodrama.  And the final act moves quickly through major events, leaving some emotional threads less developed.  None of this ruins the film, but it’s noticeable.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.   “Chevalier” is well-acted, visually appealing, and tells a story worth hearing.  The musical performances alone pretty much make it worth watching.  Kelvin Harrison Jr. carries the film with charisma and emotional depth.  It’s not a heavy historical epic — it’s a character-driven drama with style and heart.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation – particularly as a period piece.  “Chevalier” (2022) is an engaging film that brings an interesting historical figure into view.  If it takes dramatic liberties – which most films do, it feels like it honors Joseph Bologne’s legacy while introducing his story to a wider audience.  Watch it for the performances (particularly the first eight minutes featuring the “dueling violins” with “Mozart“), the music, and the historical significance of a man whose brilliance deserved far more recognition.
.
Click here (6 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 »

He Mobilized The English Language And Sent It Into Battle

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

“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.

Read Full Post »

Living To Fight Another Day

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 10, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Dunkirk” (2017)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for “Dunkirk” (2017), which stars Fionn Whitehead as Tommy — a young British soldier trying to survive long enough to reach a boat for evacuation back to England;  Aneurin Barnard as “Gibson” — a quiet, resourceful soldier hiding a secret;  Harry Styles as Alex — another infantryman caught in the chaos;  Mark Rylance as Mr. Dawson — a civilian sailor crossing the Channel in his small boat;  Tom Glynn-Carney as Peter Dawson — Mr. Dawson’s son helping crew the boat;  Barry Keoghan as George Mills — a young civilian who insists on coming along and pays a price for thinking war is glorious;  Tom Hardy as Farrier — an RAF pilot providing air cover;  Jack Lowden as Collins — another RAF pilot struggling to stay airborne;  Kenneth Branagh as Commander Bolton — the naval officer overseeing the evacuation;  and Cillian Murphy as a shell‑shocked survivor pulled from the sea.  The cast has to balance fear, duty, and the grinding randomness of survival during one of the most desperate moments of World War II.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  It was recommended by a friend from high school and it’s on the list of Best Picture Oscar Nominations.  Directed by Christopher Nolan and released in 2017, “Dunkirk” tells the story of the evacuation of over 300,000 Allied soldiers from the beaches of France in 1940.  It was nominated for eight Academy Awards and won three (Editing, Sound Editing, and Sound Mixing).  It’s historically significant as one of the most ambitious cinematic depictions of the Dunkirk evacuation, and Nolan’s decision to use practical effects, real ships, and real aircraft gives the movie a grounded feel that most war films don’t / can’t match.
Plot:  The film follows three interwoven timelines:  “The Mole” (one week), “The Sea” (one day), and “The Air” (one hour).  On the beach, Tommy is trying to escape the encirclement, dodging sniper fire, bombings, and the general panic of thousands of soldiers waiting for rescue.  He teams up with Gibson and Alex as they try to board any ship that will take them — sometimes legitimately, sometimes by sneaking aboard.  At sea, Mr. Dawson, his son Peter and a friend (Mills) take their small civilian boat across the Channel after being requisitioned by the Navy.  They pick up a traumatized soldier (Cillian Murphy) whose fear of returning to Dunkirk causes conflict on the boat (he accidentally kills Keoghan / Mills).  In the air, Farrier and two other RAF pilots try to protect the evacuation from German bombers, even as their fuel runs dangerously low.  The timelines overlap as ships are sunk, soldiers are trapped below deck, and the civilian fleet arrives to help.  The film builds toward the moment when the three story-lines converge:  the beach evacuation, the civilian rescue, and Farrier’s final dogfight and landing.  It’s less about individual heroics and more about endurance, luck, and the collective effort to save as many men as possible.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong understated performances;  exceptional practical filming;  a few emotional‑distance issues;  yes, very much.
Any good?  “Dunkirk” is one of the most intense – but still realistic – war films I’ve seen in quite a while.  It’s particularly unusual because it doesn’t rely on traditional character arcs or long speeches.  It uses the multiple timelines to broaden the viewer’s experience of the evacuation — the fear, the waiting, the sudden violence, and the constant sense that survival is mostly luck.  Nolan’s cross‑cutting between timelines took me some getting used to, but once it clicked, it added to the tension.  The movie is lean, focused, and one of the better modern war films because it doesn’t try to explain everything.  It just drops you into the situation and lets you feel it.
Acting:  The cast does exactly what the film needs — grounded, restrained performances that don’t draw attention to themselves.  Fionn Whitehead is believable as an ordinary soldier trying to survive.  Tom Hardy manages to convey determination and calm even though most of his performance is through a mask.  Mark Rylance brings quiet strength to Mr. Dawson, and his scenes on the boat are some of the film’s best.  Cillian Murphy’s portrayal of trauma is uncomfortable but effective.  Even Harry Styles, who could have been distracting, fits into the ensemble without pulling focus.  Nobody is flashy, but that seems to be the point — the story is bigger than any one character.
Filming / FX:  The practical effects are the star here.  Nolan used real ships, real planes, and real locations, and it shows.  The dogfights are some of the better aerial scenes I’ve seen, and the sound design (which won an Oscar) makes every bullet and engine roar feel immediate.  The beach scenes are stark and overwhelming, with thousands of men lined up under a sky that could rain bombs at any moment.  I found the cross‑cutting between timelines to be confusing, but visually the film is stunning.  The lack of CGI gives everything weight and texture.
Problems:  Because the characters aren’t deeply developed, some viewers may feel disconnected from them.  The timeline structure, while effective, was disorienting until I understood how the pieces fit.  A few scenes felt repetitive — soldiers boarding a boat only for it to be sunk again — but that may have been intentional to show futility.  Still, it can make the middle section feel circular.  So, if you’re looking for a traditional war‑movie narrative, this isn’t it.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  Even with the emotional distance, I appreciated the craft, the tension, and the way the film captures the chaos of Dunkirk without turning it into a typical “war epic.”  It’s immersive, nerve‑wracking, and surprisingly hopeful by the end.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate to strong recommendation.  “Dunkirk” is a tightly made, technically impressive war film that stands out for its realism and its focus on the collective effort rather than individual heroics.  The Oscar wins for sound and editing are deserved, and the film’s historical significance makes it worth watching even if you’re not usually a war‑movie fan.  It’s not a traditional narrative, but it’s powerful, memorable, and (IMHO) probably one of Nolan’s best.  I’d call it a solid strong recommendation, for viewers who appreciate practical effects, historical stories, and films that put you directly into the moment, but only moderate for those (like me) who started off disoriented by the multiple timelines.
.
Click here (10 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

