Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Robert Prosky’

Well, I Sorta Got Side-Tracked

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 13, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Natural” (1984) — movie review
Today’s review is for the baseball drama “The Natural” (1984), directed by Barry Levinson and starring Robert Redford as Roy Hobbs (a gifted ballplayer whose life is derailed by tragedy and revived by a late-in-life baseball comeback);  Glenn Close as Iris Gaines (Roy’s childhood sweetheart and moral anchor);  Robert Duvall as Max Mercy (a cynical sportswriter digging into Roy’s past);  Kim Basinger as Memo Paris (the alluring but dangerous distraction tied to the team’s corrupt owner);  Wilford Brimley as Pop Fisher (the gruff, long-suffering manager of the struggling New York Knights);  and Richard Farnsworth as Red Blow, Roy’s loyal coach and friend;  Robert Prosky as “The Judge” (the team’s scheming co-owner who profits if the Knights lose);  and Darren McGavin as Gus Sands (a smooth, ruthless gambler who tries to pull Roy into a fix).  Together, they inhabit a mythic version of 1930s baseball where talent, temptation, corruption, and redemption collide under stadium lights.
Background:  I first saw “The Natural” sometime in the late-1980s, probably on TV, and I remember being struck by the imagery long before I understood the story.  Over the years, the film has become one of the most recognizable baseball movies ever made.  Released in 1984, it received four Academy Award nominations — Best Supporting Actress (Glenn Close), Best Cinematography, Best Original Score (Randy Newman), and Best Art Direction — though it didn’t win any.  Historically, the film is notable for its lush, romanticized portrayal of baseball as American mythology, its iconic final scene, and its influence on how later sports films frame heroism.  It’s also loosely based on Bernard Malamud’s novel, though the film opts for a more uplifting ending than the book’s darker conclusion.
Plot:  The story begins with young Roy Hobbs, a small-town pitching prodigy whose future seems limitless.  On his way to a tryout with the Chicago Cubs, he is seduced and then shot by a mysterious woman, derailing his career before it begins.  Sixteen years later, Roy reappears as an unknown rookie signed by the struggling New York Knights.  Despite his age and obscurity, Roy’s natural talent quickly turns the team around, much to the frustration of the corrupt owner who profits when the Knights lose.  Roy’s success draws the attention of Max Mercy, a sportswriter who suspects there’s more to Roy’s past than he’s letting on.  As Roy falls under the spell of Memo Paris — whose connections to gamblers and the team owner threaten to destroy him — his performance falters.  Only when Iris re-enters his life does Roy begin to reclaim his purpose.  The film builds toward a climactic, win-or-lose at bat in a game where Roy, injured and facing immense pressure, must decide whether to give in to corruption or play for honor.  The final at-bat — bat splintering, sparks flying, lights exploding — is pure Hollywood myth-making, but it 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;  very good;  beautiful and old-fashioned;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Natural” is a classic sports fable, told with sincerity and a sense of wonder that modern films rarely attempt.  It’s not gritty realism;  it’s baseball as legend.  The themes of second chances, integrity, and the cost of lost time still resonate.  Some moments feel melodramatic, but the film’s heart is in the right place, and its emotional beats land more often than not.  The final act, in particular, remains one of the most memorable in sports cinema.
Acting:  Redford carries the film with his quiet charisma.  His Roy Hobbs is humble, wounded, and determined, and while he may look a bit too old for a rookie, his performance sells the character’s inner life.  Close is luminous in a small but crucial role;  her presence elevates every scene she’s in, and her Oscar nomination was well-deserved.  Basinger brings a seductive, dangerous energy to Memo, though the character is written more as a symbol than a person.  Brimley is terrific as Pop Fisher — gruff, funny, and believable as a man who’s seen too many seasons slip away.  Duvall’s Max Mercy is sharp and cynical.  Overall, the cast fits the film’s mythic tone.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography by Caleb Deschanel is gorgeous.  The golden-hour lighting, the slow-motion shots, and the glowing stadium lights give the film a timeless, almost dreamlike quality.  The baseball scenes are staged cleanly and effectively, with just enough realism to ground the fantasy.  Randy Newman’s score is iconic — one of the great sports themes of all time — and it does a lot of emotional heavy lifting.  There are no modern “FX,” but the practical lighting effects in the final scene still look good, even if they’re a bit theatrical.  The film’s visual style leans heavily into nostalgia, and it works.
