Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘New Orleans’

What Is Past Is Prologue

Posted in General Comments, History, Movie Review, Movies, Politics, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 9, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“JFK”  (1991)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the political‑mystery drama “JFK” (1991), directed by Oliver Stone and starring Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison (the New Orleans District Attorney who becomes convinced the Warren Report doesn’t add up);  Tommy Lee Jones as Clay Shaw (the polished businessman Garrison eventually brings to trial);  Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald (portrayed here as jittery, opaque, and possibly manipulated);  Joe Pesci as David Ferrie (a nervous, volatile figure whose contradictions fuel suspicion);  Sissy Spacek as Liz Garrison (Jim’s wife, trying to keep the family steady as the investigation consumes him);  and Kevin Bacon as Willie O’Keefe (a fictionalized composite whose testimony pushes Garrison deeper into conspiracy).  The ensemble is rounded out by Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, Donald Sutherland, John Candy, and others, creating a dense portrait of a country trying to make sense of a national trauma.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I have never believed the “Warren Commission” version of President Kennedy’s assassination, but I have also never believed Stone was a legitimate conduit for arriving at the “truth”.  We are approaching the 2029 information release date, but I don’t have a lot of faith our government will release the whole of the evidence (or what’s left of it).  Released in 1991, this film arrived at a moment when public trust in government was already shaky, and Stone’s take on the assassination poured gasoline on that fire.  The movie was controversial from the start — praised for its craftsmanship and attacked for its liberties with fact.  It won two Academy Awards (Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing) and is widely credited with helping push Congress to pass the JFK Records Act, which forced the release of millions of pages of assassination-related documents.  Whatever one thinks of Stone’s conclusions, the film had real-world impact and remains one of the most debated political dramas ever made.
Plot:  The story follows Jim Garrison, the New Orleans DA who reopens the Kennedy assassination case after noticing inconsistencies in the Warren Report.  Garrison and his team interview witnesses, chase leads, and try to piece together a coherent explanation from a mountain of conflicting accounts.  Stone mixes archival footage, reenactments, imagined scenes, and rapid-fire editing to show what Garrison believes happened — a coordinated conspiracy involving multiple shooters and a subsequent cover-up.
The investigation eventually leads Garrison to Clay Shaw, whom he charges with conspiracy.  The trial becomes the film’s climax, though it’s less about proving Shaw’s guilt and more about Garrison laying out his entire theory in front of a jury.  The film ends with Garrison losing the case but insisting the truth still matters.  Stone clearly agrees.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  very strong acting;  striking filming and editing;  several issues;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “JFK” is long, dense, and sometimes overwhelming, but it’s also gripping.  Stone keeps the film moving with a mix of documentary-style footage, dramatizations, and courtroom scenes that never feel static.  The movie has a clear point of view and pushes it hard.  Whether you agree with that point of view is another matter, but as a piece of film making, it’s compelling and surprisingly watchable for a three-hour political investigation.
Acting:  Kevin Costner gives a steady, grounded performance as Garrison — earnest, methodical, and increasingly frustrated.  Tommy Lee Jones plays Shaw with a polished, slightly smug confidence that fits the character.  Gary Oldman’s Oswald is jittery and opaque, which matches the historical uncertainty around the real man.  Joe Pesci goes big as Ferrie — maybe too big — but he’s memorable.  Sissy Spacek brings emotional weight to Liz Garrison, especially as the investigation strains the family.  The supporting cast is deep, and even small roles feel lived‑in. Nobody coasts.
Filming / FX:  The editing is the standout.  The film won the Oscar for it, and it’s easy to see why.  Stone and his editors jump between film stocks, timelines, and perspectives, but the result is more energizing than confusing.  The cinematography by Robert Richardson gives the movie a restless, slightly paranoid feel that matches the subject.  The courtroom scenes are straightforward, but the investigation sequences have a sharp, documentary‑style edge.  The film uses visual tricks and archival footage to keep the viewer off balance, which is part of its effect.
Problems:  Several.  The biggest is the film’s confidence in its own speculation.  Stone presents theory and fact with the same level of certainty, and the line between them isn’t always clear.  Garrison’s real investigation had flaws, and the film smooths over many of them.  Some scenes feel like they exist mainly to make a point rather than reflect anything verifiable.  The runtime is another issue.  The middle stretch can feel like a wall of names, dates, and theories.  The film demands attention, and if you’re not in the right mood, it can feel like homework.  None of these problems ruin the film, but they do make it more of a commitment than a casual watch.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  Despite its length and its tendency to blur fact and speculation, “JFK” is a compelling movie.  The acting is strong, the pacing mostly holds, and the filmmaking is confident.  You don’t have to agree with Stone to appreciate the craft.  The film also has historical significance because of the government transparency it helped trigger.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation — with context.  “JFK” is not a neutral film, and it shouldn’t be treated as a documentary.  It’s a well-made, ambitious political drama with excellent acting, memorable editing, and real cultural impact.  Watch it for the performances, the craftsmanship, and the way it captures a moment when the country was struggling to understand a national tragedy.  It’s long, but it’s worth your time if you’re interested in American history, political mysteries, or films that challenge official narratives.
.
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 »

