| “Past Lives” (2023) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the Korean semi-romantic drama: “Past Lives”, directed by Celine Song and starring Greta Lee as Nora Moon/Moon Na Young, a Korean‑born playwright now living in New York; Teo Yoo as Jung Hae Sung, her childhood friend from Seoul, still carrying the weight of their early childhood bond; and John Magaro as Arthur Zaturansky (Nora’s American husband), a steady, thoughtful writer trying to understand the emotional gravity between his wife and another man. | |
| Background: I first heard about “Past Lives” a few weeks ago when I noticed it on the list of Best Picture Nominees for 2023. It ended up with two Academy Award nominations (Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay) which is pretty remarkable for a quiet, small‑scale drama with no big set pieces and no “Oscar‑bait” theatrics. It also picked up a ton of festival attention and was widely talked about as one of the best films of the year. Historically, it’s already being viewed as a standout in the “what‑if” / missed‑connection genre — a very realistic, adult look at how childhood bonds, immigration, marriage, and identity can all collide in ways that don’t fit neat Hollywood categories. This was my first viewing. I watched this for free on my library feed and have since purchased streaming rights (as it fell to my price point) for future viewing. | |
| Plot: Nora and Hae Sung were close friends as kids in Seoul — the kind of early bond that feels like it might turn into something more someday. But Nora’s family emigrates to Canada, and the two lose touch. Twelve years later, they reconnect online, talking constantly, but the timing is off: Nora is focused on her writing career, and the long‑distance thing doesn’t make sense. They drift apart again. Another twelve years pass. Nora is now married to Arthur and living in New York City. Hae Sung decides to visit the city, partly as a vacation, partly to see her. The film follows the three of them over a few days — not in a love‑triangle way, but in a very human, very honest way about what it means to grow up, grow apart, and still feel something powerful for someone who represents a version of your life you didn’t choose (or which the universe didn’t choose for you). There’s no melodrama, no big blow‑ups — just three people trying to navigate something complicated with as much grace as they can manage. | |
| 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 across the board; clean, intimate filming; a couple of slow stretches; yes — very much. | |
| Any good? Yes. “Past Lives” is one of those films that sneaks up on you. It’s quiet, but not dull; emotional, but not manipulative. The story feels lived‑in — like something that could actually happen to real people, not movie characters. (But I am a “romantic” who believes in serendipity.) The pacing is deliberate, but it works because the film is about small shifts in emotion and perspective, not big plot twists. IMHO, it earns its reputation as one of the standout films of 2023. | |
| Acting: Greta Lee is terrific — very controlled and internal feeling, but you always feel you know what’s going on under the surface. Teo Yoo brings a kind of gentle steadiness to Hae Sung that makes the whole situation feel believable instead of melodramatic. And John Magaro does a great job with a role that could have easily been written as “the jealous husband,” but instead comes across as thoughtful, self‑aware, and genuinely trying to understand what Nora is feeling. The three of them together make the film work. | |
| Filming / FX: This is a small, realistic film (no FX to speak of ) but the filming is clean and intentional. Lots of long takes, quiet moments, and simple framing that lets the actors carry the weight. New York looks like New York (not the glossy movie version), and the scenes in Seoul feel authentic without being touristy. The final sequence on the street at night is especially well done — understated, but powerful. | |
| Problems: A couple of stretches run a bit slow, especially in the middle when the film is setting up the emotional stakes for the reunion. Nothing drags badly, but if you’re expecting a more traditional romantic arc or big dramatic confrontations, this movie isn’t that. It’s also very quiet — which is a strength, but it means you have to be in the right mood for it. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Yes — very much. It’s thoughtful, honest, and surprisingly moving. The ending in particular hit harder than I expected. It’s not a “feel‑good” movie, but it’s a very human one, and it sticks with you after it’s over. | |
| Final Recommendation: Highly recommended. “Past Lives” is a beautifully made, emotionally realistic film with excellent performances and a clear sense of purpose. Its Oscar nominations make sense, and I think it’ll hold up well over time. If you like character‑driven stories about relationships, identity, and the paths we take (and don’t take), this is a MUST see. Final Note: This film introduced me to the Buddhist‑rooted concept 인연 (inyeon), which refers to the karmic connections built over countless past lives. | |
| . | |
| Click here (19 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. | |
Posts Tagged ‘Highly Recommended Movie’
See You Then, Inyeon
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Arthur Zaturansky, Best Picture Nomination, Buddhist Concept, Canada, Celine Song, General Comments, Greta Lee, Hae Sung, Highly Recommended Movie, Hollywood, Inyeon, John Magaro, Jung Hae Sung, Karmic Connections, Movie Reviews, New York City, Nora Moon/Moon Na Young, Past Lives (2023) — movie review, Reviews, Seoul - South Korea, Teo Yoo on May 19, 2026| 2 Comments »
Because I Knew You I Have Been Changed For Good
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Ariana Grande, Boq, Broadway Musical Adaptation, Cynthia Erivo, Dr. Dillamond, Elphaba, Ethan Slater, Fiyero, General Comments, Glinda, Highly Recommended Movie, Hollywood, Jeff Goldblum, Jon M. Chu, Jonathan Bailey, Madame Muriel Morrible, Michelle Yeoh, Movie Reviews, Reviews, The Wizard of OZ, Wicked: For Good (2025) — movie review on May 18, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “Wicked: For Good” (2025) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the musical‑fantasy “Wicked: For Good”, directed by Jon M. Chu and starring Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba, the green‑skinned young woman whose power and conscience put her at odds with the Wizard’s regime; Ariana Grande as Glinda, the ambitious and image‑conscious witch whose friendship with Elphaba becomes the emotional center of the story; Jonathan Bailey as Fiyero, the prince who discovers he cares more deeply than he pretends; Michelle Yeoh as Madame Muriel Morrible, the calculating political operator who shapes the narrative around Elphaba; Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard, the charming but manipulative leader whose need for control drives the conflict; and Ethan Slater as Boq, the well‑meaning Munchkin whose life is reshaped by unrequited affection and the fallout of the Wizard’s policies. This sequel continues the story from the first film and brings the musical’s second act to the screen. | |
| Background: This was my first viewing of “Wicked: For Good”. I streamed it for free from my cable service and (having enjoyed it) I will be buying streaming rights when it drops to my price point. I have not yet seen the first film nor am I familiar with the stage show. The film received several Academy Award nominations, including Best Actress for Cynthia Erivo, Best Original Song, Best Costume Design, and Best Production Design. Historically, this movie is significant because it completes the long‑awaited two‑part adaptation of one of Broadway’s most successful musicals. It also marks one of the largest musical productions in recent Hollywood history, with a scale and ambition that few modern musicals attempt. | |
| Plot: The story picks up immediately after the events of the first film. Elphaba is now fully branded as the “Wicked Witch,” hunted by the Wizard’s forces and blamed for every problem in Oz. Glinda, meanwhile, has stepped into a public leadership role, trying to maintain order while wrestling with guilt over her part in the propaganda against her former friend. As the Wizard tightens his grip, animals continue to lose their voices, dissent is crushed, and the people of Oz are fed a steady stream of fear. Elphaba attempts to rescue Dr. Dillamond and others targeted by the regime, while Glinda tries to work within the system to limit the damage. Their paths cross again as the truth about the Wizard’s rise to power comes to light. The story builds toward the familiar events involving Dorothy, the melting, and the aftermath — but with the emotional framing of the musical, showing what really happened and why. The film ends with Glinda stepping into genuine leadership and Elphaba choosing a hidden life with Fiyero, leaving Oz to believe the myth. | |
| So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting / singing? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; excellent (sound not so much); big, polished, and theatrical; a few (one big); yes. | |
| Any good? Yes. The movie works because it leans into the emotional weight of the second act. The friendship between Elphaba and Glinda is still the heart of the story, and the film gives them several strong scenes together. The political themes are clearer here, and the film doesn’t shy away from showing how fear and propaganda shape public opinion. It feels like a satisfying conclusion to the two‑part adaptation, while it leaves open the possibility of a sequel. | |
| Acting: Cynthia Erivo is outstanding. She brings strength, vulnerability, and moral clarity to Elphaba, and her voice carries the emotional core of the film. Ariana Grande gives Glinda depth, showing the cost of her choices and the weight of her public role. Their chemistry makes the final scenes between them genuinely moving. Jonathan Bailey is solid as Fiyero, and Michelle Yeoh gives Madame Morrible a cold, controlled menace that fits the character. Jeff Goldblum is charismatic and slippery as the Wizard, and Ethan Slater brings pathos to Boq’s arc. The ensemble supports the leads well, and nobody feels miscast. Not having seen part one yet, I don’t know if any of the cast were better or worse in this (part two) film. | |
| Filming / FX: The production is big, colorful, and theatrical — (I gather) very much in line with the first film. The sets are elaborate, the costumes are detailed, and the visual effects blend practical and digital work to create a stylized Oz. The musical numbers are staged with energy and clarity, and the sound design supports the vocals without overwhelming them (sometimes NOT so much). The flying sequences look good, and the larger set pieces (including the confrontation with the Wizard’s forces) are handled well. It’s a polished production, and you can see the budget on the screen. | |
| Problems: A few. The biggest problem I had was the sound was terrible – particularly at the beginning of the film. Many of the song lyrics were indecipherable. On the minor side, some scenes feel a bit rushed, especially toward the end when the film is trying to align itself with the familiar events of “The Wizard of Oz”. A couple of digital backgrounds look too glossy, and the crowd sizes were lacking for both a major city (Oz) and for the land of the Munchkins – at least in comparison to my memory of the original film. This film also assumes (IMHO) you’ve seen the first part — it doesn’t quite stand alone as well as it might / could have. None of these issues spoil the movie (well, the sound issue almost does), but they do keep it from being superb. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Yes! The performances are strong, the music is powerful, and the emotional beats land. The friendship between Elphaba and Glinda remains the heart of the story, and the film treats their final scenes with the weight they deserve. The production values are high, and the musical numbers are well executed (aside from the poor sound quality at times). It’s a satisfying conclusion to the two‑part adaptation, and it feels like it delivers the emotional payoff fans of the first film were hoping for. | |
| Final Recommendation: Highly recommended. “Wicked: For Good” is a well‑acted, visually rich conclusion to the “Oz” story, anchored by excellent performances and a clear emotional through‑line. Its Academy Award nominations reflect the quality of this film and its cultural significance as the completion of a major Broadway adaptation makes it worth viewing. If you enjoy musicals, character‑driven stories, or big, theatrical film making, this one is worth your time. I now look forward to going back to see the original and the part one of this film. | |
| . | |
| Click here (18 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. | |
You’re 34 Years Old. Why Aren’t You Married?
