| “Civil War” (2024) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the near-future action / political thriller “Civil War”, starring Kirsten Dunst as Lee Smith (a veteran war photojournalist who has seen too much and is running on instinct and exhaustion); Wagner Moura as Joel (a fellow journalist chasing danger with a mix of adrenaline and denial); Cailee Spaeny as Jessie (a young, inexperienced photographer trying to learn what the job really demands); Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy (an older reporter whose calm presence masks how fragile the moment has become); and Nick Offerman as the President (a leader clinging to power as the country fractures around him). Directed by Alex Garland, the film follows a small group of journalists traveling across a collapsing United States to reach Washington, D.C. before the government falls. | |
| Background: This is my first viewing of this film. This is definitely a movie I would have liked to watch in a theater because of the action scenes and the scale. Of course, I didn’t due to my on-going health conditions. This film was recommended to me by both my older daughter and her husband who did see it in a theater when it first came out. Most recently, it was recommended to me by one of my high-school friends in a follow-up email after our latest group lunch. The film got a lot of attention for its realism, its focus on journalists instead of soldiers, and its refusal to explain how the country got to this point. Released in 2024, “Civil War” was not nominated for any Academy Awards, but it generated a lot of discussion about media, polarization, and how fragile civil society can be. Historically, the film is significant because it’s one of the first major studio movies to depict a modern American civil conflict without leaning on fantasy, zombies, or alternate history. It tries to imagine what a breakdown might actually look like — messy, confusing, and frighteningly ordinary. | |
| Plot: The story follows Lee, Joel, Jessie, and Sammy as they travel from New York toward Washington, D.C. while the country is in open conflict. The Western Forces (an alliance of California and Texas) are closing in on the capital, and the President is making his last stand. The journalists aren’t trying to take sides; they’re trying to document what’s happening before it’s over. Along the way, they pass through towns that look normal until they aren’t, encounter militias with unclear loyalties, and witness violence that feels both random and inevitable. Jessie tries to learn from Lee, who is torn between protecting the younger photographer and teaching her the harsh reality of the job. As they get closer to D.C., the fighting intensifies, and the group is forced into situations where being a journalist doesn’t guarantee safety. The final act takes place during the assault on the White House, where the line between observer and participant collapses almost completely. | |
| 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; immersive and unsettling; a few; yes / mostly. | |
| Any good? Yes. “Civil War” works because it stays grounded. It doesn’t try to explain the politics or offer a grand theory about how the country fell apart. Instead, it focuses on what journalists do in dangerous places: observe, document, and try to stay alive. The film builds tension through small moments — a checkpoint that could go bad, a town that seems calm until it isn’t, a conversation that feels like it could turn violent at any second. The pacing is steady, and the sense of dread grows as the group gets closer to Washington. This is not a “fun” movie. It’s a dramatically effective one. | |
| Acting: Dunst gives the film its emotional center. She plays Lee as someone who has been doing this too long: tired, wary, and trying to keep her distance from the world even as she documents it. Moura brings energy and recklessness to Joel, and his chemistry with Dunst feels lived-in. Spaeny is very good as Jessie; she captures the mix of fear, ambition, and naïveté that comes with being new to the job. Henderson adds warmth and gravity as Sammy, and his scenes help balance the film’s intensity. Offerman, in limited screen time, plays the President with a controlled, brittle confidence that fits the story. The supporting cast — soldiers, civilians, and militia members — feels believable, which helps sell the world. | |