They Took The High Road

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

“Easy Rider” (1969) — movie review
Today’s review is for the counterculture classic “Easy Rider” (1969), starring Peter Fonda as Wyatt (aka “Captain America”;  he has a large American flag patch on the back of his leather jacket and stars and stripes painted on his gas tank), Dennis Hopper as Billy (his freewheeling companion), Jack Nicholson as George Hanson (a small-town lawyer with a taste for bourbon and existential musings), Luke Askew is a hitch-hiker on the road who takes them to a commune, and Karen Black as Karen with Toni Basil as Mary (two prostitutes in New Orleans).
Background:  This was the first time I’ve seen this film all the way through in one sitting.  Of course, I heard of it as a road movie with motorcycles, drugs, and a tragic ending.  I have seen clips of the ending a few times over the years.  That was pre-YouTube and Internet, so maybe it (the final scene) was spliced into some other movie or on some TV show reviewing movies.
Plot Summary:  Wyatt and Billy, fresh off a lucrative cocaine deal, stash their cash inside a motorcycle gas tank and set off across the American Southwest en route to Mardi Gras.  Their journey takes them through a hippie commune, jail cells, and roadside diners, where they encounter both kindness and hostility.  George Hanson joins them briefly, offering philosophical commentary and a tragic arc.  The film ends with a senseless act of violence that feels less like a climax and more like a statement about Americana.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  How about the filming / FX?  Are there any problems?  And, did I like the film?  Short answers:  No;  poor to so-so;  poor;  multiple;  no.
Acting:  Fonda plays Wyatt with quiet introspection / stoicism — he’s the soul of the film, even though he rarely speaks.  Hopper, (who also directed the film,) is manic and unpredictable as Billy, part comic relief, mostly a tragic figure.  Nicholson injects life into the middle act, delivering monologues that feel improvised but land with surprising weight.  Other than than the “big three” and Askew early on, the supporting cast members add very little to the film.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is powerful and stunning — when showing wide open landscapes, dusty towns, and sunsets that feel like they were painted on the sky.  The editing (on the other hand) – particularly the last twenty minutes is “experimental” (IMHO – crap) with jump cuts, music overlays, and psychedelic sequences that reflect the era’s fascination with drug altered states.  It’s not polished film-making, it’s purposeful – fuzzy focus and single tone colors.  It is also (IMHO) frequently boring and / or confusing (meaningless).
Problems:  The film drifts like a long ride across America.  I guess the mood is supposed to be existential wandering, as it feels like you’re watching someone else’s road trip with no itinerary or estimated time of arrival.  There is no overall narration and the dialogue is sparse, often mumbled and frequently philosophical and / or pretentious.  I found the acid induced “trip” around the Marti Gras / graveyard particularly boring.  I can only imagine it was meant to represent a confused life (tripping), a few moments of party (the Marti Gras) and then death (the graveyard).
Did I like / enjoy the film:  No.  The film was not entertaining — and, other than the soundtrack, it’s not a particularly interesting movie.  It’s a bit like opening a time capsule that you hope will say something about the present – only to find dust…  Wyatt and Billy have lunch with a farmer’s family and the farmer half apologizes for the little he has to offer.  Wyatt responds the farmer has a good family and everything he needs to live, so he (the farmer) should be proud of his life and not apologize to anyone.  Wyatt is offered the opportunity to stay at the hitch-hiker’s commune (and live a life very much like that of the farmer and his family), but he passes on it to stay on the road with his friend.  Billy wants to push on to Florida where they can by a small piece of land and live out their days on their remaining drug money.  Wyatt agrees because he has nothing else to do.
Final Recommendation:  Low to moderate recommendation, and moderate only if you want to hear the 60’s soundtrack.  Otherwise, low recommendation.  What might have been an interesting trip across the country ended up being a drug trip which lead to a bad road in the country.  I wanted it to say something more to me.  It didn’t.
Final Thought:  After the shooting of Charlie Kirk, viewing “Easy Rider” isn’t just a film — it’s an affirmation that you are never truly safe in America:  you’re always just different enough from someone else down the road, that it can cost you your life.  As beautiful as the country’s scenery is, “safety” (in this film) is found in local conformity.  If you’ve ever felt the road calling you somewhere you couldn’t name, this film isn’t your anthem.
.
Click here (22 September) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