Problems:  A few.  The film’s mythic tone sometimes drifts into sentimentality, and the characters can feel more like archetypes than fully developed people.  The middle section slows down, especially during Roy’s slump and his entanglement with Memo.  The villains — gamblers, owners, and hangers-on — are painted with broad strokes.  And while the ending is emotionally satisfying, it’s also pure fantasy, especially if you’ve read the novel.  Still, these issues don’t sink the film;  they’re just part of its old-school charm.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes!  “The Natural” is one of those movies that feels like a warm memory — even if you’ve never seen it before.  It’s earnest, beautifully shot, and has strong performances.  The baseball action is fun, the emotional beats land, and the final scene remains iconic for a reason.  It’s not perfect, but it’s a film I can re-watch every few years and still find something to appreciate.  (And that score…  still gives one (me) chills.)
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended.  “The Natural” stands as one of the most beloved baseball films ever made, notable for its Oscar-nominated performances, its gorgeous cinematography, and its unforgettable score.  Watch it for Redford’s understated performance, Close’s quiet strength, Brimley’s gruff humor, and the film’s ability to turn a simple game into a story about hope, redemption, and the dreams we carry across a lifetime.
.
Click here (13 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Santa Gets Retried After Almost 50 Years

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 7, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Miracle on 34th Street” (1994) – movie review
Today’s review is for the holiday remake “Miracle on 34th Street” (1994), starring Richard Attenborough as Kris Kringle (a kindly old man who insists he is Santa Claus), Elizabeth Perkins as Dorey Walker (a pragmatic single mother and PR director for Cole’s Department Store), Dylan McDermott as Bryan Bedford (the Walker’s neighbor and a warm-hearted lawyer who becomes both Kris’ defender and Dorey’s romantic interest), Mara Wilson as Susan Walker (Dorey’s skeptical daughter whose belief in miracles is put to the test), J.T. Walsh as Victor Landberg (a corporate rival intent on undermining Cole’s), and Robert Prosky as Judge Henry Harper (whose courtroom becomes the unlikely stage for Santa’s fate).
Background:  This is my first viewing of this version, although I had seen it advertised and available for several years on VUDU.  I have the DVD of the original 1947 version, (but not a streaming version) and this version came out in a bundle with the original for $8.  As my price point is normally $5, this meant I could watch and review both versions for only an additional $3.  I decided to go for it as you never can tell why you might find a diamond amongst the coal.  Released in November 1994, this remake sought to reintroduce Valentine Davies’ classic story to a new generation.  Produced by John Hughes, it follows the 1947 original loosely but comes across with a modern and far more cynical tone than the original – particularly when viewed in proximity (sequentially).  While the original won three Academy Awards, including Best Supporting Actor for Edmund Gwenn, this version did not achieve similar acceptance / accolades.  It did, however, earn Richard Attenborough a Saturn Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor.  Historically, the film is probably notable as one of a few major remakes of a “holiday” classic that attempted to balance nostalgia with contemporary sensibilities.  Of course, there is almost nothing new under the sun which having once been a hit, Hollywood did not try to recycle in a remake, but there are relatively few holiday hits that have been successfully remade.  On researching this review, I found the original was remade for TV three times, but I can’t honestly admit to having seen any of those versions, let alone liked them.
Plot:  Set in modern-day New York, the story begins when Kris Kringle is hired as Santa Claus at Cole’s Department Store.  His warmth and authenticity win over customers, but his insistence that he is the real Santa leads to skepticism, legal challenges, and a courtroom showdown.  Dorey, initially wary, finds herself defending Kris alongside Bryan, while young Susan struggles between disbelief and wonder.  The climax hinges on whether faith, tradition, and the spirit of Christmas can triumph over cynicism and corporate greed.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  So-so;  heartfelt;  polished;  a few;  so-so — but warmly.
Any good?  So-so.  “Miracle on 34th Street” (1994) is a sincere attempt at reformatting and retelling that emphasizes faith and tradition, but it severely lacks the historic and emotional impact of the 1947 original.  It does, however, by following the original story-line, remain a “pleasant / charming” holiday film that blends sentiment with courtroom drama.
Acting:  Richard Attenborough brings gravitas and twinkle to Kris Kringle, embodying both warmth and authority.  Mara Wilson, as Susan, delivers a somewhat precocious performance that balances skepticism with childlike wonder.  Elizabeth Perkins grounds the film with pragmatic realism, while Dylan McDermott adds romantic sincerity.  J.T. Walsh provides corporate menace, and Robert Prosky lends dignity to the courtroom scenes.  The ensemble is strong, though Attenborough’s Kris is the standout.  In fairness to the film, I admit to not being a big fan of McDermott’s.  I feel, he’s a bit too, Hollywood “pretty-boy” to carry off this particular role.  (IMHO)  In fairness to him,  I couldn’t recall another role I’ve ever seen him in – until I looked him up.  He does have over thirty film credits, but I’ve only seen a handful of them.