| Filming / FX: The film looks and sounds real. Garland uses handheld cameras, natural lighting, and practical effects to make the action feel immediate. The firefights are loud, chaotic, and confusing, and that is probably the point. The production design is subtle: damaged buildings, improvised checkpoints, and landscapes that look familiar but slightly off. The sound design is excellent, especially in the final assault, where gunfire, explosions, and shouted commands blend into a disorienting mix. The film avoids flashy CGI and relies on grounded visuals, which makes everything feel more plausible. | |
| Problems: A few. The film’s refusal to explain how the civil war started will frustrate some viewers. It’s seems a deliberate choice, but it leaves the world feeling vague (and unbelievable) at times. The characters, while well-acted, aren’t deeply developed; they’re defined more by their roles than by their personal histories. The final act is intense and some viewers may find it too much. The film risks being misunderstood. Some may read it as political commentary when it’s really more about the experience of covering conflict. None of these issues break the movie, but they’re worth noting. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Yes / mostly. “Civil War” is tense, unsettling, and memorable. It’s not a movie I’d watch casually, but it seems like one that will stick with me (particularly if I view it a few more times). The focus on journalists gives the story a different angle than most war films, and the performances make the characters feel real even when the world around them is falling apart. The film raises questions without trying to answer them, which is part of its strength. It’s a tough watch, but a (mostly) worthwhile one. | |
| Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation. “Civil War” is a well-made, grounded, and thought-provoking film that imagines a modern American conflict without today’s typical political sensationalism. Its historical significance lies in its willingness to depict a fractured United States, and its focus on journalists gives the film a unique perspective. The acting is strong, the filming is immersive, and the tension is steady throughout. It’s not comforting, but it’s worth your time if you’re interested in political thrillers, war journalism, or films that explore how fragile society can be. | |
| Final Thoughts: I had various reactions / observations throughout the viewing: 1) I found it discomforting to see the casual indifference being portrayed in the killing of “fellow” American citizens – particularly the dump truck scene – because they weren’t “American” enough for the folks who had the guns; 2) The flag of the “WF” (Western Forces) had two stars representing Texas and California. Imagining these two states joining in a succession movement against the rest of the United States is so ludicrous as to border on multi-universes and other altered realities. Could their combined forces defeat the rest of the U.S. – probably, but the logistics of two geographically separated states (1100 air miles or 1400 ground miles) militarily supporting each other, would be daunting – to say the least. Now, if Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico had joined the succession, it’s slightly more conceivable, but still unlikely, just based on the political differences between the two main states. And, 3) during the attack on Washington D.C. and the White House, it greatly troubled me that we were being shown American forces killing other American forces (and civilians) as if there were nothing to it. Strangely, in the moment, it didn’t bother me at all that the military executed a sitting albeit dictatorial President without judicial review / input. It’s only in afterthought I remember, I didn’t think it was right for a real person (Osama bin Laden) so I shouldn’t feel comfortable with it happening to a fictional President. I guess that’s just the American citizen in me… | |
| . | |
| Click here (31 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. | |
Posts Tagged ‘Texas’
Yeah, That’ll Do…
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alex Garland, Arizona, Cailee Spaeny, California, Civil War (2024) — movie review, General Comments, Kirsten Dunst, Lee Smith, Movie Reviews, Nevada, New Mexico, New York City, Nick Offerman, Osama bin Laden, Reviews, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Strong Movie Recommendation, Texas, The White House, United States, Wagner Moura, Washington D.C., Western Forces on March 31, 2026| 3 Comments »
No War With Iran!!
