Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Robin Wright’

Collecting Fallen Feathers For Curious George

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 22, 2026| 2 Comments »

“Forrest Gump” (1994) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical‑drama / life‑journey film “Forrest Gump”, directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump, a kind‑hearted Alabama man with a low IQ whose straightforward honesty leads him through some of the most iconic moments of late‑20th‑century American history;  Robin Wright as Jenny Curran, Forrest’s childhood friend and lifelong love whose turbulent life (abused childhood and self-destructive adulthood) contrasts sharply with Forrest’s simplicity;  Gary Sinise as Lieutenant Dan Taylor, the Vietnam officer whose bitterness, loss, and eventual acceptance form one of the film’s strongest emotional arcs;  Mykelti Williamson as Benjamin Buford “Bubba” Blue, Forrest’s Army friend whose shrimp‑boat dream becomes Forrest’s mission;  and Sally Field as Mrs. Gump, Forrest’s determined mother whose sayings and stubborn love shape his entire worldview.
Background:  I first saw “Forrest Gump” in the early 2000s after returning to the U.S. from Liverpool, but I was, of course, aware of the film from the mid‑1990s when everyone was quoting lines from it (“Life is like a box of chocolates…”).  This is probably my fifth or sixth viewing over the years, but the first in a couple of years.  The film was a massive hit when it came out — both critically and commercially.  It won six Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director (Zemeckis), and Best Actor (Hanks), and it was also nominated for things like Adapted Screenplay, Editing, and Visual Effects.  It’s historically significant for its use of digital effects to insert Forrest into archival footage, for its sweeping tour through American cultural history, and for becoming one of the defining “big emotional” films of the 1990s.  Whether you think it’s profound, sentimental, absurd, or somewhere in between, it’s hard to deny its impact in its day (decade).
Plot:  The story follows Forrest Gump from childhood to middle age, framed by him sitting at a bus stop telling strangers about his life.  As a boy with leg braces and a low IQ, Forrest is protected by his mother and befriended by Jenny, the one person who initially sees him without judgment.  Forrest discovers he can run (fast) and that talent carries him to a football scholarship, then to the Army, where he meets Bubba and Lieutenant Dan.  In Vietnam, Forrest saves several members of his platoon (including Dan), though Bubba dies in his arms.  After the war, Forrest keeps his promise to Bubba and starts a shrimping business, eventually becoming wealthy.  Meanwhile, Jenny drifts through a series of troubled relationships and counterculture movements (heavy use of drugs), always crossing paths with Forrest but never settling.  Forrest becomes a ping‑pong celebrity, runs across the country for no particular reason, and eventually learns he has had a son with Jenny.  The film ends with Forrest raising his boy after Jenny’s death, sending him off to school with the same mixture of hope and uncertainty that began Forrest’s own story.
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 inventive;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Forrest Gump” is one of those films that manages to be both simple and sweeping at the same time.  It’s sentimental (sometimes very sentimental), but it earns most of its emotion by sticking to Forrest’s plainspoken perspective.  The film covers decades of American history without feeling like a lecture, and it balances humor, tragedy, and nostalgia in a way that still works.  It’s not subtle and it doesn’t need to be.  It’s a story about a man who takes life as it comes, and the film’s straightforwardness matches that.
Acting:  Obviously, Hanks carries the movie.  His performance is gentle, consistent, and believable.  His acting never mocks Forrest and never overplays him.  It’s easy to forget how difficult it is to play a character this earnest without slipping into caricature, but Hanks pulls it off.  Robin Wright gives Jenny a mix of vulnerability and self‑destruction that makes her both sympathetic and frustrating.  Gary Sinise is (IMHO) outstanding as Lieutenant Dan:  angry, wounded, and eventually transformed.  Mykelti Williamson brings warmth to Bubba, and Sally Field is terrific as Mrs. Gump, grounding the early part of the film with determination and humor.  The supporting cast (from coaches to drill sergeants to random historical figures) all fit the film’s tone.