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Augusta Ciolli, Aunt Catherine, Best Actor Oscar (Borgnine), Best Director Oscar (Mann), Best Picture Oscar, Best Screenplay Oscar (Chayefsky), Betsy Blair, Bronx, Delbert Mann, Ernest Borgnine, Esther Minciotti, From Here To Eternity, General Comments, Highly Recommended Movie, Joe Mantell, Marty (1955) — movie review, Marty Piletti, McHales Navy, Movie Reviews, Mrs. Piletti, Paddy Chayefsky, Reviews, Stardust Ballroom on May 7, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “Marty” (1955) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the romantic drama “Marty”, directed by Delbert Mann and starring Ernest Borgnine as Marty Piletti (a kind, lonely Bronx butcher who’s convinced he’s “a fat, ugly man” and destined to stay single); Betsy Blair as Clara (a shy, plain schoolteacher who’s been dismissed and overlooked so often she’s stopped expecting anything good); Esther Minciotti as Mrs. Piletti (Marty’s widowed mother, loving but anxious about being left alone); Augusta Ciolli as Aunt Catherine (the perpetually complaining relative who stirs up guilt and insecurity wherever she goes); and Joe Mantell as Angie (Marty’s best friend, stuck in the same weekend rut of bars, dances, and going nowhere). The film is a brief, heartfelt story about two ordinary people trying to believe they deserve more than loneliness and routine. | |
| Background: I bought this film in a “Classics” pack several years ago and just never got around to viewing it. I recently watched Borgnine in “From Here To Eternity” and thought he made a pretty good “bad guy” which was counter to my prior experience with him growing up and watching him star in the “McHales Navy” TV show. This film is on my Best Picture list and is one of the years when I’ve not seen the Best, the most attended or the other Best nominees, so I thought I’d start with the Oscar winner this time. Released in 1955 by United Artists, the film was adapted from Paddy Chayefsky’s earlier television play and became a surprise critical and commercial success. It won four Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Director (Mann), Best Actor (Borgnine), and Best Screenplay (Chayefsky). Historically, it’s significant because it proved a modest, character-driven story could compete with the big studio epics of the era. It’s also one of the shortest films ever to win Best Picture, which is unusual in itself. I went in not knowing what to expect except knowing it had won Best Picture. It is more than a “nice little movie.” It’s actually a lot deeper and more emotionally honest than that “saying” suggests. | |
| Plot: Marty Piletti is a 34-year-old butcher living with his mother in the Bronx. He’s a good man (hardworking, gentle, and loyal) but he’s been rejected so many times he’s convinced he’s not worth anyone’s attention. His weekends are always the same: hanging out with Angie, wandering the streets, talking about what they “should do tonight,” and never doing anything. His mother pressures him to get married, but she also fears being left alone if he does. One night at the Stardust Ballroom, Marty meets Clara, a schoolteacher who’s being dumped by a blind date. She’s kind, intelligent, and just as lonely as he is. They talk for hours, and Marty feels something he hasn’t felt in years: hope. But when he brings Clara into his life, his friends and family react badly: Angie feels threatened, his mother becomes jealous and fearful, and everyone tells Marty he can “do better.” The film builds to Marty’s decision: listen to the voices that have kept him stuck, or take a chance on someone who genuinely cares for him. The ending is simple but powerful. Marty chooses Clara. He chooses happiness. And, ultimately, he chooses to stop letting other people’s insecurities run (and ruin) his life. | |
| 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; simple and effective; a few; absolutely. | |
| Any good? Yes. “Marty” is one of those rare films that feels honest without being too sentimental. It’s small in scale but large in emotional truth. The story doesn’t rely on dramatic twists or big speeches. It’s about ordinary people trying to break out of ordinary loneliness. The writing is sharp, the pacing is steady, and the themes still feel relevant today. It’s a movie about self-worth, family pressure, and the courage it takes to believe you deserve love. It’s easy to see why it resonated so strongly in the 1950s and why it still holds up in this day and age. | |
| Acting: Borgnine is terrific: warm, vulnerable, and completely believable as a man who’s been beaten down by his personal romantic life but hasn’t lost his kindness. It’s one of those performances where you almost forget you’re watching an actor. Betsy Blair is equally strong as Clara: gentle, thoughtful, and quietly heartbreaking. Their chemistry feels natural, not forced. Minciotti and Ciolli bring authenticity to the family dynamics, and Mantell captures the frustration of a friend who doesn’t want things to change. Nobody overacts, and that restraint is what makes the performances work. | |
| Filming / FX: The film is straightforward: no flashy camera work, no elaborate sets, no special effects. It’s shot in a clean, almost documentary style, with real Bronx locations and simple interiors. The black-and-white photography fits the tone: unpretentious and focused on people rather than spectacle. The editing is smooth, and the pacing never drags despite the film’s simplicity. It’s a reminder that you don’t need visual fireworks to tell a compelling story. I’m not exactly sure why, but I “loved” the opening scene of the old cars driving on a one-way street in New York City. | |
| Problems: A few. The film’s modest scale may feel too small for some viewers, especially those used to modern romantic dramas with bigger emotional arcs. Some of the supporting characters (particularly the relatives) can feel repetitive in their complaining. The dialogue occasionally feels a bit artificial. And the film’s short runtime means some relationships (like Marty and Angie’s friendship) could have used a little more depth. None of these issues hurt the film. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s sincere, heartfelt, and surprisingly moving. I found myself rooting for Marty and Clara almost immediately. Their conversations feel real, their insecurities feel very human (even if not personally experience by me), and their connection feels earned. The film doesn’t try to overly manipulate the audience. It just tells the truth about two lonely people finding each other. I enjoyed it far more than I expected to, and I can see why it became such a classic. | |
| Final Recommendation: Highly recommended. “Marty” is a small but powerful film that earned its place in history with honest writing, excellent performances, and a story that still resonates. It’s suitable for most audiences and worth watching for its emotional sincerity, its Oscar-winning performances, and its reminder that sometimes the happiest results come from a little bravery. | |
| . | |
| Click here (7 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. | |
Snap Out Of It!