He’s Dead. I’m Crippled. You’re Lost…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 19, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Longest Day”  (1962) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sprawling, multinational World War II epic “The Longest Day” (1962), directed by Ken Annakin, Andrew Marton, and Bernhard Wicki, and featuring one of the most extraordinary ensemble casts ever assembled.  The film stars John Wayne as Lt. Col. Benjamin Vandervoort (the stoic paratroop commander holding his unit together despite injury);  Robert Mitchum as Brig. Gen. Norman Cota (the gravel-voiced leader who rallies men under fire);  Henry Fonda as Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (the aging officer insisting on landing with his troops);  Richard Burton as Flying Officer David Campbell (a weary RAF pilot);  Sean Connery as Pvt. Flanagan (a cheeky infantryman on the British side);  Eddie Albert as Col. Thompson;  Rod Steiger, credited as a “Destroyer Commander”;  Peter Lawford as Lord Lovat’s aide;  Kenneth More as Capt. Colin Maud;  Curd Jürgens as Gen. Blumentritt;  and Gert Fröbe as Sgt. Kaffekanne.  The cast list goes on and on — a veritable roll call of mid-century Hollywood and European cinema — each actor embodying a fragment of the vast mosaic that was D-Day.
Background:  This film is on my “Best Picture List” as the highest grossing film of 1962 and it was a passing recommendation from one of my high school friends who said he liked “realistic” war depictions like “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Longest Day“.  Released in 1962, “The Longest Day” was adapted from Cornelius Ryan’s bestselling 1959 book of the same name.  The production was enormous:  shot in black-and-white for documentary realism, filmed on location in France, and involving thousands of extras, military consultants, and multiple directors to handle the American, British, and German segments.  The film was a major commercial success and received five Academy Award nominations, winning two Oscars — Best Cinematography (Black-and-White) and Best Special Effects.  Its historic significance lies in its attempt to portray D-Day with unprecedented scale and authenticity, long before CGI or modern war-film conventions.
Plot:  The film chronicles the events of June 6, 1944, from the perspectives of Allied and German forces.  It begins with the uncertainty of weather, the debates among commanders, and the German high command’s disbelief that an invasion is imminent.  As the narrative unfolds, we follow American paratroopers scattered across Normandy, British commandos landing with bagpipes, French Resistance fighters sabotaging rail lines, and German officers struggling to interpret fragmentary intelligence.  The film moves from the airborne drops to the amphibious landings, culminating in the brutal fighting on Omaha Beach and the eventual Allied foothold.  Rather than focusing on a single protagonist, the film presents D-Day as a collective human endeavor, emphasizing the chaos, courage, confusion, and cost of the largest amphibious invasion in history.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  solid to excellent;  sweeping and ambitious;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Longest Day” remains a landmark war film — ambitious, respectful, and surprisingly restrained.  Its documentary-style approach gives it a sense of authenticity, and its commitment to multilingual dialogue (German actors speaking German, French actors speaking French) was ahead of its time.  The film’s scale still impresses more than sixty years later.
Acting:  With a cast this large, performances vary, but the overall effect is strong.  John Wayne brings his trademark gravitas, even if he was older than the real Vandervoort. Robert Mitchum is terrific as Cota, delivering one of the film’s most memorable moments as he rallies troops under fire.  Henry Fonda’s Roosevelt Jr. is understated and dignified.  Richard Burton’s brief appearance adds emotional weight, while Sean Connery provides a touch of levity before his Bond fame.  The German cast — particularly Curd Jürgens and Gert Fröbe — adds credibility and nuance, avoiding caricature.  The ensemble approach works:  no single performance dominates, but together they weave a tapestry of perspectives.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is crisp and striking, using black-and-white to evoke wartime newsreel footage.  The battle scenes are massive, with thousands of extras, practical explosions, and real equipment.  The Omaha Beach sequence, though predating “Saving Private Ryan” by decades, remains impressive for its scale and choreography.  The special effects — which won an Oscar — hold up remarkably well, relying on practical pyrotechnics and large‑scale staging rather than trick photography.  The film’s editing and cross-cutting between fronts maintain momentum despite the sprawling narrative.
Problems:  A few.  The film’s sheer size means some scenes feel episodic, and the constant shifts between characters can dilute emotional depth.  John Wayne’s casting, while iconic, strains believability given his age at the time.  (The same is true for many of the actors in this film.  LoL.)  Some dialogue leans toward patriotic sentimentality, reflecting early-1960s sensibilities.  And while the film strives for accuracy, it inevitably simplifies or compresses events.  Still, these issues do not significantly detract from its impact.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  “The Longest Day” is both informative and engaging — a sweeping, respectful tribute to the men who fought on D-Day.  Its scale, ambition, and commitment to authenticity make it a compelling watch even today.  The film balances spectacle with historical detail, and its ensemble approach underscores the collective nature of the invasion.  Watching it feels like stepping into a living historical document.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “The Longest Day” is a historically significant war epic that combines massive scale with documentary-style realism.  With two Academy Awards, a legendary ensemble cast, and its enduring place in the war-film canon, it remains essential viewing for anyone interested in World War II, military history, or classic Hollywood film-making.  If you appreciate large-scale historical dramas or films that attempt to capture the complexity of real events, this one definitely rates a viewing.  While this film was already on my Oscar list for viewing (roughly 650+ films), securing a friend’s recommendation bumped it up a few hundred notches.  LoL
.
Click here (19 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 »