Filming / FX:  The film’s visual effects were groundbreaking at the time and still hold up surprisingly well.  Forrest shaking hands with presidents, appearing on talk shows, or standing in historical footage looks surprisingly clean and natural – even by modern standards.  The Vietnam sequences are well shot:  smoky, chaotic, and tense without being overly graphic.  The cinematography is bright and clear when it needs to be, matching the film’s optimistic tone.  The soundtrack (packed with classic songs) does a lot of background emotional lifting, and the score by Alan Silvestri adds a gentle, memorable theme that ties everything together.
Problems:  A few.  The film’s episodic structure means some sections feel rushed while others linger.  Jenny’s story line, while emotionally effective, sometimes feels like a collection of “troubled‑era clichés”.  The film’s view of history is intentionally simplified (filtered through Forrest’s innocent eyes / personality) but that also means some events are glossed over or overly tidy.  Depending on your taste, the sentimentality may feel heavy‑handed.  None of this ruins the film, but it does make it feel a bit “staged” at times.  I think you have to believe in either “Fate” or “Serendipity” and this film offers points to both sides.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s a warm, engaging movie that still works after all these years (and multiple viewings).  I found myself smiling at the familiar lines, appreciating the performances, and getting caught up in the sweep of Forrest’s life.  The emotional beats still land, even when you know they’re coming.  It’s not a film I’d watch every year, but I do revisit it regularly (about every 5-7 years) and it reminds me why it became such a cultural touchstone.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “Forrest Gump” is a well‑acted, emotionally resonant film that earned its Academy Awards and its place in movie history.  It’s sentimental, yes, but it’s also sincere — and that sincerity is what makes it work.  If you’re interested in iconic 1990s cinema, historical storytelling, or character‑driven dramas with heart, this is absolutely worth watching (or re‑watching).  It’s a film that manages to be both big (historic) and small (personal) at the same time, and that’s a fairly rare thing.
.
Click here (22 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 »

Nobody Reinvents This Game… (He Did)

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

“Moneyball” (2011) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sports-drama “Moneyball” (2011), directed by Bennett Miller and starring Brad Pitt as Billy Beane (the Oakland A’s general manager trying to rebuild a competitive team on a shoestring budget);  Jonah Hill as Peter Brand (a young, numbers-driven analyst who challenges baseball’s traditional scouting wisdom);  Philip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe (the A’s manager caught between old-school instincts and front-office pressure);  Stephen Bishop as David Justice (the aging slugger trying to prove he’s still got something left);  Chris Pratt as Scott Hatteberg (a catcher with a damaged elbow, converted into a first baseman because of his ability to get on base);  Robin Wright as Sharon (Billy’s ex-wife) and Kerris Dorsey as Casey (Billy’s daughter, whose quiet support gives the story its emotional grounding).  The film blends baseball, business, and personal resilience into a story about challenging the status quo and living with the consequences.
Background:  I first heard about “Moneyball” when it came out, but I didn’t see it until years later when it hit DVD.  I remember initially thinking it was “a baseball movie,” but it’s really more of a management and decision-making movie that just happens to be set in baseball.  Released in 2011 by Columbia Pictures, the film was based on Michael Lewis’ bestselling book about the Oakland A’s 2002 season and their attempt to compete using statistical analysis instead of traditional scouting.  “Moneyball” received six Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Pitt), Best Supporting Actor (Hill), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, and Best Sound Mixing.  It didn’t win any Oscars, but its historic significance lies in how it brought analytics into mainstream conversation — not just in baseball, but across sports and business.  It also helped cement the idea that data-driven decision making could challenge decades of “gut feeling” tradition.