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Best Actress Oscar (Cher), Best Original Screenplay Oscar (Shanley), Best Supporting Actress Oscar (Dukakis), Cher, Cosmo Castorini, Danny Aiello, General Comments, Highly Recommended Movie, John Patrick Shanley, Johnny Cammareri, Julie Bovasso, La Bohème, Loretta Castorini, Movie Reviews, New York City, Nicolas Cage, Norman Jewison, Olympia Dukakis, Reviews, Rita Cappomaggi, Ronny Cammareri, Rose Castorini, Sicily, Vincent Gardenia on May 6, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “Moonstruck” (1987) — movie review | |
| Today’s second film review is for the romantic‑comedy / family‑drama “Moonstruck”, directed by Norman Jewison and starring Cher as Loretta Castorini, a widowed bookkeeper in her late 30s who believes her life is governed by bad luck and practical choices; Nicolas Cage as Ronny Cammareri, the passionate, one‑handed baker whose intensity and wounded pride upend Loretta’s carefully managed world; Danny Aiello as Johnny Cammareri, Loretta’s well‑meaning but indecisive fiancé whose trip to Sicily sets the main bulk of the story in motion; Olympia Dukakis as Rose Castorini, Loretta’s sharp, weary, and quietly wise mother trying to understand why men chase women; Vincent Gardenia as Cosmo Castorini, Loretta’s father, a plumbing contractor whose wandering eye causes half the household tension; and Julie Bovasso as Rita Cappomaggi, Loretta’s aunt, who provides the film’s warm, neighborhood‑family grounding. The movie blends romance, humor, family chaos, and a touch of operatic fate into a story about second chances, passion, and the strange ways love refuses to follow rules. | |
| Background: This was my first viewing of this film, because while I like Cher’s singing, I’ve never cared for her various “images”. LoL. Watching this film now, it feels like I have completely misjudged her — she is funnier, warmer, and much more talented than my earlier perceptions of her (based mostly on her TV shows). Released in 1987, “Moonstruck” was both a critical and commercial success. It received six Academy Award nominations and won three — Best Actress (Cher), Best Supporting Actress (Olympia Dukakis), and Best Original Screenplay (Shanley). Historically, the film is significant as one of the defining romantic comedies of the 1980s, remembered for its Italian‑American family setting, its operatic flair, and its blend of humor and emotional honesty. It’s also one of the rare rom‑coms to win multiple acting Oscars, which says quite a bit about the performances and the writing. | |
| Plot: Loretta Castorini is a practical woman (a bookkeeper / accountant) who believes her life has been shaped by bad luck — including the sudden death of her first husband whom she married for love. When Johnny Cammareri proposes to her (awkwardly, in a restaurant), she accepts not out of passion but out of a sense that stability is better than loneliness. Johnny must fly to Sicily to visit his dying mother, and he asks Loretta to invite his estranged brother Ronny to their wedding. Loretta visits Ronny at his bakery, only to find a brooding, dramatic man missing a hand (lost in an accident he blames on Johnny). Sparks fly (loudly) and Loretta and Ronny end up in a whirlwind sexual dalliance that throws her life into chaos. Meanwhile, Loretta’s father Cosmo is having an affair, her mother Rose is quietly questioning why men cheat, and the entire Castorini household is buzzing with secrets, arguments, and late‑night confessions. The story builds toward a big, funny, emotional breakfast‑table showdown where everything comes out: the affair, the engagement, the brotherly feud; and somehow, through all the yelling and confusion, love wins out. It’s messy, it’s loud, it’s warm, and it (somehow) works. | |
| So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; excellent; simple and effective; a few (minor); yes. | |
| Any good? Yes. “Moonstruck” is one of those rare romantic comedies that feels both heightened and (almost) completely believable. The story is simple, but the emotional beats land cleanly, and the film doesn’t shy away from the contradictions of love: passion vs. practicality, loyalty vs. desire, fear vs. hope. The pacing is steady, the humor is sharp, and the film balances its multiple story lines without losing track of the characters. The opera motif (especially “La Bohème”) adds a layer of theatricality that fits the tone perfectly. This is a well‑made film that retains its long‑standing reputation. | |
| Acting: Cher gives a terrific performance: realistic, funny, and emotionally honest. She plays Loretta as a woman who has convinced herself she doesn’t deserve passion, only to be blindsided by it. Nicolas Cage is… well, Nicolas Cage — intense, unpredictable, and oddly perfect for Ronny. His bakery‑basement monologue about losing his hand is over‑the‑top, but it works because the film embraces that operatic energy. Olympia Dukakis is outstanding as Rose; her quiet observations and dry humor give the film its emotional anchor, and her Oscar win makes complete sense. Vincent Gardenia is strong as Cosmo, capturing both the bluster and the insecurity of a man who doesn’t know why he’s cheating. The supporting cast fills out the world convincingly, giving the film a lived‑in, neighborhood feel. | |
| Filming / FX: The filming is straightforward and warm. The cinematography focuses on faces, kitchens, street corners, and the small details of family life. The scenes at the opera house are shot with a sense of grandeur that contrasts nicely with the cramped Castorini home. The lighting is soft, the interiors feel authentic, and the film uses New York City as a backdrop without turning it into a postcard. There are no special effects to speak of, and the movie doesn’t need them. The editing is clean, and the pacing supports the story’s mix of comedy and romance. | |
| Problems: A few. Some of the performances (particularly Cage’s) may feel too big for viewers who prefer subtlety. The film leans heavily on Italian‑American stereotypes, though mostly in affectionate ways. The romance between Loretta and Ronny moves quickly (too quickly to be believable) and the film doesn’t always give their emotional shift(s) enough space to develop. A few scenes are melodramatic by modern standards. None of these issues ruin the movie. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s funny / amusing, warm, and surprisingly moving. The family dynamics feel real, the romantic tension works, and the emotional beats land. The film balances humor, passion, and family chaos without tipping too far into sentimentality. Watching it now, I can see why it made such an impact in 1987 and why it still gets referenced today. It’s not a film I’d personally re‑watch frequently, but I’m glad I’ve finally viewed it, and I will probably watch it again (at some point). | |
| Final Recommendation: Highly recommended. “Moonstruck” is a charming, Oscar‑winning romantic comedy with excellent performances, sharp writing, and a grounded sense of family life. Its three Academy Awards (including Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress) reflect the quality of the work, and the film remains an important piece of 1980s cinema. If you’re interested in classic romantic comedies, character‑driven stories, or films with emotional warmth and humor, this one is a must see. It’s a movie that earned and retains its place in film history (but I still don’t like opera). | |
| . | |
| Click here (6 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. | |
Never Tell Me The Odds…
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged "The Force", Alec Guinness, Best Sound Oscar, Best Visual Effects Oscar, Billy Dee Williams, C-3PO, Carbonite, Carrie Fisher, Chewbacca, Cloud City, Dagobah, Darth Vader, David Prowse, Death Star, Frank Oz, General Comments, George Lucas, Han Solo, Harrison Ford, Highly Recommended Movie, Hollywood, Hoth, Irvin Kershner, James Earl Jones, Jedi Knights, Jedi Master, Lando Calrissian, Luke Skywalker, Mark Hamill, Movie Reviews, Princess Leia Organa, R2‑D2, Reviews, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) — movie review, The Empire, Yoda on April 22, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back” (1980) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the sci-fi / fantasy adventure “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back”, directed by Irvin Kershner and starring Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker, the young Jedi-in-training trying to understand his destiny; Harrison Ford as Han Solo, the sarcastic smuggler whose bravado hides a growing sense of responsibility; Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia Organa, the Rebel leader balancing duty, grief, and a complicated attraction to Han; Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrissian, the charming administrator of Cloud City with divided loyalties; and David Prowse (body) and James Earl Jones (voice) as Darth Vader, the relentless enforcer of the Empire whose pursuit of Luke drives the story; Anthony Daniels as C-3PO, Kenny Baker as R2-D2, Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca, and Frank Oz as Yoda, the ancient Jedi Master who becomes Luke’s teacher. This is the second film released in the original trilogy and widely considered the strongest of the series. | |
| Background: I first saw this film in theaters during its original run in 1980. I was in my mid-20s, and like most people my age, I had found the first “Star Wars” (1977) entertaining. Unfortunately, I was a resolute “Trekkie“, NOT a “Star Wars” fan, so I had a natural predisposition to look for faults in this and the original film. “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back” was one of the earliest movies I remember where the sequel wasn’t just “more of the same” — it was darker, deeper, and (IMHO) better for the story, the acting and (particularly) the FX. Released in 1980, the film received multiple Academy Award nominations and won two competitive Oscars (Best Sound and Best Visual Effects), plus a Special Achievement Award for sound effects editing. Historically, it is considered one of the most influential sequels ever made. It is one of the rare follow-up that expands the universe, deepens the characters, and raises the emotional stakes. It also contains one of the most famous plot twists in movie history, which has been referenced, parodied, and analyzed for over forty years. | |
| Plot: The story picks up after the destruction of the Death Star. The Rebel Alliance is hiding on the ice planet Hoth, where Luke, Han, Leia, and the rest of the resistance team are trying to regroup. Vader is obsessed with finding Luke and sends probes across the galaxy. After a major Imperial assault, the Rebels scatter: Han, Leia, Chewbacca, and C-3PO flee in the Millennium Falcon, while Luke heads to the swamp world of Dagobah to train with Yoda. Han and Leia’s relationship grows under pressure, but they are eventually captured and taken to Cloud City, where Lando is forced into a deal with Vader. Luke senses his friends are in danger and abandons his training to confront Vader. The film builds toward the now-iconic duel between Luke and Vader, where Luke learns a devastating truth about his parentage. The movie ends on a cliffhanger: Han is frozen in carbonite and taken away, Luke is injured and shaken, and the Rebels regroup to plan their next move. | |
| So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; strong across the board; excellent for its time; a few; absolutely. | |
| Any good? Yes. Even to this day, “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back” is one of the rare sequels that surpasses the original (not that THAT is saying much). The story is more mature, the stakes feel higher, and the characters grow cinematically in meaningful ways. The tone is darker, but it is not grim. It’s simply more serious about the consequences of war, loyalty, and destiny. The pacing is steady, the emotional beats mostly land, and the ending (unresolved as it is) is really just a teaser for part three of the trilogy. This is the film that turned “Star Wars” from a fun space adventure film into a true Sci-Fi film saga (with more promised). | |
| Acting: Hamill gives a much improved performance than in the original trilogy film. Luke is still young and impulsive, but you can see him wrestling with responsibility and the weight of becoming a Jedi. Ford is also better as Han — more funny, brave, and vulnerable in ways the first film barely hinted at. Fisher brings strength and intelligence to Leia, and her chemistry with Ford is much better here than in the first movie, (but IMHO still lacking). Billy Dee Williams adds charm and style as Lando. Frank Oz’s performance as Yoda deserves special mention — he brings humor, wisdom, and emotional depth to a character who could easily have been silly. Vader remains one of cinema’s great villains, and James Earl Jones’ voice work is iconic. | |
| Filming / FX: The effects still hold up remarkably well for a film made in 1980. The stop-motion walkers on Hoth, the asteroid field chase, the Cloud City design, and the light-saber duel are all memorable. The practical sets (especially Dagobah) look realistic and atmospheric. The sound design is excellent, and John Williams’ score is (again) one of his best, introducing the “Imperial March,” which became Vader’s signature theme. The film’s look is darker and more textured than the first movie, and it fits the story perfectly. | |
| Problems: A ton. The pacing in the middle is slow, particularly during some of the Dagobah training scenes. C-3PO’s comic relief unnecessarily / frequently undercuts the tension. The Han-Leia romance, while more effective overall than in the original is never really believable to me. IMHO Fisher never develops romantic chemistry with either Hamill or Ford. And the ending (while iconic) is not a “complete” story, which may bother viewers who prefer tidy resolutions. My main problem with the film (and the series) is the poor science and the multiple continuity errors. And, this second installment has FAR more of both than in the first. None of these issues seriously hurt the film, to the point of making it unwatchable, but they are as noticeable on re-watch as they were the first time I saw the film. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Absolutely. “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back” is one of those movies (and the whole trilogy for that matter) that is still re-watchable with age. The characters feel more real, the stakes feel more personal, and the emotional moments still land. The action scenes are exciting, the quieter scenes are thoughtful, and the overall story is better. Even knowing the twist, the film still works because it’s about more than the reveal — it’s about Luke’s journey, Han and Leia’s relationship, and the growing threat of the Empire. | |
| Final Recommendation: Highly recommended for its cultural impact. “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back” is widely regarded as one of the greatest sequels ever made, and for good reason. With its Academy Awards, its historical significance, and its lasting cultural impact, it stands as the emotional and narrative backbone of the original trilogy. Watch it for the character development, the iconic moments, the excellent effects (for their time), and the way it deepens the entire “Star Wars” universe. If you enjoy sci-fi, adventure, or classic Hollywood storytelling, this film is worth a viewing. | |
| . | |
| Click here (22 April) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts. | |
You’re Not Acquainted With Royal Princes, Are you?