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 »

Lessons Are Extra And Blondell

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Quotes, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 3, 2020| Leave a Comment »

“The Cincinnati Kid”  —   movie review
Today’s movie review is for the 1930’s / Depression era, stud poker drama “The Cincinnati Kid” (1965) starring Steve McQueen as Eric “The Kid” Stoner, Edward G. Robinson as Lancey “The Man” Howard, Karl Malden as Shooter (the main card dealer), Ann-Margret as Melba (Shooter’s wife), Tuesday Weld as Christian Rudd (the “Kid’s” girlfriend), Joan Blondell as Lady Fingers (the secondary card dealer, and Rip Torn as Slade (a wealthy rich southerner).
Set in Depression era New Orleans, the movie revolves around “The Kid’s” attempt to become “The Man” (the champion) in stud poker.  This is the position / title currently held by Robinson’s character Howard.  Basically, Shooter deals a game between Howard and Slade where Slade looses badly.   (Famous quote:  “Son, all you paid was the looking price.  Lessons are extra.“)  While dealing the game, Shooter engages Howard to play the Kid.  Howard agrees.  Slade, who wants to get even with Howard, extorts Shooter to fix the game.  The game is played and Howard ultimately wins with a devastating hand (inside straight-flush) over a full house.  (Wikipedia says the odds of this happening are in the hundreds of billions to one.)
There are side story lines about the personal relationships between Shooter and his wife Melba, the Kid and his girlfriend, and the Kid and Melba.  Howard cautions the Kid during a break in the game to avoid relationships because they distract from this career they have chosen.  He recommends just having flings on the side / in-between games which will naturally peter out when the gambler moves on to the next venue.
This movie is widely considered as among the best of all the poker playing genre, but not necessarily the best of all the gambling genre.  It is widely compared (unfavorably) to “The Hustler” as a distant second / reminiscent / poor remake.  I have seen “The Hustler” (1961), but not in fifty odd years, so I can’t honestly say this is true, but I generally prefer Paul Newman to McQueen, so it probably is accurate.  They are both gambling movies with the young handsome up-and-comer trying to upset the old-lion, so I can see the comparison.
Is this any good?  Was it entertaining?  The answer to the first is that I found it more “interesting” than good.  Too much drama and not enough action for my tastes.  But, yes, it is an entertaining drama – in the classic old Hollywood sense (acting, character and plot development).
I enjoyed seeing the setting of New Orleans in the 1930’s.  I enjoyed the funeral band and the jazz club scene.  Right up until the very end, McQueen is consummate “cool”.  But throughout the movie – and particularly at the end – Eddie G. just smokes him in every scene!!  Robinson is the epitome of the alpha-male.  This movie is worth seeing just to gain an appreciation of him and his acting ability – without the hammy gangster-ism of some of his earlier / younger roles.
Final recommendation:  strong to highly recommended.  I am not a poker player, so the game scenes did not have much appeal to me.  I have personally only played (for money) once in my entire life – although I have watched it on TV a few times.  I “really” didn’t find that interesting either.  Anyway, as an old-style drama with character acting / development and two stars bringing their “A”-game, this is a movie worth viewing.
Two other points worth mentioning…  The first point is there is a cock-fight scene in the movie which doesn’t show “much”, but would simply not be allowed in today’s cinema.  While not showing the death blows, it shows enough to make the movie problematic for young viewers.  The second point is the five main supporting characters (in no particular order).  I am not a fan of Karl Malden, but I must admit to being surprised by his acting in this role.  He is very good.  I am even less a fan of Rip Torn, but he made a surprisingly effective “bad southern guy”.  I was very disappointed by Ann-Margret in this role.  Considering she was not yet 25 years old during the filming, she looked too old to play the young tramp wife married to the older unsuccessful gambler (Malden).  Obviously, she’s attractive, but she just didn’t have “it” in this role (for me).  Weld made for an appealing (but extremely forgettable) ingénue in this movie.  Although a very familiar name who has appeared in a number of films and TV series, I struggle to remember her in any role (and most of the films / series).  And, finally, Joan Blondell!!  She hits it out of the park!  Considering she is in her mid-50’s during this film, she is FAR more sassy / attractive / interesting than Ann-Margret or Weld who are both 30 years her junior.  She steals EVERY scene she appears in – including when matched up head-to-head with Robinson.  She was nominated for a Golden Globe for this role and she is worth the price of admission herself.
.
Click here (3 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 »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started