Plot:  The story follows Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland A’s, after the team loses several star players to richer franchises.  With one of the lowest payrolls in baseball, Beane realizes he can’t compete by playing the same game as the big-market teams.  He meets Peter Brand, a young analyst who believes players should be valued based on overlooked statistics rather than traditional scouting impressions.  Together, they assemble a roster of undervalued players — including David Justice, who still has plate discipline even if his power is fading, and Scott Hatteberg, who can’t throw anymore but gets on base at an elite rate.  The season starts rough, with tension between Beane and manager Art Howe, but the team eventually goes on a record-setting 20-game winning streak.  The film ends with Beane turning down a massive offer from the Boston Red Sox, choosing loyalty and personal values over money, and with the acknowledgment that his ideas helped reshape the sport.
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 and grounded;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “Moneyball” is one of those rare sports films that works even if you don’t care about the sport.  It’s really about problem-solving, leadership, and the frustration of trying to change an entrenched system.  The movie balances tension, humor, and quiet moments without ever feeling slow.  It’s smart without being smug, and it holds up well more than a decade later.
Acting:  Pitt gives one of his better performances — relaxed, focused, and believable as a man who’s constantly thinking three moves ahead while trying not to show how much the pressure is getting to him.  Hill is terrific as Peter Brand, playing him with a mix of awkwardness and quiet confidence.  Philip Seymour Hoffman brings weight to Art Howe, even with limited screen time.  Stephen Bishop is convincing as David Justice, capturing the pride and irritation of a veteran who knows he’s being undervalued.  Chris Pratt is excellent as Scott Hatteberg — nervous, humble, and quietly funny — and he sells the idea of a guy trying to reinvent himself.  The supporting cast rounds things out cleanly.
Filming / FX:  The film uses a clean, almost documentary-style approach.  Lots of handheld shots, real stadiums, and natural lighting.  The baseball scenes are shot simply and effectively — no flashy slow-motion or over-the-top dramatization.  The editing keeps the story moving, and the score is understated but memorable.  The overall look fits the tone:  grounded, practical, and focused on people rather than spectacle.
Problems:  A few.  The film simplifies some of the real-life details, and it downplays the contributions of the pitching staff and defense in the A’s success.  Art Howe’s portrayal is also more antagonistic than the real-life manager reportedly was.  And if you’re not into front-office strategy, some of the middle sections may feel repetitive. But none of these issues hurt the film.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes. It’s engaging, thoughtful, and surprisingly emotional.  The father‑daughter scenes add warmth, and the baseball strategy sections are more interesting than they have any right to be.  Even knowing the outcome, I found myself invested in the team’s ups and downs.  It’s a movie I can rewatch and still enjoy.
Final Recommendation:  Strong to Very High Recommendation.  “Moneyball” (2011) is historically significant for bringing analytics into mainstream sports conversation and for showing how innovation often comes from necessity.  It’s well-acted, well-written, and compelling even for non-baseball fans.  Rated PG-13, it’s suitable for most audiences and worth watching for its performances, its ideas, and its reminder that sometimes the smartest move is the one nobody else sees coming.
.
Click here (19 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 »

As You Wish…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 7, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Princess Bride” (1987) — movie review
Today’s review is for the fantasy-adventure romance “The Princess Bride” (1987), directed by Rob Reiner and starring Cary Elwes as Westley (the devoted farm boy turned Dread Pirate Roberts);  Robin Wright as Buttercup (the strong-willed young woman whose love drives the story);  Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya (a swordsman fueled by a lifelong quest for justice);  Chris Sarandon as Prince Humperdinck (a scheming nobleman who hides cruelty behind charm);  and Christopher Guest as Count Rugen (the cold, calculating six-fingered man).  Supporting roles include Wallace Shawn as Vizzini (the self-proclaimed genius);  André the Giant as Fezzik (the gentle giant with a poet’s heart);  Billy Crystal as Miracle Max, and Peter Falk as the grandfather reading the tale to his skeptical grandson (Fred Savage).  With its ensemble, the film blends fairy-tale adventure, comedy, romance, and swashbuckling action into a story that has become a modern classic.