Posted in General Comments, History, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged #47:DonTheConvictedFelon, #47:DonTheIncompetent, Albert Einstein, American Politics, California, Iran, Iraq, Pandora's Box, Peace, Philosophy, Population, Quotes, Texas, Understanding, War on February 20, 2026| 3 Comments »
| Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. | |
| — Albert Einstein | |
| Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war. | |
| — Albert Einstein | |
| Let me be clear… Moving additional U.S. military forces to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean is an attempt to goad Iran into a situation where they attack (or “appear” to attack) our forces so the President can compel Congress into declaring war with / on Iran. | |
| #47 and his Administration (Republican Party) want to do this in order to: | |
| — raise the “support the troops” and “back the flag” issues for voters before the mid-term elections where he appears on course to take a shellacking; | |
| — distract his supporters from their demands for open transparency for the Epstein Files; | |
| — distract the American people from the slumping economy which is sliding into a complete collapse under his Administration; | |
| — use a declared “war” or Congressionally approved military action to justify the suspension of the mid-term elections and promote his path to dictatorship; and, | |
| — promote the short-term interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia by destabilizing the Iranian government. | |
| In June 2025 the Trump Administration bombed the Iran nuclear “weapons” facilities and then claimed the attack had done significant damage to the the Iranian program. Now, it turns out the damage was “not so much and we need to be able to do it again”. Further, we want to give the Iranians a deadline of two to three weeks to complete a negotiation on nuclear weapons and missiles or we will do “something” to force them to conclude a deal. | |
| Again, let me be clear… I have NO doubt the United States military could defeat the Iranian military in a relatively short (a few weeks) span of time. But, as the invasion of Iraq demonstrated, that is not the same as accomplishing a permanent regime change or pacifying a population the size of Iran’s in a nation the size of Iran. | |
| Iran is larger than Texas and has a population greater than California and Texas put together (over 88 million). Using the standard / historical basis for pacification, the US would have to devote around two million troops (in country) to pacification. This is almost the size of ALL of the combined military forces of the United States (roughly 2.2 million). By comparison, we tried to do this in Iraq with 170,000 (surge level) and failed. Again, we could (and did) defeat Iraq’s military in short order, but we were never able to impose a permanent government or fully suppress the insurgents. And it is unlikely we will be able to do so in Iran… | |
| This action (a major attack or an invasion of Iran) would further damage our international reputation and is unlikely to receive ANY real support from our NATO allies… | |
| This President is a KNOWN and proven liar – nationally and internationally. Even if his Administration were somehow able to demonstrate that Iran attacked US forces first, it is unlikely he would gain ANY ally support for anything more than an “appropriate” level response. | |
| The problem with offending over half of your own population and all of your allies is that when something goes wrong and you need a unified country and allies support – it’s just not going to be there. AKA: …Chickens coming home to roost. | |
| Another failed international policy proposal / threat by a man (and Administration) with a long history of failure and losing… | |
| Well America, we FA; now we FO. Please tell your political representatives (House and Senate): Do NOT open Pandora’s Box!! NO WAR!!! | |
| . | |
| Click here (20 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. | |
There Are No Answers, Only The Search…
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Buddy Jackson, Christopher Cain, Dusty Chandler, Earl Blackstock, Ernest Tucker, General Comments, George Strait, Harley Tucker, Isabel Glasser, Jack Hofstra, Jerry Weintraub, John Doe, Kyle Chandler, Las Vegas, Lesley Ann Warren, Lula Rogers, Movie Reviews, Nashville, Pure Country (1992) — movie review, Reviews, Richard Bowen, Rory Calhoun, Texas, Very Highly Recommended Movie, Warner Bros on January 9, 2026| Leave a Comment »