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Best Actor Oscar (Firth), Best Director Oscar (Hooper), Best Original Screenplay Oscar, Best Picture Oscar, Colin Firth, David Seidler, Duke of York, DVD, Edward VIII, General Comments, Geoffrey Rush, Great Britain, Guy Pearce, Helena Bonham Carter, Highly Recommended Movie, King George V, Lionel Logue, Michael Gambon, Movie Reviews, Prince Albert, Radio, Reviews, The King’s Speech (2010) — movie review, Tom Hooper, Wallis Simpson, Wembley Stadium, World War II on April 16, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “The King’s Speech” (2010) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the historical drama “The King’s Speech”, directed by Tom Hooper and starring Colin Firth as Prince Albert, the Duke of York, a reserved, dutiful man whose lifelong stammer becomes a crisis when he unexpectedly finds himself next in line for the throne; Geoffrey Rush plays Lionel Logue, the unorthodox Australian speech therapist whose methods, humor, and persistence slowly break through Albert’s defenses; Helena Bonham Carter appears as Elizabeth, the supportive and quietly determined wife who pushes Albert toward help; Guy Pearce plays Edward VIII, the charming but irresponsible older brother whose abdication triggers the constitutional crisis; and Michael Gambon plays King George V, the stern father whose expectations weigh heavily on Albert. The film follows Albert’s struggle to find his voice — literally and figuratively — as Britain edges toward World War II. | |
| Background: This was my first viewing of “The King’s Speech” in several years. I saw it with my wife in the theater and then again when we purchased the DVD. (My first review of this film can be found here.) The movie was a major critical and commercial success, earning twelve Academy Award nominations and winning four: Best Picture, Best Director (Tom Hooper), Best Actor (Colin Firth), and Best Original Screenplay (David Seidler). It also won multiple BAFTAs and became one of the most widely discussed prestige films of its year. Historically, the film is significant because it dramatizes the transition from Edward VIII to George VI (one of the most unusual successions in British history) and highlights how radio transformed the monarchy by making public speaking a central part of the job. The story also draws from real therapeutic notes and Logue’s surviving diaries, giving the film a grounded sense of personal struggle. | |
| Plot: The film opens with Prince Albert (“Bertie”) attempting to deliver a speech at Wembley Stadium, only to be overwhelmed by his stammer. After years of failed treatments, Elizabeth seeks out Lionel Logue, whose informal manner and insistence on equality (“My house, my rules”) unsettle Albert but eventually earn his trust. Their sessions mix breathing exercises, physical drills, and personal conversations that force Albert to confront buried frustrations: his abusive childhood governess and bullying older brother, his father’s harshness, and the pressure of royal expectations. Meanwhile, Edward VIII’s romance with Wallis Simpson spirals into a constitutional crisis, and his abdication thrusts Albert onto the throne as King George VI. With war looming, the new king must deliver a crucial radio address to rally the nation. The final act centers on that speech (prepared with Logue’s help) as Albert fights through fear, doubt, and the weight of leadership to speak to his people with clarity and resolve. | |
| So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; excellent; clean, intimate filming; a few minor issues; absolutely. | |
| Any good? Yes . “The King’s Speech” works because it keeps the story personal rather than turning it into a grand historical pageant. The stakes are national, but the movie focuses on two men in a room trying to solve a problem. The script balances humor, frustration, and vulnerability without slipping into melodrama. The emotional payoff (the king finding his voice at the moment his country needs him) feels deserved. It is a straightforward film, but a very effective one. | |
| Acting: Firth deserved his Oscar. He plays Bertie with a mix of dignity, embarrassment, anger, and quiet determination, and he never lets the stammer become a gimmick. Rush is equally strong — warm, funny, and stubborn in all the right ways. Their scenes together are the heart of the film. Helena Bonham Carter brings calm intelligence to Elizabeth, and Pearce makes Edward VIII believably charming and shallow. Michael Gambon’s King George V is stern but not cartoonish, and his scenes help explain Bertie’s internal knots. The ensemble works because everyone plays their roles straight and grounded. | |
| Filming / FX: The filming is clean and intimate. Hooper uses close-ups and slightly off-center framing to emphasize Bertie’s discomfort and isolation. The sets (Logue’s shabby office, royal chambers, radio rooms) feel lived-in rather than glossy. The period detail is solid without being showy. The sound design is especially important, capturing the tension of pauses, breaths, and the mechanical hum of early radio equipment. Nothing flashy, but everything supports the story. | |
| Problems: A few (minor). The film simplifies some historical relationships, particularly the political tensions around the abdication and the early days of the war. Edward VIII is portrayed almost entirely as a selfish playboy, which may fit the story, but I don’t know if it’s accurate. The movie also leans heavily on the therapeutic breakthrough structure: setback, progress, setback, triumph — which can feel predictable. The emotional beats land, but the film seems to soften my limited understanding of the harsher edges of royal life in order to keep the tone uplifting. None of this ruins the film, but it keeps it firmly in the “prestige drama” lane. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Absolutely. The relationship between Bertie and Logue is warm, funny, and genuinely moving. The final speech works even though you know exactly how it will end. The movie is well-paced, well-acted, and emotionally satisfying without being heavy-handed. It is the kind of film which leaves you feeling like you have watched something both personal and historically meaningful. | |
| Final Recommendation: Very Highly Recommended. “The King’s Speech” is a well-crafted, Oscar-winning historical drama anchored by two excellent performances and a story which balances personal struggle with national responsibility. Its historical significance, strong acting, and emotional clarity make it well worth viewing — whether you are interested in British history, character-driven dramas, or films which show how small personal victories can shape major public moments. It is a film which earns its reputation and holds up on re-watch (several even). | |
| . | |
| Click here (16 April) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts. | |
A Man Should Be What He Can Do
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alma “Lorene” Burke, Best Director (Zinnemann), Best Picture Oscar, Best Supporting Actor (Sinatra), Best Supporting Actress (Reed), Burt Lancaster, Captain Dana Holmes, Deborah Kerr, Donna Reed, Ernest Borgnine, First Sergeant, First Sergeant Milton Warden, Frank Sinatra, Fred Zinnemann, From Here to Eternity (1953) — movie review, General Comments, Hawaii, Highly Recommended Movie, Hollywood, James Jones, Karen Holmes, Montgomery Clift, Movie Reviews, NCO, Non-Commissioned Officer, Pearl Harbor, Philip Ober, Private Angelo Maggio, Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt, Reviews, Staff Sergeant James R. “Fatso” Judson, World War II on April 4, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “From Here to Eternity” (1953) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the World War II romantic – military – drama “From Here to Eternity”, directed by Fred Zinnemann and starring Burt Lancaster as First Sergeant Milton Warden, a career NCO (company First Sergeant) trying to keep his unit running while juggling a dangerous affair with the wife of his company commander; Montgomery Clift as Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt, a stubborn, principled bugler / ex-boxer who refuses to box despite pressure from above; Deborah Kerr as Karen Holmes, the company commander’s wife, trapped in a loveless marriage and drawn to Warden; Donna Reed as Alma “Lorene” Burke, a “club hostess” who becomes Prewitt’s emotional anchor; Frank Sinatra as Private Angelo Maggio, Prewitt’s loyal friend whose run-ins with the stockade system drive much of the film’s tension; Philip Ober as Captain Dana Holmes, the ambitious, morally compromised company commander who abuses his authority to get what he wants; and Ernest Borgnine as Staff Sergeant James R. “Fatso” Judson, the brutal stockade sergeant whose cruelty toward Maggio becomes one of the film’s key conflicts. The film mixes military life, personal choices, and the looming / eventual attack on Pearl Harbor into a story about people trying to hold onto personal dignity in a system and time which doesn’t make it easy. | |