Background:  I find this difficult to admit but this was my first viewing of this movie!  LoL – always late to the party.  Of course I’d seen the sword fight and the drinking poison challenge scene multiple times on YouTube over the last decade, but I’d just never gotten around to actually viewing the film.  I’m also a bit surprised more of my friends or family haven’t recommended this film as I feel confident most have seen it.  I have also owned the DVD – probably since sometime in the early 2000s, as I know I’ve heard my kids quote lines from it frequently.  At the time, I didn’t understand why people were so attached to it.  After watching it, I understand completely.  Released in 1987 by 20th Century Fox, the film was adapted from William Goldman’s novel of the same name.  It had a modest budget of about $16 million and earned roughly $30 million at the box office — respectable, but not the cultural phenomenon it has become.  Over the years, it has grown into one of the most beloved films of its era, largely through home video and television broadcasts.  It didn’t win any Academy Awards, but its historic significance lies in its unusual ability to appeal across generations: part fairy tale, part comedy, part adventure, and part satire, yet sincere in all of them.
Plot:  The story is framed as a grandfather reading a book to his sick grandson.  The tale follows Buttercup, who believes her true love Westley has died at sea.  She reluctantly agrees to marry Prince Humperdinck, unaware that Westley has returned — now disguised as the Dread Pirate Roberts.  Buttercup is kidnapped by Vizzini, Inigo, and Fezzik, only for Westley to pursue and rescue her.  Inigo seeks revenge against the six-fingered Count Rugen, while Humperdinck plots a war using Buttercup as a pawn.  The story weaves sword fights, duels of wit, rodents of unusual size, miracles, and narrow escapes, building toward Inigo’s confrontation with Rugen and Westley’s final rescue of Buttercup.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  charming and committed;  simple but effective;  a few;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “The Princess Bride” is one of the rare films that balances humor, adventure, romance, and sincerity without tipping too far in any direction.  It’s light on its feet but not shallow, and it holds up remarkably well almost forty years later.
Acting:  Cary Elwes and Robin Wright play their roles with earnestness, which is what makes the humor work.  Elwes handles both the swashbuckling and the deadpan comedy with ease.  Wright gives Buttercup more backbone than the typical fairy-tale heroine.  Mandy Patinkin is the standout — his performance as Inigo Montoya is heartfelt, funny, and surprisingly moving.  Wallace Shawn’s Vizzini is memorable in his short screen time, and André the Giant brings warmth to Fezzik.  Chris Sarandon and Christopher Guest make an effective pair of villains:  one oily, one icy.  The cast understands the tone perfectly — sincere enough to care, loose enough to enjoy.
Filming / FX:  The film’s production values are modest by today’s standards, but they work surprisingly well – even today.  The sword fight between Westley and Inigo is still one of the best choreographed in Hollywood — fast, clean, and fun.  The sets look like storybook illustrations brought to life, which fits the framing device.  The “Rodents of Unusual Size” are obviously people in suits, but that’s part of the charm.  Mark Knopfler’s score is gentle and memorable.  Nothing here is flashy, but everything serves the story.
Problems:  A few.  Some of the sets look stage-bound, and the special effects are dated.  Buttercup doesn’t get as much character development as modern audiences might prefer.  The final act rushes a bit, especially Westley’s recovery scene.  But none of these issues undermine the film’s appeal.  If anything, the simplicity is part of why it endures.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes. It’s funny, warm, and endlessly quotable.  It’s also one of the few films that works equally well for children and adults, each finding something different to appreciate.  It’s comfort viewing in the best sense.
Final Recommendation:  Strong to Very High Recommendation.  “The Princess Bride” (1987) is historically significant as a film that grew from modest success into a cultural touchstone, beloved across generations and still widely quoted today.  Rated PG, it remains essential viewing for fans of adventure, comedy, or fairy-tale storytelling.  Watch it for Patinkin’s unforgettable performance, Elwes and Wright’s earnest charm, and the reminder that sometimes a simple Grandfather’s storytelling, well told, is enough.