| “Pure Country” (1992) — movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the country-music drama “Pure Country” (1992), directed by Christopher Cain and stars George Strait in his acting debut as Dusty Wyatt Chandler, a superstar singer suffocated by stadium glitz whose concerts have become overblown spectacles of smoke, lasers, and pyrotechnics; Lesley Ann Warren appears as Lula Rogers, Dusty’s ambitious manager who pushes him toward ever-larger productions, while Isabel Glasser plays Harley Tucker, the down-to-earth ranch woman who becomes Dusty’s romantic interest; John Doe as Earl Blackstock, Dusty’s steadfast best friend whose quiet loyalty gives the story its moral ballast; Kyle Chandler rounds out the cast as Buddy Jackson, a young performer who steps into Dusty’s boots when the star disappears; and a barely recognizable Rory Calhoun as Harley’s elderly father / ranch owner Ernest Tucker. With its blend of music, romance, and western sensibility, the film attempts to marry the glitz of Nashville / Las Vegas with the grit of Texas ranch life. | |
| Background: I was a BIG country music fan during the late 1980s through the early 2000s – watching CMT (in the U.K.) and buying country CDs (in Saudi Arabia). I first heard the song “I Cross My Heart” when I got back to the U.S. in the early 2000s and saw the movie shortly after. Since then, I’ve probably watched the song 100+ times (on YouTube) and the movie at least a dozen times. Released in October 1992, “Pure Country” was produced by Jerry Weintraub and distributed by Warner Bros. With a budget of about $10 million, it grossed $15.2 million worldwide. While profitable, the film received mixed reviews, with critics noting its predictable storyline but acknowledging Strait’s quiet charisma. The soundtrack, however, became a major success, spawning hit singles and helping to cement George Strait’s place in country music “cinema” history. IMHO – The film (itself) only remains significant as a cultural artifact of early 1990s country music cinema. | |
| Plot: Dusty Chandler, weary of the artificiality of his stadium shows, walks away from the spotlight to rediscover his roots. Disguised as an ordinary ranch hand, he meets Harley Tucker and her family, finding both romance and authenticity. Meanwhile, his manager Lula scrambles to keep the brand alive, even substituting Buddy Jackson (a member of the band stage set-up crew) to impersonate Dusty on stage. The narrative builds toward Dusty’s return, where he must reconcile fame with integrity, choosing between spectacle and sincerity. | |
| So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Okay (I love it); serviceable and music-driven; straightforward and restrained; several; thoroughly. | |
| Any Good? Yes — but with caveats. “Pure Country” delivers a gentle, music-centered drama that resonates with fans of George Strait (me!) and country music culture. For the general film goer, it is less successful as a narrative film, often (frequently) leaning on clichés and predictable beats. Still, as a vehicle for Strait’s music and persona, it achieves its purpose. | |
| Acting: George Strait, though not a trained actor, embodies Dusty Chandler with understated “western” charm. His performance is stiff at times, but his authenticity carries the role. Lesley Ann Warren provides energy as the controlling manager, while Isabel Glasser brings warmth and credibility to Harley. Kyle Chandler, in an early role, adds youthful ambition as Buddy. The ensemble is functional, though clearly designed to showcase Strait’s music rather than stretch his dramatic range. | |
| Filming / FX: Richard Bowen’s cinematography emphasizes simplicity: ranch landscapes, concert stages, and intimate close-ups. The concert sequences are polished but intentionally overwhelming, underscoring Dusty’s disillusionment. Editing by Jack Hofstra keeps the pace steady, though the film rarely ventures beyond conventional framing. There are no flashy effects beyond concert pyrotechnics, which serve as thematic contrast to Dusty’s search for authenticity. | |
| Problems: Several. As cinema, the plot is thin, predictable, and offers few surprises. Character development is minimal, with Dusty’s journey more symbolic than deeply explored. The romantic subplot, while sweet, is (to say the least) formulaic. “Real” critics noted that the film functions more as a promotional vehicle for Strait’s music than as a fully realized drama. My non-professional response is: “And your point is?” (LoL) Sometimes we want to take life too seriously… | |
| Did I Enjoy the Film? Yes – thoroughly! The film is pleasant in tone, enjoyable for its music, and not compelling as cinema – but who cares? Watching Strait perform stripped-down songs is rewarding, and while the narrative lacks depth, it is comfort viewing for fans (me), even if unlikely to convert skeptics. | |