| Background: This is my first viewing of this film as an adult. I’ve known about it for years (and I believe I saw it as a child when it didn’t mean anything to me) mostly for the beach-kiss scene with Lancaster and Kerr and the bar fight scene between Sinatra and Borgnine — but I just never sat down to watch it in its entirety in the last 50-60 years. LoL. This film is one of the “highly recommended” films of two of my high school friends whom I have lunch with a couple of times a year. Released in 1953 and based on James Jones’ novel, the movie was a major critical and commercial success. It received thirteen Academy Award nominations and won eight, including Best Picture, Best Director (Zinnemann), Best Supporting Actor (Sinatra), and Best Supporting Actress (Reed). It’s historically significant as one of the defining Hollywood dramas of the 1950s, remembered for its performances, its frank (for the time) treatment of adult relationships, and its depiction of Army life just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The film helped revive Sinatra’s career and cemented Lancaster, Kerr, and Clift as major dramatic actors. | |
| Plot: The story takes place in Hawaii in the months leading up to December 7, 1941 and the Japanese attack on the American military bases. Private Prewitt transfers into an infantry company and immediately runs into trouble when Captain Holmes pressures him to join the regimental boxing team. Prewitt refuses (out of principle, but mostly guilt over a past injury he caused a friend) and the company leadership retaliates with a steady stream of “treatment” designed to coerce him. Prewitt’s only real support comes from Maggio, a fellow private whose run-ins with the sadistic stockade sergeant (Ernest Borgnine) escalate into tragedy. Meanwhile, Sergeant Warden begins an affair with Karen Holmes, the captain’s wife, and the two wrestle with whether they can build a life together despite the risks. Prewitt finds his own connection with Lorene, a club hostess who dreams of a different future. As tensions rise, both personal and military, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor crashes into the story, forcing each character to face the consequences of their choices. The film builds toward a mix of personal loss, wartime chaos, and the realization that some battles are internal long before the guns begin to fire. | |
| So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes (duh); excellent; clean, grounded filming; a few; yes. | |
| Any good? Duh… Eight Oscars out of thirteen nominations! Yes. “From Here to Eternity” is a strong, character-driven drama that holds up much better than I expected for a film from the early 1950s. The story is straightforward, but the emotional beats land cleanly, and the film doesn’t shy away from the darker corners of military life: hazing, infidelity, ambition, and the pressure to conform. The pacing is steady, and the film balances its multiple story lines without losing track of the characters. The Pearl Harbor attack isn’t the focus so much as the backdrop that forces everything to a head. It’s a well-made film that earned its long-standing reputation. | |
| Acting: Montgomery Clift gives the standout performance. His Prewitt is stubborn, proud, and quietly hurting, and Clift plays him with a kind of internal tension that makes every decision feel personal. Prewitt has one of my favorite lines (which I’ve used as a quote): “Nobody lies about being lonely.” Burt Lancaster brings authority and presence to Warden, and his scenes with Deborah Kerr have more heat / chemistry than I expected from a 1953 film. Kerr is excellent — sharp, wounded, and believable as someone trying to claw her way out of a bad marriage. Donna Reed surprised me; she brings warmth and sadness to Lorene, and her Oscar win makes sense. Frank Sinatra is terrific as Maggio — funny, loyal, and heartbreaking when things turn. The supporting cast (including Borgnine as the brutal stockade sergeant) fills out the world convincingly. | |
| Filming / FX: The film is shot cleanly and simply, with a focus on faces, barracks life, and the physical environment of the base. The black-and-white cinematography works well, giving the story a grounded, almost documentary feel at times. The beach scene is iconic for a reason — not just for the kiss, but for how the pounding / rushing waves and framing underline the characters’ emotional / physical relationship. The Pearl Harbor attack sequence is brief but effective, using practical effects and tight staging rather than spectacle. Overall, the attack filming supports the story without calling too much attention to itself. | |
| Problems: A few. I’ve never read the novel the film is based on, so I have no way to know how close the film tracks with it. Captain Holmes is drawn a bit broadly as the “bad officer,” and some of the Army politics feel compressed. The romance between Warden and Karen, while well-acted, moves quickly, and the film doesn’t always give their choices enough space to develop. The pacing dips slightly in the middle, and a few scenes feel melodramatic by modern standards. None of these minor issues affect the overall impact of the film. If I had any “REAL” objections to the film it would be Lancaster / Warden holding a machine-gun and firing it from the hip while holding the barrel with towel to prevent burning his hand. This makes for good cinema, but it’s pretty much absolute nonsense. LoL. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s a strong, well-acted drama with memorable characters and a clear sense of time and place. The relationships feel lived-in, the military setting feels authentic enough, and the emotional beats land. The film balances romance, camaraderie, and tragedy without tipping too far into sentimentality. Watching it now, I can see why it made such an impact in 1953 and why it still gets referenced today (especially the “beach” scene). It’s not a film I’d re-watch constantly, but I’m glad I finally saw it (as an adult, when it meant something to me) and I will almost certainly watch it again. | |
| Final Recommendation: Highly recommended. “From Here to Eternity” is a historically significant, multi-Oscar winning drama with excellent performances and a grounded sense of military life on the eve of Pearl Harbor. Its eight Academy Awards — including Best Picture, Best Director, and two acting wins — reflect the quality of the work, and the film remains an important piece of 1950s Hollywood. If you’re interested in classic cinema, wartime dramas, or character-driven stories with emotional weight, this one is a must see. It’s a film which earned and retains its place in movie history. | |
| . | |
| Click here (4 April) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts. | |
It Seems I Am Over-ruled…
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Brenda Blethyn, Carey Mulligan, Caroline Bingley, Charlotte Lucas, Claudie Blakley, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Bennet, General Comments, Highly Recommended Movie, Jane Bennet, Jena Malone, Joe Wright, Judi Dench, Keira Knightley, Kelly Reilly, Kitty Bennet, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Lydia Bennet, Mary Bennet, Matthew Macfadyen, Movie Reviews, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Bingley, Mr. Collins, Mr. Darcy, Mr. Wickham, Mrs. Bennet, Pride & Prejudice” (2005) — movie review, Reviews, Rosamund Pike, Rupert Friend, Simon Woods, Talulah Riley, Tom Hollander on March 22, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “Pride & Prejudice” (2005) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the 2005 adaptation of Jane Austen’s classic novel, “Pride & Prejudice” (2005), directed by Joe Wright and starring Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet, the sharp-eyed second daughter who refuses to settle; Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy, the stiff, socially awkward, secretly decent rich guy; Rosamund Pike as Jane Bennet, the kind, beautiful eldest sister; Jena Malone as Lydia Bennet, the wild youngest sister; Carey Mulligan as Kitty Bennet, the giggly / follower sister; Talulah Riley as Mary Bennet, the serious, bookish sister; Simon Woods as Mr. Bingley, Darcy’s friendly, slightly clueless best friend; Kelly Reilly as Caroline Bingley, Bingley’s snobbish, judgmental sister; Rupert Friend as Mr. Wickham, the charming cadd who runs off with Lydia; Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet, the dry, quietly loving father; Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet, the anxious, marriage-obsessed mother; Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins, the painfully awkward cousin, who is due to inherit the Bennet home on Mr. Bennet’s death; Judi Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Darcy’s aristocratic dragon aunt; and Claudie Blakley as Charlotte Lucas, Elizabeth’s practical friend who chooses the security of marriage to Mr. Collins over romance. | |
| Background: I’ve seen this movie multiple times now and I still enjoy it so much I’ve now read the book and purchased and viewed multiple versions / adaptations of this story. (Full Disclosure: I watch this version every time I watch a different version and while this remains my favorite, I do see the strengths of many of the other adaptations.) My first review of this film was back in November of 2011 when I was doing single paragraph reviews (review here). This was Joe Wright’s first feature film, and it ended up earning four Oscar nominations — Best Actress (Knightley), Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, and Best Costume Design. The chemistry between Knightley and Macfadyen really makes this film version, and the little period details (muddy hems, cluttered rooms, house staff smoothing tablecloths) make the world feel real and lived in (IMHO). | |