Mostly Just… Advertising And F/X

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 14, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” (2009) — movie review
Today’s review is for the toy-to-screen action spectacle “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” (2009), directed by Stephen Sommers and starring Channing Tatum as Duke (the earnest soldier thrust into the elite G.I. Joe unit), Marlon Wayans as Ripcord (loyal wingman and comic relief), Sienna Miller as Ana / Baroness (a femme fatale with a tragic backstory), Joseph Gordon-Levitt as The Doctor / Rex (a twisted scientist with ties to Cobra), Christopher Eccleston as McCullen / Destro (arms dealer with a metallic destiny), Lee Byung-hun as Storm Shadow (the icy ninja assassin), Rachel Nichols as Scarlett (the team’s sharp intellect and archer), Ray Park as Snake Eyes (the silent martial arts master), Dennis Quaid as General Hawk (commanding officer of the Joes), and Arnold Vosloo as Zartan (the shapeshifting infiltrator).  The ensemble is rounded out by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Heavy Duty and Jonathan Pryce as the U.S. President.
Background:  Released in 2009, “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” was Hasbro’s attempt to launch a blockbuster franchise from its long-running toy line and animated series. With a budget of around $175 million, the film grossed over $300 million worldwide.  Despite pretty good special effects, this film did not receive any Academy Award nominations, nor does it hold historic cinematic significance beyond being part of the wave of toy-based adaptations (“Transformers“, “Battleship“, etc.).  Its legacy is more commercial marketing than artistic — a franchise starter that paved the way for sequels and reboots.  Full disclosure:  I saw this film on original release with my son and gave it a pretty positive recommendation.  It was one of those:  “Seen it.  I enjoyed it.” type of reviews I used to give.  (Original review is here.)  This review is (hopefully) slightly more substantive and (regrettably) not quite as “kind.”
Plot:  The story follows Duke and Ripcord as they are recruited into the elite G.I. Joe unit after a failed mission involving the transport / delivery of advanced nanotechnology weapons.  The “Joes” must stop Destro and Cobra from unleashing nanomite warheads capable of consuming entire cities. Along the way, personal histories collide:  Duke’s past with Ana, Rex’s transformation into Cobra’s scientist, and the eternal rivalry between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow.  The film builds toward a global showdown involving underwater bases, nanotech destruction, and the revelation of Cobra’s larger plan.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  serviceable but uneven;  flashy, CGI-heavy and unrealistic;  several;  moderately.
Any Good?  Yes — but only in the (very limited) sense of delivering popcorn spectacle.  “Rise of Cobra” is a frenetic mix of action sequences, gadgetry, and comic-book plotting.  It knows it’s a toy commercial, and it leans into that identity.  The narrative is thin, but the film offers relentless pacing and visual bombast (explosions and GIANT secret facilities).
Acting:  Tatum is stiff as Duke, though his earnestness fits the soldier archetype.  Wayans injects humor, sometimes forced, but occasionally welcome.  Miller relishes her role as Baroness, balancing camp with menace.  Gordon-Levitt is nearly unrecognizable, buried under prosthetics, but he commits to the mad-scientist energy.  Eccleston chews scenery as Destro, while Byung-hun and Park elevate the ninja subplot with physical / martial arts dancing and sword play.  Dennis Quaid tries (but mostly fails) to provide gravitas as General Hawk , but his role is largely functional.  Somebody has to be in charge.  It might as well be the old, white, American guy.
Filming / FX:  The film is replete with CGI — from nanomite swarms to futuristic vehicles and super military bases (in the desert and under the polar ice pack).  The standout sequence is the Paris chase and Eiffel Tower destruction, where accelerator suits turn soldiers into human “Ironman” types with mini-guns and missiles attached to their forearms.  While visually kinetic, the heavy reliance on digital effects often feels cartoonish.  One example, ANY sonic weapon which is powerful enough to flip an armored Humvee is also going to immediately kill a human.  There’s simply NO getting up to fight some more after that.  (But, hey, we’re trying to sell toys here, okay?)  The editing of most action scenes prioritizes speed over coherence and realism.  The production design of Cobra’s underwater base is imaginative, though more comic-book than military realism.
Problems:  Several.  The plot is skeletal and often incoherent, serving as connective tissue between set combat / action pieces (but THAT is why the young, male kids / teens are watching this, right?)  Character development is minimal, with emotional arcs reduced to clichés.  The romantic subplot between Duke and Ana is forced and there is overt fraternization between other military personnel.  The tone wavers between camp and seriousness, never fully committing to either.  And the CGI, while ambitious, has aged poorly compared to contemporaries.  It should be needless to say, BUT the physics of combat underwater vs combat in air are significantly different, so most of the “big” battle is for movie visuals and not meant to represent any reality.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Moderately (for this viewing).  It’s loud, fast, and occasionally fun, but rarely memorable (except for the Eiffel Tower destruction).  The ninja rivalry provides the most compelling story thread, while the rest feels like a video game cut-scene stretched to a feature length film.  It’s entertaining in bursts, but exhausting overall.  Really, it is still pretty much what I stated in my original review – an advertisement for boys’ toy dolls (“action figures”).
Final Recommendation:  Moderate recommendation.  “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is not essential viewing unless you’re a fan (5 to 10 years old) of the toy line or curious about Hasbro’s cinematic experiments.  Rated PG-13 for intense action and violence, it’s family-accessible but shallow in terms of actual story.  Watch it for the ninja duels, the Paris chase, and the campy villainy — but don’t expect depth or awards.
.
Click here (14 December) 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 »