.
Click here (7 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 »

Because You’ve Never Seen A Miracle…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 19, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Blade Runner 2049”  (2017) – movie review
Today’s review is for the neo-noir science fiction epic “Blade Runner 2049” (2017), starring Ryan Gosling as Officer K, a replicant “blade runner” tasked with retiring rogue models while grappling with his own identity;  Harrison Ford reprises his role as Rick Deckard, the vanished ex-blade runner whose past holds the key to the future;  Ana de Armas plays Joi, K’s holographic companion whose artificial affection raises questions about love and reality;  Sylvia Hoeks is Luv, the coldly efficient enforcer of the Wallace Corporation;  Jared Leto portrays Niander Wallace, the blind industrialist obsessed with controlling creation itself;  and Robin Wright appears as Lieutenant Joshi, K’s pragmatic superior.  With cinematography by Roger Deakins and a score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch, the film extends Ridley Scott’s 1982 classic into a meditation on memory, humanity, and survival.
Background:  I first saw this film a couple of years ago.  I hadn’t seen the original in decades and remembered very little of it (the original), so this film didn’t mean much at the time and I barely remembered it (this sequel) for this viewing.  Actually, I didn’t remember it (this film) at all…  Released in October 2017, “Blade Runner 2049” arrived 35 years after the original.  While Ridley Scott served as executive producer, Denis Villeneuve brought his own deliberate pacing and visual grandeur to the sequel.  The film was critically acclaimed but modest at the box office, later gaining recognition as one of the most ambitious science fiction films of the decade.  It won two Academy Awards in 2018 — Best Cinematography (Roger Deakins, his long-awaited first Oscar after 13 nominations) and Best Visual Effects — and was nominated for three more (Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Production Design).  Its legacy lies in reaffirming the genre’s capacity for philosophical depth and visual poetry.
Plot:  Set thirty years after the events of the original, the story follows Officer K, a replicant blade runner working for the LAPD.  During a routine mission, K uncovers a long-buried secret:  evidence that a replicant once gave birth.  This revelation threatens to destabilize the fragile balance between humans and replicants.  (It seems to be okay to have manufactured slaves, but not one’s which have been born.)  K’s investigation leads him to Deckard, who has been in hiding for decades.  As corporate forces, embodied by Wallace and his lieutenant Luv, pursue the mystery for their own ends, K confronts questions of identity, freedom, and sacrifice.  The narrative builds toward a confrontation that blurs the line between programmed duty and chosen humanity.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  restrained and layered;  breathtaking and immersive;  a few (actually loads);  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Blade Runner 2049” is a rare sequel that expands upon rather than diminishes or re-boots its predecessor.  It trades action for atmosphere, offering a slow-burn meditation on existence.  Its thematic layering — identity, memory, reproduction, and the soul — resonates after the credits roll.  (But see “Final Thoughts“, below.)
Acting:  Ryan Gosling delivers a subdued, internalized performance as K, embodying the quiet despair of a being questioning his own worth.  Harrison Ford, older and wearier, brings gravitas to Deckard, his grief palpable and his resilience hard-won.  Ana de Armas shines as Joi, her warmth and fragility making her holographic presence unexpectedly human.  Sylvia Hoeks is chilling as Luv, balancing menace with vulnerability.  Jared Leto’s Wallace is enigmatic, though his limited screen time leaves him more symbol than character.  In fairness to Leto, I’m not a fan and this role did nothing to move the needle for me.  Robin Wright grounds the film with pragmatic authority.  In contrast to Leto, I like Wright and although this role was also limited for her, I felt she did well in it.