| Final Recommendation: Very highly recommendation. “Pure Country” is not high art, and is it definitely NOT historically significant, but it has a great country-music song and what drama there is, is anchored by George Strait’s persona (and soundtrack). Rated PG, it is best approached as a musical diversion rather than as any cinematic significance. Watch it for the songs, the ranch romance, and the simple nudge that comes from understanding that sometimes authenticity matters more than cinematic spectacle. I like country music and I like most Hallmark fare movies. This film is good music with a higher end Hallmark feel. | |
| Final note: Above I say I “was” a country music fan. I should correct that. I am still a “fan” of country music – and other music too. I just don’t purchase it anymore and I only listen to it infrequently. I don’t drive much anymore, so there’s less “forced” opportunity to listen to my CDs and I don’t subscribe to any music service – at all. I do get suggestions in YouTube, Muzac at various offices, from movie or TV show soundtracks and I do still have “old” songs pop into my head which I’ll then go look up. …But that’s about it. This film did have a sequel, but I don’t believe Strait was in that film. I have never seen the sequel. | |
| . | |
| Click here (9 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. | |
Crosshairs
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged American Sniper (2014) – movie review, Bradley Cooper, Chris Kyle, Clint Eastwood, Cory Hardrict, Fallujah, General Comments, Iraq, Jake McDorman, Luke Grimes, Marc Lee, Movie Reviews, Navy SEAL, Reviews, Sienna Miller, Strong Movie Recommendation, Taya Kyle, Texas on November 9, 2025| Leave a Comment »
| “American Sniper” (2014) – movie review | |
| Today’s review is for the biographical war drama “American Sniper” (2014), starring Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle — a Navy SEAL sniper whose pinpoint accuracy earned him the nickname “Legend” among fellow soldiers and insurgents alike. Sienna Miller plays Taya Kyle, Chris’s wife, whose emotional arc mirrors the toll of war on the home front. Supporting roles include Luke Grimes as Marc Lee (a fellow SEAL and emotional anchor), Jake McDorman as Biggles (Kyle’s friend and teammate), and Cory Hardrict as Dandridge (“D”), rounding out the SEAL team with grit and camaraderie. | |
| Background: I came to this film with tempered anticipation. War films often lean into spectacle or sentimentality, and I wasn’t sure which direction the film would take. I’ve seen Cooper in a couple of roles and I was curious to see how he’d handle a character built on stoicism and trauma. This was my first viewing, and I approached it with very little (no) knowledge about the “real” Chris Kyle. I knew the film had been nominated for multiple Academy Awards (six, to be exact), including Best Picture and Best Actor for Cooper, and it won one — Best Sound Editing. Even after viewing, I’m not sure if the acclaim is for the film’s technical execution or its emotional resonance. | |
| Plot: The film is based on Kyle’s memoir and dramatizes his four tours in Iraq, his internal battles, and his struggle to reintegrate into civilian life. The film opens with Kyle on a rooftop in Fallujah, eyeing a child and a woman approaching a convoy with what may be a grenade. The tension is immediate, and the moral ambiguity is baked into the frame. From there, we flash back to Kyle’s Texas upbringing, his rodeo days, and his decision to enlist after seeing news footage of embassy bombings. The narrative follows Kyle through four tours in Iraq, where he racks up over 160 confirmed kills, making him the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history. Between deployments, he returns home to Taya and their children, but the psychological distance grows. Kyle becomes increasingly detached, haunted by the lives he’s taken and the brothers-in-arms he couldn’t save. The film culminates in Kyle’s post-war efforts to help fellow veterans, and ends — abruptly and respectfully — with his real-life death at the hands of a troubled vet he was trying to help. The closing credits roll over footage from Kyle’s actual funeral procession, grounding the film in sobering reality. | |
| 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; restrained and effective; a few; yes. | |
| Any good? Yes. The film is emotionally resonant (to me) and technically competent. It doesn’t glorify war, but it doesn’t condemn it either. It walks a tightrope between patriotism and introspection, and mostly succeeds. Kyle views himself as a “protector / defender”. The direction is focused, and the story — while episodic — builds a compelling portrait of a man shaped by duty, love and trauma. | |