Not Enough

Posted in General Comments, Guitar, History, Movie Review, Movies, Music, Music and Concerts, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 20, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Today’s review is for the French drama “Django” (2017) about the World War II years in the life of Django Reinhardt (aka:  Jean Reinhardt).  Reinhardt was born in Belgium although the movie implies he spent most of this life (adult life anyway) in France.   Reda Kateb plays Django Reinhardt, Cécile de France plays Louise de Klerk (a “sponsor” who tries to get Django from France to Switzerland), Bea Palya plays Naguine (Dgango’s wife), and Johnny Montreuil plays Joseph Reinhardt (Dgango’s younger brother and band member).
Background:  I’ve been learning about (and how to play) guitar since January 2021.  Three things all beginners are supposed to do are:  identify a guitar player who’s music excites you;  identify a style of music you want to play (which may or may not be the same as your “hero”);  and, identify a style of guitar instrument you think looks cool and which you can dream about playing.  Unfortunately (for me), I still don’t have any of these “must have’s”.  In my efforts to find my “guitar hero”, I’ve watched a ton of YouTube videos and a handful of movies.  Watching this film was effort in that vein…
Plot:  The movie begins with some of Django’s extended family (Romani) being harassed and murdered.  The scene jumps a few years and an adult Django is playing guitar in a dance bar in Nazi occupied Paris during WWII.  Even though the jazz / swing style of music being played is considered “black – American” music, it is popular in Europe and in particular the French and the Germans.
The Nazis are rounding up “sub-humans” for forced labor and being “Gypsy” / Romani, Django is detained for examination / classification.  Django is to be deported but his “sponsor” Madam de Klerk arranges for a Nazi officer to arrange a tour of Germany for Django’s band.  Django refuses the tour and tries to flee France for Switzerland.  Eventually, the French underground help him get out of France and into neutral Switzerland.  The movie ends with Django conducting a performance in a church after being reunited with his family.  The screen shifts to a photo montage of victims of the Nazi Holocaust.
Note: I recognize that being Gypsy and being Romani are not the same thing.  The movie dialog does say this, but I didn’t feel it emphasized it, nor did it make any attempt to explain the difference between the two groups.  I looked them up as background for this review.
So, is the movie any good?  How’s the acting?  How’s the music and guitar playing?  And, did it help me on my personal journey to discover music?
Well, so-so;  hard to tell;  so-so to okay;  and, not really.
Any good?  I didn’t get much out of this film.  It is a French film and the sub-titles are done very poorly.  To start off, they are not in time to the speaking.  A sub-title will flash on the screen and disappear and then the person will begin speaking (before you can read what they’re going to say).  The test font size is small, so it’s difficult to read even if you can catch it with a pause.  And, finally, the sub-titles are moving around the screen, so depending on where the speaker is positioned, the text moves – left, right, center, and randomly depending on the turn of the speaker.  Bottom line:  I’m sure I missed a good chunk of the dialogue simply because my eyes were looking at the wrong part of the screen when someone was speaking – and by the time to move your eyes (to the far left in order to read left to right), a different person is speaking and the text has moved again…
Even if the sub-titles were satisfactory, I don’t think there was enough narration to explain what was happening.  I think (maybe) Django is a semi-legendary musician in France / Europe and much of the background for the film is “just” culturally understood.  I don’t really know because I’m not terribly familiar with music, French or European culture.  Bottom line is the movie seemed long and rather tedious to me.
Acting?  Same thing.  I have no idea if the acting is considered to be good or not.  I was not overly impressed.  Just too big a culture gap.
Music and guitar?  I’m not a fan of jazz music.  I don’t have a sufficient listening background or understanding of it to know if what I was hearing was any good or not.  It didn’t move me to want to pick up one of my guitars.  When Django’s band switched to “swing” style, I did enjoy the music quite a bit more.  I have listened to bits of swing over my lifetime and do have a minor appreciation for this style of music.
As for the guitar…  Django was injured in a fire while a youth which forced him to play without the use of his ring and little finger of his fretboard hand (his left hand).  After the injury, Django relearned to play with only his two functioning fingers (index and middle).  The movie implies this meant he had to play more solo style “notes” / lead guitar.  Indeed, Django is cited by many YouTube “instructors” as proof that physical difficulty is not insurmountable if you have the desire to play.  Fortunately, the guitar is an incredibly flexible instrument which permits a player to play the “same” chord, but with a different (alternate) voicing.  Was the guitar acting / playing interesting?  Of course!  Did I learn anything?  Nope.  Oh, well…
Final recommendation:  low to moderate.  As a historical interest film, the movie brings to light some of the persecution of the Romani peoples in Europe.  Other than that, I didn’t find a great deal of much to attract me.  Again, I’m not sure if I have a bias against “foreign” films or just French and Italian films.  Would “fixing” the sub-titles have helped?  I don’t know that for sure, either.  I would not go so far to say it was a bad film.  It just didn’t do anything for me – no insight to the musician or to the music.  There is a limited amount of music and video of Django available on YouTube and there is a bio on Wikipedia if anyone is interested in exploring Django to greater depth.
.
Click here (20 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 »