Filming / FX:  Roger Deakins’ cinematography is the film’s crown jewel — a symphony of light, shadow, and color.  From desolate wastelands to neon-drenched cityscapes, every frame feels like a realistic silk screen.  The visual effects, Oscar-winning, seamlessly integrate futuristic architecture, holograms, and replicant technology.  The sound design is immersive, with Zimmer and Wallfisch’s score echoing Vangelis while adding thunderous modernity.  Villeneuve’s pacing allows the visuals to breathe, creating a mirror of the film’s existential themes.
Problems:  A few (loads).  The film’s deliberate pacing is glacial, testing your patience, your bladder and your numb bum.  Jared Leto’s Wallace, while conceptually intriguing, is underdeveloped.  Some viewers may find the narrative opaque, with its philosophical musings overshadowing plot clarity.  Yet these are minor quibbles in a film that prioritizes atmosphere and meaning over conventional storytelling.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes, mostly.  “Blade Runner 2049” is a film that rewards memory but not reflection.  Its emotional core — K’s search for belonging, Deckard’s grief, Joi’s ephemeral love — resonates deeply.  Watching it felt like revisiting an old memory:  haunting, beautiful, and unsettling.  It is not just a sequel;  it is a continuation of a cinematic meditation on what it means to be human.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “Blade Runner 2049” is a visually stunning, thematically profound film that honors and expands the legacy of its predecessor.  It is rated R for violence, sexuality, and language, but its true intensity lies in its existential questions.   …Sometimes the most human act is sacrifice – giving up something / someone because it’s better for them.
Final Thoughts:  This movie / review has raised some interesting observations for me…  My “normal” process is to view a film then do an immediate draft using the AI tool (Copilot).  Because AI regularly gets information incorrect – it gets confused or makes stuff up – I do an immediate edit to match the draft with my short term memory of the film.  Generally, within the next day or two, I go back through the review to remove or modify language or observations which I would rarely use / make – like fancy / academic verbiage or discussion of sound and “cinematography” which I am only beginning to understand and appreciate.  Finally, a day or so before posting, I give the review one last go through for any grammar or spelling errors which may have slipped through until then.  Very rarely, I’ll add some type of post-script…
This is one of those post-scripts…  While watching the film there were moments of actual boredom.  Then, the film caught me up in its experience.  By the ending, I was immersed and intellectually moved.  Having recently watched the original – actually the “Final Cut” (review here), my initial reaction was that “2049” was a MUCH better film.  Now, several days after viewing the film, I feel the opposite.  …And I’m not sure why.  I feel like I remember the original and barely remember this film.  Maybe I’m watching too many films too closely together and they are losing their individual impact.  Maybe this is one of those “in the moment” films which you think are great while you’re watching it, but not so much later.  Or maybe, “artificial life” wanting to continue living is more (emotionally, intellectually, morally) impactful to me than the means of its creation (born vs manufactured).  Oh, well, just another universal question to ponder…
.
Click here (19 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 »

Bricks, Flags, And The Battle For Dignity

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 31, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Last Castle” (2001) — movie review
Today’s review is for the military prison drama “The Last Castle” (2001), starring Robert Redford as Lt. Gen. Eugene Irwin (a decorated three-star general court-martialed and imprisoned for disobeying orders), James Gandolfini as Col. Winter (the prison’s warden — a by-the-book officer with a fragile ego), Mark Ruffalo as Yates (a cynical inmate and former soldier turned hustler), and Delroy Lindo as Gen. Wheeler (Irwin’s former superior, now observing from the sidelines).  This film didn’t win any Academy Awards and wasn’t a box office hit, but it’s a film that tries to say something about leadership, respect, and the moral weight of authority.
Background:  This was my third viewing of “The Last Castle“.  I first saw it a couple of years ago after viewing a “short” on YouTube.  I enjoyed it so much, I re-watched it a short time later.  I admit I was drawn in by both the cast and the military setting.  Watching it again, I was struck by how much the film leans into symbolism:  flags, walls, salutes, and stones.  It’s not subtle, but it feels (to me) heartfelt.  Redford, even in his sixties, carries the weight of command with quiet authority, while Gandolfini — still riding high from “The Sopranos” — plays against type as a man who wants to be feared but not hated.  The film’s title refers not just to the prison, but to the idea of honor as a fortress — something that can be defended, breached, or rebuilt.