Filming / FX:  Julio Macat’s cinematography captures New York in festive hues, with department store displays and courtroom interiors rendered in polished detail.  The film avoids flashy effects, and tries to rely instead on atmosphere and seasonal imagery.  It mostly works “as a film”, though it never achieves the iconic humor, spirit, or emotional resonance of the original’s simplicity.
Problems:  A few.  The remake struggles mightily under the shadow of its predecessor, with inevitable comparisons diminishing this films originality.  Some courtroom sequences (particularly the “strange” ending decision) feel overly sentimental.  The pace drags – particularly in the buildup to the trial.  Removing the issues of courtroom version(s) comparison, the biggest issues this version has are a lack of chemistry between the two leads, between the mother and daughter, and the confusion around the compressed timeline that the entire story happens between Thanksgiving and Christmas (and a few days after).  The time frame just doesn’t make sense in this version.  Finally, the corporate competition sub-plot / backstory / arc, just doesn’t work and distracts from the flow of the film instead of creating the raison d’être for the competency hearing.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes (so-so) — warmly.  While not groundbreaking, the film succeeds as a holiday story of belief and tradition as long as it’s considered on its own and not in direct comparison with the original.  Attenborough’s Kris IS delightful (but much more aggressive than Gwenn from the original), and Susan’s journey from doubt to faith remains touching.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate Recommendation.  “Miracle on 34th Street” (1994) is a heartfelt remake which tries to honor its source material while offering a polished, modern (and colorized) retelling.  The Saturn Award nomination for Attenborough reflects the strength of its central performance.  Historically, it stands as a rare attempt to reframe a holiday classic for contemporary audiences.  Watch it for Attenborough’s Kris, for Mara Wilson’s precocious charm, but given the option, the original is a much better movie and choice to spend your time.  (IMHO)  This version is not a “bad” movie.  It’s just not a very good one, either.  Oh, well…
.
Click here (7 December) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

A Different Time, A Different World

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 12, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Lords of Discipline” (1983) – movie review
Today’s review is for the Southern Gothic quasi-military drama:  “The Lords of Discipline” (1983), starring David Keith as Will McLean (a principled senior cadet tasked with protecting a vulnerable freshman), Robert Prosky as Col. “Bear” Berrineau (the gruff but fair senior cadre officer of – fictional – Carolina Military Institute), G.D. Spradlin as Gen. Bentley Durrell (a manipulative power broker with a vision of purity), Mark Breland as freshman cadet Tom Pearce (the first African-American admitted to CMI), Michael Biehn as John Alexander (Will’s “enemy” and the leader of “The 10“), Mitchell Lichtenstein as Tradd St. Croix (Will’s roommate, aristocratic, enigmatic and a secret member of “The 10”), Rick Rossovich as Dante “Pig” Pignetti (a boisterous cadet whose fate becomes a turning point), and John Lavachielli as Mark Santoro (the fourth member of McLean’s four cadet cell / room).  Barbara Babcock appears as Abigail St. Croix, Tradd’s mother and a symbol of Charleston’s genteel rot.  The ensemble is rounded out by a cadre of cadets and faculty whose faces blur into the institutional machinery of honor, secrecy, and sanctioned cruelty.
Background:  I came to this film with moderate expectations and high interest.  I had seen the previews and they reminded me of my own time at the USMA Prep School back in the 1970s.   My first (only prior) viewing of this film was on the big screen in its original release.  Also, I’ve seen David Keith in other roles (most notably “An Officer and a Gentleman”), and I was curious how he’d handle a lead that’s more moral compass than romantic lead.  (Not that Keith was the romantic lead in that movie, either.)  And, finally, Mark Breland was an American Olympic boxing champion in real life and I wanted to see if he could also act.  This was my second viewing of the film, and it still delivers a compelling, if uneven, portrait of military tradition as both crucible and curse.