I Read Your Book

Posted in Family History, General Comments, History, Leadership, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 10, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Patton” (1970)  —  movie review
Today’s movie review is for the biographical World War II film “Patton” (1970), about U.S. General George S. Patton.  The film stars George C. Scott (in the title role) as General Patton, Karl Malden as General Omar Bradley, and Michael Bates as Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery.  The movie is based the book:  “Patton:  Ordeal and Triumph” by Ladislas Farago and Bradley’s memoir: “A Soldier’s Story“.  The movie covers Patton’s assumption of command in North Africa, through the invasion of Sicily, his breakout in France, his relief of Bastogne (during the Battle of the Bulge) and his final days after the surrender of Germany (ending the European theater of WWII).
Background:  I was interested in military leadership since grammar school.  General Patton was a personal (military) hero of mine during my high school years,  so I read “Ordeal and Triumph” before seeing the film the first time.  In all honesty, even with the movie, the book didn’t “mean” a lot to me until I attended the USMA Prep School in the mid-1970s, where my roommate was an absolute Patton fanatic.  He had read “O&T” plus the two volume “Patton Papers“, which he recommended.  I did pick them up later, but never made it through the first volume…  My roommate and I had multiple discussions about historic military leaders during the nine months we attended the Prep School together.
So, is the movie any good?  How’s the acting and the battle scenes?  Is this movie worth viewing 50 years after its release?  Yes, yes, so-so, and definitely!
This movie was nominated for ten Oscars and won seven, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Actor although Scott declined the award for personal reasons.  Scott felt actors should stand on their own work and that competition / comparisons demeaned the profession.  The opening monologue to the movie, delivered by Scott as General Patton with a full screen American flag behind him, is iconic and the speech is IMHO the most famous scene in the movie.  As a side note, Patton never gave this “actual” speech.  It’s a combination of several portions of speeches he did give.
Overall, the movie and Scott’s acting are tremendous.  I’ve watched this movie (at least) a dozen times over the years.  I feel the battle scenes are sedate by today’s standards.  They are expressive – demonstrating the horrors of war – without the semi-continuous blood-lust of “300” or many of Mel Gibson’s “war” films.  Are they “great”?  No, but they are realistic, move the plot along and, while not excessively bloody, they are filmed and sound scored quite well.  You can almost feel the rumble of the tanks and heavy vehicles (or I could).
Is this movie worth viewing for today’s generation(s).  Absolutely!  General Patton was a unique figure in American military history.  The Armies he commanded took more prisoners, seized more land and had relatively fewer casualties than any other command of a similar size.  Indeed, as the movie makes no attempt to hide, he was a true “personality”.  Was Patton a perfect “person”?  No.  And this movie shows some of his foibles.  But, this is still a great movie about the man, his leadership style and his place in history.  Final recommendation:  Very highly recommended movie.
The title of this post is a reference to a line in the film where General Patton screams at a retreating German attacking force (nominally under the command of General Rommel) that his men have defeated the German’s because Patton had read Rommel’s book on the use of infantry in support of armor when attacking the enemy. Nowadays, it’s called a “combined arms” attack.
.
Click here (10 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 »

Translated Prayers

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 13, 2023| 2 Comments »