| Plot: Elizabeth Bennet lives with her four sisters and anxious mother in a country household where property and marriage are the main paths to security. When Mr. Bingley arrives in the neighborhood and falls for Jane, his friend Mr. Darcy manages to insult Elizabeth almost immediately. Wickham, a charming militia officer, adds fuel to the fire by hinting at past wrongs done by Darcy. Meanwhile, Mr. Collins proposes to Elizabeth, gets (painfully) rejected, and then marries her friend Charlotte. Elizabeth later encounters Darcy again at Lady Catherine’s estate, where he blurts out a proposal that is while heartfelt equally insulting. She turns him down, only to learn later — through his letter — that Wickham is not the victim he pretends to be. Things come to a head when Lydia runs off with Wickham, threatening the family’s reputation. Darcy quietly steps in to fix the situation. By the time everyone returns home, Elizabeth has seen Darcy’s true character, and the two finally meet in the middle and profess love. | |
| 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; beautiful and grounded; a few small issues; absolutely yes. | |
| Any good? Yes. It’s one of the most re-watchable period films I own. The story moves quickly without feeling rushed, and the emotional beats land. The movie keeps the humor, the class tension, and the slow-burn romance without getting stuffy. | |
| Acting: Knightley brings energy and intelligence to Elizabeth, and Macfadyen’s awkward, tightly wound Darcy works perfectly opposite her. The younger sisters each feel distinct, Charlotte’s choice makes sense, and Wickham is exactly the kind of smooth-talking problem Lydia would fall for. Dench, Hollander, and Sutherland all add weight in their own ways. (Sutherland is my favorite character of the three, but Hollander is thoroughly / convincingly obsequious in his role.) | |
| Filming / FX: No big FX here, just beautiful cinematography and great production design. Natural light, long takes, muddy fields, cluttered rooms — it all feels / looks real. The score fits the tone without overwhelming anything. | |
| Problems: If you’re attached to the longer BBC version (which I have also watched multiple times), this one may feel compressed. LoL… Some viewers may object to the exclusion of the Darcy lake-swim / wet shirt scene (in the BBC version) which isn’t in this version. A few other transitions are also quick, and the movie leans more romantic than the fuller versions. Nothing major, though. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Yes. This film is a comfort watch for me and I go back to it (or one of its other versions or related films) almost yearly. I enjoy the characters, the humor, the awkwardness, and the slow shift in how Elizabeth and Darcy see each other. | |
| Final Recommendation: High recommendation. The Oscar nominations were well deserved, and the film holds up beautifully. If you like Austen, period dramas, or just a well-acted romance, this is an easy pick. This “Pride & Prejudice” remains my favorite version / adaptation. | |
| . | |
| Click here (22 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. | |
Told You I’m Never Goin’ Back
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Al Pacino, Amy Brenneman, Ashley Judd, Chris Shiherlis, Diane Venora, General Comments, Heat (1995) — movie review, Highly Recommended Movie, Jon Voight, LA International Airport, LAPD, LAX, Los Angeles, Lt. Vincent Hanna, Michael Cheritto, Michael Mann, Movie Reviews, Neil McCauley, Reviews, Robert DeNiro, Tom Sizemore, Val Kilmer on March 20, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “Heat” (1995) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the crime-drama “Heat” (1995), written and directed by Michael Mann and stars Al Pacino as Lt. Vincent Hanna, the obsessive, sleep-deprived LAPD robbery-homicide detective whose personal life is barely holding together; Robert DeNiro as Neil McCauley, the disciplined, methodical career thief who lives by a strict code and keeps everyone at arm’s length; Val Kilmer as Chris Shiherlis, McCauley’s trusted right hand, a brilliant but self-destructive gunman whose gambling and marriage problems keep spilling into the job; Tom Sizemore as Michael Cheritto, the steady, loyal crew member who treats crime like a profession; Jon Voight as Nate, the fixer who supplies intel, fences goods, and keeps the crew connected; Ashley Judd as Charlene (Chris’s wife); Amy Brenneman as Eady (Neil’s unexpected love interest); Diane Venora as Justine (Hanna’s wife); and Natalie Portman as Lauren (Justine’s daughter). The film follows two men on opposite sides of the law whose lives collide as a series of high‑stakes robberies escalate across Los Angeles. | |
| Background: This is my first viewing of “Heat” and was based on the recommendation of my brother-in-law and the fact I generally like both Pacino and DeNiro. LoL. Even though this was my first viewing, instead of letting the movie flow and come to me, I really tried to pay attention to the details: the relationships, the pacing, and the way Mann builds tension without rushing anything. Released in 1995, the film wasn’t a huge awards contender (no Oscar nominations), but I’ve read it has become one of the most influential crime films of the last thirty years. Its historic significance is straightforward: it brought Pacino and DeNiro together in a shared scene for the first time, set a new standard for urban crime realism, and delivered one of the most famous shootouts in movie history. The film also helped define the “professional criminal vs. professional cop” genre for a generation of filmmakers. | |
| Plot: Neil McCauley leads a tight, disciplined crew that specializes in high-risk, high-reward robberies. After a job goes sideways because of an unstable new recruit (Waingro), Hanna and his LAPD team begin closing in. The film follows both men as they juggle personal problems (Hanna’s collapsing marriage and McCauley’s unexpected relationship with Eady) while preparing for bigger and riskier scores. The story builds toward a downtown Los Angeles bank robbery that erupts into a massive street firefight, followed by a cat-and-mouse chase as McCauley tries to escape the city. The final act brings the two men face-to-face at LAX, where their parallel lives finally intersect for the last time. | |
| 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 across the board; outstanding and influential; a few; absolutely. | |
| Any good? Yes. “Heat” is one of the better crime dramas. Although it’s long, deliberate, and built around character more than action, the payoff is worth it. The film treats both sides (cops and criminals) with equal seriousness, showing how similar their lives are even as they chase each other. The story is big, but it never feels overly bloated. It’s a movie that rewards attention and patience. | |
| Acting: Pacino and DeNiro are both terrific, but in very different ways. Pacino plays Hanna as a man running on fumes — intense, scattered, and barely keeping his personal life together. DeNiro is the opposite: calm, controlled, and precise. Their diner scene is famous for a reason — two pros at the top of their game. Kilmer gives one of his better performances as Chris, balancing competence with chaos. Sizemore is solid as Cheritto, and Voight brings quiet authority as Nate. The supporting cast — Judd, Brenneman, Venora, Portman — all add weight to the personal stakes. Nobody feels wasted. | |
| Filming / FX: The film looks great, especially for the mid-90s. Mann uses Los Angeles almost like a character: wide night shots, empty streets, and a cool, metallic color palette. The sound design in the bank-heist shootout is still impressive today. It’s loud, sharp, and realistic. The action scenes are clean and easy to follow, with no shaky-cam nonsense. The movie has a very “lived-in” feel, from the apartments to the diners to the industrial backdrops. | |
| Problems: A few. The movie is long (almost three hours), and some of the subplots (particularly the relationship arcs) feel slow when you’re (I was) expecting a straight action film. A couple of the side characters get less development than they seem to deserve. The film’s pacing feels uneven on a first viewing. But none of these issues hurt the overall experience. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Absolutely. This is one of those movies I think probably gets better with repeated viewings. The characters feel real, the action is grounded, and the story has emotional feeling. Even knowing how it ends, the final chase will still work. It’s a film that you likely remember. | |
| Final Recommendation: High recommendation. “Heat” is a landmark crime drama — influential, well-acted, and still impressive thirty years later. It didn’t win Oscars, but its legacy is obvious in many every crime films that followed. Rated R for violence and language, it’s not for younger (children) viewers, but for adults who enjoy character-driven crime stories, this is at least a near must-see. Watch it for Pacino and DeNiro, the bank-heist / shoot-out sequence, and the reminder that a well-crafted story doesn’t need to rush to make an impact. | |
| . | |
| Click here (20 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. | |
Howdy, Uh, How’re You Guys Doin’?