| Acting: Bradley Cooper is outstanding. He gained 40 pounds for the role and reportedly trained with SEALs to capture Kyle’s physicality and demeanor. But it’s the emotional restraint that sells it — Cooper plays Kyle as a man who compartmentalizes everything, and the cracks in that armor are subtle but devastating. Sienna Miller is solid as Taya, though her role is mostly reactive. The supporting cast is believable, with Grimes and McDorman adding texture to the SEAL team dynamic. The film is a character study, and Cooper carries it off with his quiet intensity. | |
| Filming / FX: The cinematography is functional — dusty streets, rooftop perches, and domestic interiors are shot with clarity and restraint. The battle scenes are tense but not overblown. The sound is excellent (hence the Oscar win), especially in the sniper sequences — the silence before the shot, the echo after. The film’s visual language is grounded, avoiding the stylized excesses of many other war films. The final battle in a sandstorm is chaotic and disorienting, mirroring Kyle’s internal state. | |
| Problems: A few. The film’s episodic structure makes it feel a little like a series of vignettes more than a cohesive narrative. The film glosses over the complexities of the Iraq War, and that Kyle’s portrayal is too sanitized, but the film is about him and not about the politics of America / Iraq. The film doesn’t explore the political context in depth, and while that may be intentional, it leaves some story gaps. Also, the portrayal of Iraqi characters is limited and mostly adversarial, which may feel disparaging. I wasn’t there, so I have no personal knowledge of their value as allies fighting along side our troops. My personal feeling is there were some excellent allies, so terrible / worthless and most were just trying to get through the war in their home country. Finally, the ending — while respectful — is abrupt, and may leave viewers wanting more closure. | |
| Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s a film which gives the viewer pause to consider the sacrifice of our troops in harms way (and their families). For that, I am always respectful. I found myself thinking about Kyle’s internal conflict, the cost of service, and the challenge of reintegration. It’s not a feel-good movie, but it’s a meaningful one. Cooper’s performance elevates the material, and Eastwood’s direction keeps the focus on character rather than spectacle. | |
| Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation. “American Sniper” is a sobering, well-acted war drama which raises questions it doesn’t (can’t) answer. It’s not a political film, and it’s not a traditional action movie — it’s a character study of a man struggling between (and with) duty and identity. If you’re interested in stories about service, sacrifice, and the psychological toll of war, this film is worth viewing. It’s rated R for strong and disturbing war violence, language, and sexual content, but it’s not gratuitous. It’s a film that asks: What does it mean to be a protector — and what does it cost? | |
| . | |
| Click here (9 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. | |
Seeing Too Clearly, Too Soon
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged 12 Angry Men, Charles Bickford, Col. Billy Mitchell, Congressman Frank R. Reid, Dayton Lummis, Eddie Rickenbacker, Elizabeth Montgomery, Fiorello LaGuardia, Fountainhead, General Comments, General Douglas MacArthur, insubordination, Jack Lord, Lt. Cmdr. Zachary Lansdowne, Major Allen W. Gullion, Major General Charles Pelot Summeral, Major General Jimmy Guthrie, Major General Robert Lee Howze, Movie Reviews, Mrs. Margaret Lansdowne, New York City, Pearl Harbor, Ralph Bellamy, Reviews, Rod Steiger, Sergeant York, Strong To Highly Recommended Movie, Texas, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army Air Service, USS Shenandoah, War Department, WWII on August 20, 2025| Leave a Comment »
| “The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell” (1955) — movie review | |
| Today’s movie review is for the historical / biographical military courtroom drama: “The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell” (1955), starring Gary Cooper as Col. Billy Mitchell (a decorated World War I veteran and a passionate advocate for a strong, independent U.S. Air “Service”, predicting the future of air warfare), Charles Bickford as Maj. Gen. Jimmy Guthrie (based upon Maj. General Charles Pelot Summerall and Maj. General Robert Lee Howze – who represent the old guard of the military which believes air power is an unproven and unnecessary expense in a time of “lean” budgets), Ralph Bellamy as Congressman Frank R. Reid (Mitchell supporter and civilian defense attorney), Rod Steiger as Major Allen W. Gullion (special attorney brought in to help prosecute Mitchell), Elizabeth Montgomery as Mrs. Margaret Lansdowne (widow of Naval Aviation Officer, who testifies in Mitchell’s defense), Jack Lord as Lt. Cmdr. Zachary Lansdowne (Naval Officer who dies on USS Shenandoah and friend of Mitchell), Dayton Lummis as General Douglas MacArthur (one of the presiding judges at the trial). | |