The Paratrooper’s Prayer
[La Prière du Para (“The Paratrooper’s Prayer“) is a French poem found in the possession of the presumed author, Aspirant (Brevet-Lieutenant / Second Lieutenant) André Zirnheld, who was the first Free French SAS officer to fall in Libya in a gun jeep raid on Nazi airfields deep behind enemy lines on July 27, 1942.  Hurriedly buried in a desert sand dune;  his friends found (in his officer’s note book) a prayer he had written in Tunis in 1938.  “The Paratrooper’s Prayer” has been adopted by all French Metropolitan and Marine Infantry Paratrooper Units and Regiments (except for the parachutist of the French Foreign Legion who have their own poem), as well as the Portuguese Paratroopers.  I found this “Prayer” as the forward of a book I was reading while in the Army.  The book was titled:  “Those Devils In Baggy Pants“.  I carried a copy of the poem in my wallet until a few years ago (for well over 30 years), when my copy more or less disintegrated with time.  I now “keep” my copy on this site in my poems section.  My copy did not have the last four lines / two sentences and it is otherwise slightly different in its wording.  Note:  I don’t speak French or Portuguese, so I can’t guarantee the spellings in those tongues, nor the complete accuracy of their translations.]
The Prayer of the Paratrooper
(Translation by:  Robert Petersen)
I’m asking You God, to give me what You have left.
Give me those things which others never ask of You.
I don’t ask You for rest, or tranquility.
Not that of the spirit, the body, or the mind.
I don’t ask You for wealth, or success, or even health.
All those things are asked of You so much Lord,
that you can’t have any left to give.
Give me instead Lord what You have left.
Give me what others don’t want.
I want uncertainty and doubt.
I want torment and battle.
And I ask that You give them to me now and forever Lord,
so I can be sure to always have them,
because I won’t always have the strength to ask again.
But give me also the courage, the energy,
and the spirit to face them.
I ask You these things Lord,
because I can’t ask them of myself.
[Original French Text]
La Prière du Para
Je m’addresse à vous, mon Dieu, car vous donnez
Ce qu’on ne peut obtenir que de soi
Donnez-moi, mon Dieu, ce qui vous reste
Donnez-moi ce qu’on ne vous demande jamais.
Je ne vous demande pas le repos
Ni la tranquillité
Ni celle de l’âme, ni celle du corps.
Je ne vous demande pas la richesse
Ni le succès, ni même la santé.
Tout ça, mon Dieu, on vous le demande tellement
Que vous ne devez plus en avoir.
Donnez-moi, mon Dieu, ce qui vous reste
Donnez-moi ce que l’on vous refuse.
Je veux l’insécurité et l’inquiétude.
Je veux la tourmente et la bagarre
Et que vous me les donniez, mon Dieu, définitivement.
Que je sois sûr de les avoir toujours
Car je n’aurai pas toujours le courage
De vous les demander.
Donnez-moi, mon Dieu, ce qui vous reste.
Donnez-moi ce don’t les autres ne veulent pas.
Mais donnez-moi aussi le courage
Et la force et la foi.
Car vous seul donnez, mon Dieu,
Ce que l’on ne peut attendre que de soi.
[Literal English Translation]
The Prayer of the Paratrooper
I call out to you, my God, because you give
What we cannot get by ourselves
Give me, my God, what remains
Give me what no one ever asks of you.
I do not ask for rest
Nor tranquility
Whether that of the soul or the body.
I ask not for wealth,
Or success, or even health.
All that, my God, you are asked so much for
That you no longer have them.
Give me, my God, what remains
Give me what others refuse.
I want insecurity and anxiety.
I want turmoil and brawl.
And that you give them to me, my God, forever
So that I am always sure to have them.
For I will not always have the courage to ask.
Give me, my God, what you have.
Give me what others do not want.
But also give me courage
And strength and faith.
Because only you alone can give, my God,
What I cannot expect only from myself.
[Portuguese Version]
Oraçāo do Páraquedista
Dai-me Senhor, o que Vos resta
Aquilo que nunca ninguém Vos pede
Eu não Vos peço o repouso
Nem a tranquilidade
Nem a da alma, nem a do corpo
Eu não Vos peço a riqueza,
Nem o êxito,
Nem mesmo a saúde.
Tantos vos pedem isso, Senhor,
que já não Vos deve sobrar para dar.
Dai-me Senhor, o que Vos resta.
Dai-me aquilo que todos recusam.
Eu quero an insegurança e a inquietaçao
Eu quero a luta e a tormenta
E concedei-me-las, meu Senhor, definitivamente.
Que eu tenha a certeza de as ter para sempre
Porque não terei sempre a coragem
De Vos Lhas pedir.
Dai-me Senhor, o que Vos resta.
Dai-me aquilo que os outros não querem.
Mas dai-me também a Coragem
E a Força
E a Fé.
Amen.
[English Translation]
Prayer of the Paratrooper
Give me, O Lord, what remains Thine;
What no one ever asks of Thee.
I do not ask Thee for rest
Nor tranquility,
Neither of the soul nor of the body.
I do not ask Thee for riches,
Nor success,
Nor even health.
So many ask you for these, O Lord,
Thou shouldst no longer have anything left to give.
Give me Lord, what remains Thine.
Give me that which all of us refuse.
I want insecurity and restlessness,
I want struggle and trouble.
And grant them to me, My Lord, forever.
Make sure that I will always take them
Because I will not always have the courage
To ask of Thee for them.
Give me, O Lord, what remains Thine,
Give me what others do not want;
But give me also the Courage,
And the Strength,
And the Faith.
Amen.
.
Click here (13 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Rut-Roh

Posted in General Comments, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 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.