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Best Visual Effects Oscar, Bud Brigman, Cold War, Deep Core, Ed Harris, General Comments, Highly Recommended Movie, Hollywood, James Cameron, Kimberly Scott, Leo Burmester, Lindsey Brigman, Lt. Coffey, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Michael Biehn, Movie Reviews, Navy SEAL Team, Non-Terrestrial Intelligence, NTI, Pseudopod, Reviews, Super-Oxygenated Fluids, The Abyss – Special Edition” (1989) — movie review, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Tidal Wave, Todd Graff on March 16, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “The Abyss – Special Edition” (1989) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the science-fiction underwater adventure “The Abyss – Special Edition” (1989), written and directed by James Cameron and starring Ed Harris as Bud Brigman (the foreman of an underwater drilling platform trying to hold his crew together under extreme pressure); Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Lindsey Brigman (Bud’s estranged wife and the designer of the rig — brilliant, stubborn, and usually correct); Michael Biehn as Lt. Coffey (the Navy SEAL leader whose stress and paranoia escalate the danger); Leo Burmester as Catfish (Bud’s loyal right-hand man); Todd Graff as Hippy (the tech specialist with a pet rat and a healthy distrust of authority); and Kimberly Scott as One Night (a steady presence who keeps the crew grounded). Together, they form the core of a story that mixes deep-sea tension, Cold War nerves, and first-contact wonder. | |
| Background: I first saw “The Abyss” on TV and VHS back in the early 90s, but it was the theatrical cut — the shorter version that trims out a major subplot and changes the tone of the ending. I’ve seen this extended version on TV / cable, but I’ve had to wait several years now for it to fall to my price point to buy the streaming version. This Special Edition restores almost 28 minutes of footage, including the entire “tidal wave” sequence and the broader Cold War context. These additions make the story feel more complete and give the ending a lot more emotional and thematic weight. Released in 1989, the film earned four Academy Award nominations and won the Oscar for Best Visual Effects — impressive given the era and the technical challenges of underwater filming. Historically, the movie is significant for pioneering digital water effects (the “pseudopod” sequence) and for being one of the most difficult shoots in Hollywood history. This was my first time watching the Special Edition all the way through, and it definitely changes how the film plays. | |
| Plot: The story begins when an American nuclear submarine crashes near a deep ocean trench. A Navy SEAL team is sent to investigate and commandeers an underwater drilling platform (“Deep Core“) as their base of operations. Bud and Lindsey, who are in the middle of a divorce, are forced to work together as the crew tries to support the SEAL mission. As a hurricane approaches the surface support ships, strange events begin happening around the wrecked sub and platform, including lights, currents, and an encounter with a mysterious water-based entity. As tensions rise, Lt. Coffey becomes increasingly unstable due to pressure sickness and the stress of a potential Cold War confrontation. He attempts to use a recovered nuclear warhead to “neutralize” the unknown presence. Bud and the crew try to stop him, leading to underwater chases, near-drownings, and a desperate attempt to disarm the warhead. Bud volunteers for a one-way dive into the trench to disable the bomb manually. The Special Edition expands the ending: the alien species – “Non-Terrestrial Intelligence” (NTIs) reveal they have the power to destroy humanity and nearly do so with massive tidal waves — but they stand down after reading Bud’s messages to Lindsey and seeing examples of human compassion. The film ends with the NTIs raising one of their enormous ships to the surface, bringing Bud and the crew safely back to daylight. | |
| So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; strong across the board; impressive for its time; a few; yes. | |
| Any good? Yes. The Special Edition is a much better film than the theatrical cut. The added scenes give the story more context and make the ending feel more emotionally earned rather than abrupt – as in the original. The movie balances tension, character drama, and a sense of discovery in a way that still works today. The underwater setting feels dangerous and claustrophobic, and the emotional core — Bud and Lindsey’s relationship — holds the whole thing together. The restored Cold War subplot also gives the NTIs’ final decision more weight. Overall, it’s a strong mix of sci-fi, adventure, and human drama. | |
| Acting: Harris and Mastrantonio carry the film. Harris plays Bud as a working-class leader who cares deeply about his crew, and his emotional scenes feel honest rather than forced. Mastrantonio is excellent as Lindsey — sharp, determined, and vulnerable without losing her edge. Their chemistry sells the relationship even when they’re arguing. Biehn does a convincing job as Coffey, showing the gradual slide into paranoia / depth related psychosis without turning it into a cartoon. The supporting cast is steady, with Graff and Burmester adding some needed humor and warmth. Nobody feels out of place, and the ensemble works well together. | |
| Filming / FX: The production was famous for being one of the hardest shoots ever, and it shows — in a good way. The underwater sets look real because they are real. The sense of weight, pressure, and danger comes through in almost every scene. The digital water effects (the pseudopod) were groundbreaking at the time and still hold up surprisingly well. The Special Edition’s tidal wave sequence is ambitious and adds scale to the story. The lighting, sound design, and practical effects all contribute to a believable underwater world. Some shots look dated now, but most of the film’s visuals still work because they’re grounded in physical sets and real water. As an aside, I’d heard of “super‑oxygenated” fluids in the 1970s when I was high school, but I’d never seen the technology demonstrated in a Hollywood film before. I thought that was “cool”! | |
| Problems: A few. The movie is long — especially in this Special Edition — and some viewers may find the pacing slow in the middle (I didn’t). The Cold War subplot, while important, can feel heavy-handed at times. Coffey’s descent into paranoia is effective, but the film leans on it a bit too much to drive the conflict. Some of the underwater dialogue is hard to hear (a common issue with diving scenes). And the final rescue / revival scene, while emotional, stretches believability. My personal problem is the use of “NTI“, implying they are from outer space (like “The Day The Earth Stood Still“) rather than a parallel or more advanced Earth species which just happened to evolve in the deep-water ocean (like “Atlantis” in various Aquaman films). Other than superior technology, there was nothing to indicate the “aliens” were from off-world. None of these issues break the film, but they stand out on a first viewing. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Yes. The Special Edition feels like the version Cameron probably always intended. The story is more complete, the themes are clearer, and the ending lands better. The underwater setting is still unique, and the characters feel real enough that you care what happens to them. The movie has tension, heart, and a sense of wonder that many modern sci-fi films lack. I fully enjoyed it – as I expected to — especially the expanded ending, which gives the film a more hopeful and thoughtful conclusion. | |
| Final Recommendation: Highly recommended. “The Abyss – Special Edition” is a well-made, ambitious sci-fi adventure that holds up remarkably well. Its Oscar-winning visual effects were groundbreaking, and the restored footage adds depth and meaning to the story. Rated PG-13 for language and some intense scenes, it’s suitable for most viewers. If you like character-driven science fiction, underwater adventure, or James Cameron’s earlier work, this version is definitely worth your time. The Special Edition is the better cut — more complete, more emotional, and more satisfying. | |
| . | |
| Click here (16 March) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts. | |
How Is That Different From Talking?
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alan Turing, Alexandre Desplat, Allen Leech, Benedict Cumberbatch, Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar, Best Picture Nomination, Bletchley Park, Castration, Charles Dance, Christopher, Commander Denniston, Detective Nock, Enigma, General Comments, Highly Recommended Movie, Hugh Alexander, Joan Clarke, John Cairncross, Keira Knightley, Mark Strong, Matthew Beard, Matthew Goode, MI6, Morten Tyldum, Movie Reviews, Peter Hilton, Reviews, Rory Kinnear, Stewart Menzies, The Imitation Game (2014) — movie review, World World II on March 11, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “The Imitation Game” (2014) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for “The Imitation Game” (2014), directed by Morten Tyldum and starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing, the brilliant but socially awkward mathematician whose work at Bletchley Park helped crack the German Enigma code; Keira Knightley as Joan Clarke, the gifted cryptanalyst whose intelligence and loyalty anchor / assist Turing’s efforts; Matthew Goode as Hugh Alexander, the charming and competitive codebreaker who gradually becomes an ally; Allen Leech as John Cairncross, a fellow codebreaker hiding a dangerous secret as a Soviet spy; Matthew Beard as Peter Hilton, the young, eager codebreaker whose family tragedy drives home the human cost of their work; Rory Kinnear as Detective Nock, whose later investigation frames the story; Charles Dance as Commander Denniston, the rigid superior skeptical of Turing’s methods; and Mark Strong as Stewart Menzies, the MI6 officer who understands the stakes and plays the long game. With this ensemble, the film explores secrecy, genius, war, and the personal cost of saving lives in silence. | |
| Background: I have seen this film multiple times since purchasing the DVD before COVID. I always enjoy it, so I thought I’d go back and have a re-sit. LoL. (By the way, this is my third review of this film and I am doing the review to reflect my new film review format.) I came to this film knowing the broad outlines of Alan Turing’s life — the Enigma machine, his foundational role in computing, and the tragic injustice he suffered afterward — but not the specifics of the Bletchley Park operation. Released in 2014, “The Imitation Game” received eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Cumberbatch), and Best Supporting Actress (Knightley). It won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. Historically, the film is significant for bringing Turing’s story to a mainstream audience and highlighting both his wartime contributions and the shameful treatment he endured under British law. While the film takes a lot of dramatic liberties, its core achievement is reminding viewers how much of modern computing and cryptography traces back to Turing’s work — and how much was lost because of prejudice. | |