| Background: I first saw this film as a child (pre-10). As best I can recall, this is my third viewing of the film since then. I have a fairly distinct memory of three main take-aways from this film: 1) that if you are an expert in your special field, it is possible to “reasonably” predict certain aspects of the future; 2) that some men will stand up and defend the country and their honestly held principles irrespective of the consequences; and, 3) that Rod Steiger is one heck of an actor. This was one of the first times I KNEW the actor was an actor in a role, but also that he was portraying the character brilliantly. | |
| Plot: The film opens with Billy Mitchell demonstrating the power of air attack by successfully sinking a former German battleship from the air, a feat that defies the skepticism of his superiors. When his efforts to modernize the air service are continually rebuffed, he is demoted and exiled to a desk job in Texas. After a series of ignored reports (by Mitchell) and bureaucratic stonewalling (by the War Department), there are a number of fatal accidents involving outdated aircraft and airships, which includes the death of his friend Zack Lansdowne, Mitchell gives a scathing interview to the press publicly accusing the War Department of “incompetence and criminal negligence.” The result: a court-martial for insubordination. | |
| The trial becomes a battle of wills (and integrity) between Mitchell, who uses the platform to champion air power, and the military establishment, which seeks to silence him. With Congressman Reid’s help, Mitchell’s defense shifts from a legal argument to a moral one, bringing in witnesses military and civilian pilots like Eddie Rickenbacker and Fiorello LaGuardia (future mayor of New York City) to prove his point. Despite a passionate defense, Mitchell is found guilty of insubordination with subsequent loss of rank and suspended from the service. The film concludes on a bittersweet note, with Mitchell’s conviction leading to a posthumous vindication of his ideas and a legacy that helped establish the U.S. Air Force as a separate branch of the military. | |
| So, is the movie any good? How’s the acting? The realism / FX? Problems? Did I like the film? Short answers: Yes; solid to very good / exceptional (Steiger); surprisingly sharp; yes, but minor; and, yes I did like re-watching this film. | |
| Any good: IMHO – This is a dramatically compelling film. It builds Mitchell’s case through dialogue, conviction, and historical weight. The pacing is deliberate (may seem slow to some) and the stakes feel real (even 100 years after the actual trial). The film is neither a court room or military “thriller” as much as it is (in context) a biographical tip of the hat to an outstanding officer who was willing to sacrifice his career for the defense of the nation. The film follows the structure of a classic courtroom drama: opening salvo, procedural maneuvering, witness testimony, and final summation. What drives the film is the tension between an officer’s duty to his service and the dissent with policy he expresses which is driven by his conscience. As stated repeatedly in the course of the film, Mitchell isn’t trying to escape punishment — he’s trying to force an acknowledgement that the very nature of warfare has changed and the “official” position will weaken the country’s defense in future war. The courtroom becomes a proxy battlefield for the future of military doctrine. | |
| Acting: Gary Cooper plays Mitchell with “command” intensity / authority — not as a firebrand, but more a principled career soldier. His performance is “to type” and reminiscent of a cross between “Sergeant York” and “Fountainhead“. The supporting cast, including Charles Bickford and Rod Steiger, bring gravitas to their roles, especially in the courtroom scenes. The film’s true acting powerhouse is Rod Steiger as Major Guillion, who brings a searing intensity to the courtroom scenes. He is a truly menacing and formidable opponent / prosecutor against Mitchell. | |