Plot:  The film pits two men — both soldiers, both leaders — against each other in a battle not of bullets, but of will, honor, and command.  General Irwin arrives at a military prison after being convicted of disobeying a direct order that led to the deaths of several soldiers.  The prison is run by Colonel Winter, a man who has never seen combat but clings to protocol and control.  At first, Irwin intends to serve his time quietly, but after witnessing Winter’s harsh treatment of inmates — including a fatal punishment — he begins to push back.  Slowly, Irwin earns the respect of the prisoners, organizing them into a disciplined unit and challenging Winter’s authority.  What begins as a clash of personalities escalates into a symbolic rebellion:  the inmates, under Irwin’s leadership, attempt to seize control of the prison’s flagpole and raise the American flag upside down — a signal of distress.  The final act is part military maneuver, part moral reckoning, and part tragedy.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX? Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  solid;  competent and symbolic;  several;  yes — with reservations.
Any Good?  Yes.  “The Last Castle” is a film that wears its themes on its sleeve — sometimes too boldly — but it’s earnest in its intentions.  It’s about leadership, dignity, and the difference between being in a position of authority (backed by firepower) and leading / inspiring.  The story is predictable, but the execution is compelling.  It’s not a subtle film, but it’s a sincere one.
Acting:  Redford is excellent.  He plays Irwin with quiet strength — a man who leads not by shouting, but by example.  His presence alone shifts the dynamic of every scene.  Gandolfini’s Winter is more complex than he first appears — intelligent but insecure, and ultimately, tragic.  Ruffalo adds texture as Yates, the reluctant follower who finds purpose in Irwin’s cause.  The supporting cast — including Clifton Collins Jr. and Robin Wright  (playing the General’s estranged daughter) — round out the ensemble with credibility.  The film is at its best when Redford and Gandolfini share the screen — two men who understand power, but wield it differently.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is clean and functional.  The prison setting — all stone walls, guard towers, and open yards — is used effectively to convey both confinement and potential.  The film’s visual language leans heavily on military iconography:  salutes, uniforms, flags, and formations.  The final act, which involves a full-scale inmate uprising, is shot with clarity and tension.  There are no flashy effects, but the practical staging of the rebellion — including makeshift weapons and tactical maneuvers — is well executed.
Problems:  Several.  The film’s symbolism is heavy-handed — bricks, flags, and salutes are repeated to the point of bluntness.  The script occasionally lapses into speechifying, with characters delivering monologues that feel more like op-eds.  The inmates are a far too clean-cut and idealized — this is a military prison, but we rarely see the moral complexity of the men inside (no really “bad” prisoners).  The final act, while emotionally satisfying, stretches plausibility.  And while the film critiques authoritarianism, it also flirts with romanticizing rebellion in ways that are simplistic.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  I found it emotionally engaging, even when it strained credibility.  There’s something satisfying (to me) about watching a group of broken men find purpose and dignity under a leader who believes in them.  The film’s moral clarity — while perhaps too tidy — is refreshing.  It’s not a film that challenges your (my) worldview, but it does affirm the value of honor, respect, and earned leadership.  And in a time when those values often feel in short supply, that’s worth something.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “The Last Castle” is a character-driven drama that explores the tension between authority and leadership, obedience and conscience.  It’s rated R for violence and language, but neither are gratuitous.  If you’re interested in military ethics, prison dynamics, or stories about moral courage, this film is worth your time.  It’s not perfect, but it’s principled — and in the end, that’s what the flag stands for.
Final Thought:  There is a line in the film where the Col. Winter character says they should be naming a post after him (referring to the incoming prisoner General Irwin).  It made me chuckle because there IS a “post” called Fort Irwin, near Death Valley in California.
.
Click here (31 October) 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