| Plot: The film uses a framing device: Detective Nock investigates Turing in the early 1950s, suspecting espionage, and uncovers instead a life of secrets — some chosen, some imposed. The main story follows Turing’s recruitment to Bletchley Park during World World II, where he joins a team of cryptanalysts struggling to break the German Enigma code. Turing clashes with Commander Denniston, alienates his colleagues, and pushes for a machine-based approach that seems impossible. Joan Clarke joins the team after passing a test Turing designed, and her presence helps stabilize the group. Turing’s machine — “Christopher” — eventually succeeds, but the team must keep their breakthroughs secret to avoid tipping off the Germans. The film intercuts wartime success with Turing’s postwar persecution for homosexuality, culminating in his chemical castration and eventual death, supposedly by suicide. The story ends with a recognition of his achievements and the quiet devastation of his final years. | |
| So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; excellent; clean and effective; a few; yes. | |
| Any good? Yes. “The Imitation Game” is a well-paced historical drama that balances wartime tension with personal tragedy. It doesn’t try to be a comprehensive (or entirely accurate) biography. Instead, it focuses on a few key threads: the race to break Enigma, the interpersonal dynamics at Bletchley Park, and the injustice Turing faced afterward. The film works because it treats code-breaking as both an intellectual puzzle and a moral burden — knowing when to act on intelligence and when to stay silent. It’s accessible without being shallow, and emotionally resonant without being overwrought. | |
| Acting: Benedict Cumberbatch gives a strong, layered performance as Turing — brilliant, brittle, and painfully isolated. He captures both the sharp edges and the vulnerability without turning Turing into a caricature of the “difficult genius.” Keira Knightley brings warmth and intelligence to Joan Clarke, grounding the film’s emotional core. Matthew Goode adds charm and competitive energy as Hugh Alexander, and his evolving respect for Turing feels earned. Charles Dance is reliably stern as Denniston, and Mark Strong brings a quiet, calculating presence to Menzies. The ensemble works well together, and the performances elevate the material. | |
| Filming / FX: The film keeps things simple and functional. Most scenes take place in offices, huts, and workshops at Bletchley Park, with occasional wartime footage used sparingly. The production design feels authentic without drawing attention to itself. The machine-building sequences are visually engaging, and the editing keeps the code-breaking process clear without oversimplifying it. The score by Alexandre Desplat is understated and effective, adding tension without overwhelming the scenes. Nothing flashy — just solid craftsmanship that supports the story. | |
| Problems: A few. The film compresses timelines and simplifies relationships for dramatic effect, which may bother viewers familiar with the historical record. Some characters are amalgamations, and certain conflicts (particularly with Denniston) are heightened for tension. The framing device with Detective Nock, while useful for structure, occasionally feels intrusive. And the film sometimes leans too heavily on the “socially awkward genius” trope. None of these issues spoil the film, but they do stand out on any viewing. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Yes . “The Imitation Game” is engaging, well-acted, and emotionally affecting. It moves quickly, covers a lot of ground, and gives Turing the attention he deserves. The film balances the intellectual thrill of code-breaking with the human cost of secrecy and discrimination. It’s not a perfect biography, but it’s a compelling and watchable one. | |
| Final Recommendation: Highly recommended. “The Imitation Game” is a well-made, well-acted historical drama that highlights one of the most important — and in many ways tragic — figures of the 20th century. Its Oscar-winning screenplay, strong performances, and clear sense of purpose make it worth your time. Watch it for Cumberbatch’s portrayal, the wartime tension, and the film’s reminder of how brilliance can be both celebrated and punished. It’s a thoughtful, moving film which I continue to enjoy even after a half-dozen viewings. My previous reviews can be found here (2017) and here (2019). They (my earlier reviews) are not better or worse – simply different – with some different observations. | |
| . | |
| Click here (11 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. | |
Get Himself Checked Before Parts Start Falling Off
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Academy Award Nominations, Axel F, Best Original Screenplay Nomination, Beverly Hills, Beverly Hills Cop (1984) — movie review, Beverly Hills Police Department, Billy Rosewood, California, Detective Axel Foley, Detroit, Eddie Murphy, Harold Faltermeyer, Highest Gross Attendance, Highly Recommended Movie, Jenny Summers, John Ashton, Jonathan Bank, Judge Reinhold, Lisa Eilbacher, Lt. Bogomil, Martin Brest, Michigan, Movie Reviews, Paramount Pictures, Reviews, Ronny Cox, Sgt. Taggart, Steven Berkoff, Victor Maitland on January 26, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “Beverly Hills Cop” (1984) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the action-comedy classic “Beverly Hills Cop” (1984), starring Eddie Murphy as Axel Foley — a fast-talking, street-smart Detroit detective whose improvisational chaos masks real investigative instincts; Judge Reinhold and John Ashton co-star as Billy Rosewood and Sgt. Taggart, the mismatched Beverly Hills officers reluctantly dragged into Foley’s orbit; Ronny Cox plays Lt. Bogomil, the by-the-book commander forced to balance protocol with pragmatism; Lisa Eilbacher appears as Jenny Summers, Axel’s childhood friend whose connection to the central crime pulls her into danger; Jonathan Banks, playing Zack who is Victor Maitland’s primary enforcer; and Steven Berkoff embodies Victor Maitland, the icy, cultured villain whose veneer of respectability hides a criminal empire. Together, the ensemble creates a tonal blend of comedy, action, and procedural tension that defined the film’s enduring appeal. | |
| Background: I first saw “Beverly Hills Cop” sometime in the mid-1980s, when Eddie Murphy was already a rising star but had not yet become the global box-office force he would be for the next decade. The film was released in 1984 by Paramount Pictures and directed by Martin Brest. It became the highest-grossing film of 1984 domestically and one of the most successful R-rated comedies of all time. It received one Academy Award nomination — Best Original Screenplay — and its soundtrack (particularly Harold Faltermeyer’s “Axel F”) became a cultural phenomenon. Historically, the film is significant for cementing Murphy as a leading man and for blending action and comedy in a way that shaped the genre for years afterward. | |
| Plot: After a botched sting operation in Detroit, Axel Foley returns home to find his childhood friend murdered after visiting him with suspicious bearer bonds. When his superiors forbid him from investigating, Axel takes vacation time and heads to Beverly Hills, where the contrast between his rough-edged Detroit style and the pristine, rule-bound Beverly Hills Police Department becomes the film’s comedic backbone. Axel reconnects with Jenny Summers, whose employer — art dealer Victor Maitland — quickly becomes the prime suspect. As Axel digs deeper, he ropes in Rosewood and Taggart, who slowly shift from reluctant babysitters to genuine allies. The investigation escalates into shootouts, break-ins, and confrontations, culminating in a raid on Maitland’s mansion and the unraveling of his smuggling operation. | |
| 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 comedic timing; solid 1980s action; minor tonal whiplash; absolutely. | |
| Any good? Yes. “Beverly Hills Cop” remains a sharp, funny, and surprisingly well-constructed action-comedy. Its pacing, humor, and character dynamics still hold up, and Murphy’s performance is the engine that drives everything. The film’s blend of procedural investigation, fish-out-of-water comedy, and 1980s action spectacle feels both nostalgic and foundational. | |
| Acting: Eddie Murphy is magnetic — effortlessly charismatic, quick-witted, and capable of shifting from comedic riffing to genuine emotional beats. Reinhold and Ashton provide strong support, with their evolving camaraderie becoming one of the film’s most memorable elements. Ronny Cox brings gravitas as Bogomil, grounding the film’s more absurd moments. Berkoff’s Maitland is understated but menacing, a villain whose calm demeanor contrasts effectively with Axel’s chaotic energy. The ensemble works because each character plays their role straight, allowing Murphy’s improvisational style to shine without tipping the film into parody. | |
| Filming / FX: The cinematography captures both the grit of Detroit and the polished surfaces of Beverly Hills, creating a visual contrast that reinforces the film’s thematic divide. The action sequences — particularly the truck chase in the opening and the mansion shootout — are well-staged for their era, mostly relying on practical effects and stunt work rather than spectacle. Harold Faltermeyer’s synthesizer-driven score is iconic, instantly recognizable, and inseparable from the film’s identity. The editing keeps the comedic timing tight and the action coherent, a balance many later imitators struggled to achieve. | |
| Problems: A few. The tonal shifts between comedy and violence can feel abrupt, especially by modern standards. Some supporting characters are thinly sketched, serving more as comedic foils than fully realized personalities. The plot, while functional, is predictable (by today’s standards) and leans heavily on (what have become) genre conventions. The mansion used in this film is the same mansion used in multiple films, and yes, the hedges / bushes are still bullet proof for all heroes / good-guys. LoL. And, like many 1980s films, some humor and characterizations feel dated. Still, these issues are minor compared to the film’s overall charm and influence. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Absolutely. “Beverly Hills Cop” is fast, funny, and (almost) endlessly re-watchable. Murphy’s performance alone makes it worthwhile, but the chemistry among the cast and the film’s confident blend of action and comedy elevate it beyond its genre peers. It’s a film that encourages nostalgia without demanding it. | |
| Final Recommendation: Highly recommended. “Beverly Hills Cop” is a landmark of 1980s cinema — historically significant for its box-office success, its Academy Award nomination, and its role in shaping the action-comedy genre. Watch it for Eddie Murphy’s star-making performance, the memorable supporting cast, the iconic soundtrack, and the film’s seamless blend of humor and action. It remains a defining entry in Murphy’s career and a marker for the era’s cinematic style. | |
| . | |
| Click here (26 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
- 328,994 hits
Kevin Barrett's Blog 
God, I Hate Space
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alfonso Cuarón, Best Cinematography Oscar, Best Director Oscar (Cuarón), Best Editing Oscar, Best Picture Nomination, Best Score Oscar, Best Visual Effects Oscar, Dr. Neil deGrasse, Dr. Ryan Stone, Earth, Ed Harris, Film-As-Metaphor-For-Life, General Comments, George Clooney, Gravity (2013) — movie review, Highly Recommended Movie, Hubble Telescope, ISS, Matt Kowalski, Mission Control, Movie Reviews, Phaldut Sharma, Reviews, Sandra Bullock, Symbolism, The Martian, Tiangong Chinese Spacestation on May 26, 2026| 2 Comments »
Rate this:
Share this:
Read Full Post »