Read Full Post »

Mediocre Tarantino

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 19, 2023| Leave a Comment »

“Inglourius Basterds”   (2009)   —   movie review
Today’s review is for the “alternate reality / history” WWII military drama “Inglourious Basterds” and stars: Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine, Diane Kruger as Bridget von Hammersmark (an actress / double agent who is trying to help the allies), Eli Roth as Sgt. Donny Donowitz (one of the “Basterds”), Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfus (a Jewis girl seeking revenge against the Nazis), Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa (the bad-guy SS officer who killed Shosanna’s family and who is now hunting the “Basterds”), Michael Fassbender as Lt. Archie Hicox (a British Officer sent behind enemy lines to assist in the killing of Hitler), Daniel Brühl as Fredrick Zoller (a German war hero and the subject of a Nazi film), Til Schweiger as Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz (a German soldier who rebels against the Nazis and who then joins the “Basterds” squad).
Basic plot:  In WWII German-occupied France, a young Jewish girl witnesses the slaughter of her family by SS Officer Colonel Hans Landa.  Narrowly escaping with her life, Shosanna Dreyfus plots her revenge several years later when German war hero Fredrick Zoller takes a interest in her and arranges a movie premiere (he is the subject of the movie) at the theater she now owns.  Meanwhile, Lt. Aldo Raine forms a special commando team composed of Jewish-American soldiers to fight the Germans behind enemy lines.  So, the Germans have made a war movie about Zoller and with the opportunity of having every senior Nazi commander and politician in attendance, in the same theater, Raine is sent to blow-up the theater when the film premiers, not knowing that Dreyfus is already planning to lock everyone in the theater and burn it down with everyone inside.  In this alternate universe, the bombing fails, but the burning succeeds and Hitler and the Nazi high command is killed so the war ends.
Background:  I like war movies.  I like action movies.  I like “based on true events” movies.  “I don’t really care for “alternate reality / history” movies – mainly because made up history, in pop culture, creates an uninformed / misinformed public who “believe” the movie is an accurate portrayal of real history.  Our American education system is not able to compete with fake history – which doesn’t help…  Anyway, I purchased this movie in DVD format several years ago and have just never gotten around to viewing it.  This review is from my first viewing.  It was prompted by my seeing the promo on YouTube.  (Yeah, they got me again.)
So, is this movie any good?  The actors?  The action?  And, should you make time to view it?  To the first three:  so-so.  To the last:  it depends…
Any good:  This movie was directed by Quentin Tarantino. If you like his work – and many do – you will probably like this movie. I have enjoyed several of his movies (ex: “Pulp Fiction“, “Kill Bill“), but I found this film wore that enjoyment down pretty thin.  The “film” techniques:  chapter headings, physical and bloody brutality, heavy use of black and red color schemes are all so standard now (and copied by others), they are actually almost boringly expected. Ho-hum…
The actors:  Laurent and Waltz are the best of the lot.  This is the first time I’ve seen Laurent and the camera loves her.  Waltz is Waltz.   If the camera loves Laurent, it adores Waltlz.   He is an eye magnet even when he’s not the one speaking.  The problem I have with him is I’ve seen Waltz in multiple roles and he’s starting to seem like he’s John Wayne “playing” Rooster Cogburn.  Yeah, he’s great in THIS role, but he’s really just playing himself, again.  Bond villain, check.  Django, check.  Tarzan, check.  The only stretch I can remember was in “Alita: Battle Angel“.  Maybe, it’s just me…  I enjoy Brad Pitt, but for seem reason I just can’t go as far as saying “I’m a fan”.  I’m not sure why, either.  Kruger is okay in her role, but I liked her more in the “National Treasures” movies.  I can’t think of much else I’ve seen her in which really made me sit up an notice her.  I liked Brühl in this movie.  I didn’t really like Fassbender.  Brühl was believable, Fassbender wasn’t.  I thought Schweiger ended up being wasted in this film.  He was a little gem (when the camera focused on him) and I would have liked him to have more minutes.
The action:  Tarantino.  Blood.  Gore (multiple scalpings).  Pretty typical for “T”.
Should you view this movie:  Again, if you like “T” style films, this is as good as any of them.  If you do not, you may still find a reason to view it.  If you are not a “T” fan, it’s probably a miss.  I have two main objections to this film:  1)  what’s here is done well, but there’s almost nothing “new” or interesting done here.  Even allowing this movie is now almost fifteen years old…  And, 2)  As a veteran, I object to the depiction of an American officer saying I’m part Indian and if you agree to join my unit I want 100 scalps from each of you.  I’m not saying American’s have never committed war crimes. Obviously, we have – and still do.  Hopefully, it’s only occasionally and not purposefully done –  as depicted here. I would be particularly offended if I were a Jewish-American and I was being told:  “The enemy is brutalizing Jews so I want you to brutalize them.  We are going to be so brutal to them, they will fear us.”  This attitude assumes Jewish-Americans have a greater proclivity to seek revenge and to commit war crimes.  I don’t believe this is true and, yes, I (personally) find it offensive to suggest it.
Final recommendation:  moderate.  The acting is pretty strong – individual performances, anyway.  The action is pretty “Tarantino-ish”.  I just didn’t find the story to be at all believable – even as I was watching it, and, even within the confines of “alternate history / reality”.
.
Click here (19 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 »

Refreshing My Look Ahead (Back)

Posted in 2022 Book Review, Book Review, History, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 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 »