Plot:  Set in 1964 at the fictional Carolina Military Institute, the film follows Will McLean, a senior cadet, who is assigned to protect the school’s first Black freshman, Tom Pearce. Will’s assignment is not just about mentorship — it’s about shielding Pearce from “The Ten,” a secret society of cadets who enforce purity through intimidation, violence, and expulsion.  As Will investigates the group’s activities, he uncovers layers of complicity that reach into the school’s leadership and his own circle of friends.  Tradd’s betrayal, Pig’s moral compromise, and Alexander’s brutal hazing all converge in a climax that exposes the cost of silence and the price of integrity.  The film ends with Will confronting Durrell and walking away from the institution — not in triumph, but in weary defiance.
So, is this movie any good?  The acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  mixed;  competent;  several;  yes — with caveats.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Lords of Discipline” is a brooding, atmospheric film that tries to balance thriller mechanics with layers of moral inquiry and racially motivated personal violence.  It doesn’t always succeed — the pacing is uneven and the tone veers between melodrama and menace — but it’s a sincere attempt to dramatize the tension between loyalty and conscience.  The film explores themes of institutional complicity, racial integration (hatred), and the seductive power of belonging.  It’s not subtle, but it’s not hollow either.  It asks:  What does it mean to be honorable in a system that rewards cruelty and promotes hatred?
Acting:  David Keith anchors the film with a performance that’s more reactive than expressive — his Will is principled, haunted, and increasingly isolated.  Keith’s physicality works, but his emotional range as an actor is limited.  Biehn is solid as a sadistic / hateful Alexander, though his arc is underwritten.  Lichtenstein’s Tradd is appropriately slippery, and Rossovich brings energy to Pig.  Prosky and Spradlin play their roles with institutional gravitas — one warm, one cold.  Babcock is underused.  The supporting cast is serviceable, though the film leans heavily on archetypes:  the loyal friend, the sadistic enforcer, the noble outsider.  Note:  Mark Breland  was surprising effective although his role was mostly limited to the object of “The Ten’s” torture as they tried to drive him to resign from the Institute.  I found his line about having to stay because of what it will mean to those who would follow him at the Institute to be (personally) moving and thematically effective.  So, kudos to Mr. Breland!
Filming / FX:  Visually, the film is competent.  The cinematography captures Charleston’s decaying grandeur and the historic / claustrophobic oak and stone interiors of the Institute.  The lighting favors shadows and muted tones.  The hazing scenes are brutal but (mostly) not gratuitous — filmed with restraint and dread.  There are no special effects to speak of, but the film’s atmosphere — uniforms, rituals, and whispered threats — is its own kind of production design.  There is one notable exception which greatly strained my credibility:  “The Ten” carve “10” into the back of the Pearce character and it “heals” up as scar tissue, which he later shows to McLean.  Had this actually happened, Pearce would not have been able to stop the bleeding on his own which means he would have had to get the cuts treated and it would simply have been impossible to hide / cover-up these wounds.  An “official” investigation would have to follow and blah, blah, blah – good-bye plot.
Problems:  Several.  The film struggles with tone — it wants to be a thriller, a character study, and a social critique, but it doesn’t fully commit to any.  The pacing is uneven, especially in the middle, where exposition stalls momentum.  The racial integration subplot — ostensibly the film’s moral center — is underdeveloped and ultimately sidelined.  Pearce is barely a character (merely an object of violence), which undermines the racial / societal stakes.  The secret society trope feels dated (for a modern day viewer) and occasionally cartoonish.  And the film’s resolution — Will walking away — feels barely earned / understandable.  There’s power in the gesture, but not enough buildup to make it cathartic or “feel” true.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes — with reservations.  I found it thematically rich and atmospherically compelling, even if it didn’t fully deliver on its promise.  The film made me think about institutions, complicity, and the cost of silence.  It’s not a great film, but I found it a powerful and a meaningful one — especially if you’re interested in stories that interrogate tradition and power.  It reminded me of other films that explore institutional rot — “Taps,” “Dead Poets Society” and “A Few Good Men” — though it lacks their polish and emotional clarity (the last two anyway).
Final Recommendation:  Good Recommendation.  “The Lords of Discipline” is a flawed but earnest film that tries to dramatize the moral price of doing what is right as an individual over the social benefit of institutional belonging.  It’s worth watching — especially if you’re interested in military culture, Southern Gothic themes, or the psychology of hazing and hierarchy.  It doesn’t offer easy answers, and it doesn’t fully develop its most important questions, but it’s a film you will remember because of what it says about the United States at that time and in that place.  It’s a time capsule of the 1960s when viewed in 2025 – only snapshots of reality.  Watch it for the atmosphere, the tension, and the reminder that honor — real honor — frequently requires standing alone.
.
Click here (12 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started