Perseverance

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , on May 1, 2020| 5 Comments »

“Papillon” (1973)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the prison / escape historical drama “Papillon“, starring Steve McQueen in the title role as Henri Charrière (aka: Papillon) and Dustin Hoffman as his friend and fellow prisoner Louis Dega.  Papillon is french for “butterfly”, which is the medium size tattoo character he has on his chest.  He has been sentenced to life without parole for murdering a pimp.  He insists he is only a safe-cracker and that he was framed for the murder.  The Dega character has been sentenced for forgery and embezzlement.
Before I forget to mention it, there is an outstanding supporting role of a prison warden (for solitary confinement) played by William Smithers.  In this movie, the system is the villain, but he makes an exceptional focal point for the “system”.
They get on a ship from France to French Guiana / Devil’s Island.  Papillon saves Dega’s life and contracts to protect Dega in exchange for Dega funding Papillon’s escape.  After several acts of bravery, Dega trusts that Papillon is a true friend and probably innocent of his conviction for murder.
Blah, blah, blah…  Brutality, betrayal, torture, escape attempt, solitary, torture, betrayal, solitary…  you get the point.  There are three things to take from this film:  man’s inhumanity towards our fellow man;  friendship;  and, the indomitability of some men’s spirit.  In the end, Papillon escapes and “outlives” his prison.
So, is this movie any good?  Is it entertaining?  Is it worth seeing?  If you are a fan of either McQueen or Hoffman, I believe this movie is a MUST see.  McQueen plays a different role / character than normal – he doesn’t settle for “cool”.  He acts.  Hoffman really “just” plays Hoffman, but he does it very well and it’s kind of a mini-display of many of his doddering roles in other films.  That sounds like a put-down, but it’s not meant in that spirit.
Is it an entertaining movie?  No.  Try as I might to find joy in the progress and eventual success, I did not.  The movie is just too long and there is only so much punishment you can watch before you start to feel victimized too, and I don’t watch movies to feel victimized (too).  I won’t say it was boring.  It just felt plodding.
Is it worth seeing?  Again, it depends…  It is supposed to based on a real life experience, it does have two good actors in two above average performances, and finally, it is a story about perseverance and the triumph of the human spirit.  So, yeah, I guess it is “worth” viewing.
Final recommendation:  moderate.  The acting is good.  The end result of the movie is satisfying (spoiler:  he gets away).  But the movie really just felt almost as suffocating as the prison, so it would be hard to give it a higher rating.
Two final notes:  First, there has been a remake, in 2017, but the reviews were pretty bland, so I’m not sure I’d spend another two hours on this story.  And, second, I don’t remember this “movie”, but I feel as if I definitely must have seen it before because I distinctly remembered the last ten minutes (the satisfying bit of the movie).   Coconuts, anyone?
.
Click here (1 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 »

We Should Never Give Up On Our Dreams

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , on February 9, 2019| Leave a Comment »

“Leap!” (2017)  (U.S.)  /  “Ballerina” (2016) (France)
Today’s movie review is for an animated, “rise-to-fame” / dance, kids movie which was originally released in France / Europe in 2016 and then released in English / America in 2017.  The story is of two orphans who escape an orphanage to seek their fame in Paris.  The young girl wants to be a Ballerina and the young lad wants to be an engineer / inventor.  By hook and by crook, they both get their wish.  And the boy gets the girl’s heart along with it…
As most anyone who follows this blog for any length of time will realize, I am all about this sentimental, rags-to-riches, ugly duckling to swan story / genre.  As a former computer programmer I am also predisposed to “liking” an animated film or one with technical special effects.
So, does this movie work as a kids film?  How is the animation?  How is it as an adult film (will the average adult enjoy it)?  Good.  So-so.  And, probably.  Will kids like this film.  Yes, up to about the age of 6 to 8, I think they will, particularly if their parents have filled them with dreams that anything is possible.  But the animation is only “good”?  Yes.  Basically, that’s about it.  Most of everything possible has been done and probably done better in other films.  Shading, shadows, color, textures, skin tones, hair, facial expressions.  All of it has been done, and, if I’m honest, better in other movies.  That doesn’t mean it’s bad.  It’s not.  It’s just not done at “super” hi-def levels.  Also, and this really isn’t a criticism either, the movie lacks the required one or two “fabulous” take-away songs which would make it (the movie) a HIT movie.   And, maybe, it doesn’t need to be for this kind of “kids” movie to be “okay”.  Is it an adult movie?  Not really.  It’s a bit too simplistic for an adult or a “date” movie.  It is an excellent auntie / uncle or grand-parents take the niece / nephew or grand-kids to the afternoon matinée movie.  And, sometimes that’s really all a movie has to be.
It is rated PG for some “suggestive” scenes / themes and it has the requisite good and evil adults and a notable bullying child.  Like most movies for this target age group, the movie resolves hopefully for the children and leaves the adult issues mostly unaddressed / unresolved.  Again, it’s a kid’s movie, so children can “win” without “justice” for adults.
Final recommendation:  moderate to strong.  For what it is, it is a “good” movie.  It doesn’t really try to be a great deal more than entertaining – in a kid-sie / hopeful way.  I enjoyed it, and it was a pleasant enough way to spend 90 or so minutes.
.
Click here (9 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The More Things Change…

Posted in History, My Journal, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , 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.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started