| Realism / FX: The film sticks close to the historical record. The core events are factual. The courtroom scenes feel authentic, and the military bureaucracy is portrayed with maddening precision (in and out of court). You can feel the weight of protocol pressing down on principle. The aerial footage is minimal (and primitive), but the film isn’t about dogfights — it’s about doctrine, policy and funding. The use of actual historical footage, particularly of the destroyer sinking, adds a layer of realism. Given the cinematic technology of the era, the special effects are limited, but the film’s strength is in dialogue and drama, not visual effects. | |
| Problems: For me the plot’s primary “problem” comes from its historical simplification of defense budgetary processes in order to fit a two-hour film. Basically, there is none. Up until WWII, the US Government ALWAYS demobilized and then underfunded the military for political reasons that had nothing to do with defense of the nation. This is mentioned, but simply glossed over. Also, some viewers (as previously mentioned) may find the movie slow going leading up to actual court-martial. I didn’t have this problem, but I recognize some might. Neither of these are really “problems” in the normal sense of film continuity or outright factual errors. | |
| Did I like the film? Yes. I have seen this film a couple of time since my initial viewing and it continues to hold up as well as my memory of it does. (LoL) Mitchell’s story isn’t triumphant in the conventional sense — he loses the trial, is stripped of rank, and dies before his vindication (Pearl Harbor and WWII). The film honors his foresight and integrity. It’s a reminder that being right isn’t always enough — and that sometimes, the system punishes truth before it accepts let alone embraces it. | |
| Final recommendation: Strong to Highly recommended. This is a film for fans of historical drama, military ethics, and courtroom tension. It’s also a film about about vision, sacrifice, and the lonely cost of being an individual with honor and a sense of duty who is ahead of your time. As a piece of film-making from the mid-1950s, this film is a strong, if somewhat stolid, courtroom drama. It’s not “12 Angry Men“, but it’s also not far from it. | |
| Addendum: On reviewing my alphabetical listing of reviews I note I have already reviewed this film back in 2019. Not much change, but the original review is here… | |
| Addendum 2: (21 Aug 2025) On further research, it turns out Col. Mitchell did not receive a Congressional Medal of Honor. In fact, he received a “Congressional Gold Medal” (which I had never heard of before). Apparently there was some mix-up between the title of the award and the actual award of record (in Congress). The U.S. Force still lists Col. Mitchell as a recipient of the MoH, but Congressional records do not. | |
| . | |
| Click here (20 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. | |
Putin Has Already Lost To Ukraine
Posted in General Comments, History, Philosophy, Quotes, tagged Afghanistan, Crimea, General Comments, General Distance, General Winter, History, Kyiv, Philosophy, Quotes, Russia, Texas, Ukraine, USSR, Vladimir Putin on June 24, 2025| Leave a Comment »
| It is well past time for the Russian people to wake up and smell the coffee… Three weeks after invading Ukraine (in 2022), Putin had already lost the war. The West projected the “mighty” Russian military would quickly and decisively overwhelm the far weaker (and fewer in number) Ukrainian forces. Today, over three years later, Ukraine is still in control of Kyiv and the vast majority of the Ukraine. | |
| A quick history lesson: in December of 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Within days the Soviets had control of five key cities out of about 20 major population centers (cities). Although the USSR was able to seize the country, kill the President and install their own Afghan President, they were never able to fully subdue the populace and their army was eventually (February 1989) driven out of Afghanistan. During the 9+ years of occupation, the USSR forces had 14,453 deaths and approximately 35,000 casualties. | |
| Current day: As of my recent internet search, since the 2022 “special operation” began, the Russian military has lost (by Western estimates) one million (1,000,000) casualties including one quarter of a million (250,000) dead. Take a moment for that to sink in… In roughly one third of the time, Russia has 20 times the casualties and over 15 times as many deaths in its forces as it did in occupying Afghanistan. | |
| Afghanistan and Ukraine are both approximately the size of the State of Texas. If Russia is able to fully conquer Ukraine, they will need a vast amount of manpower and military resources to maintain their peace. Ukraine has demonstrated a willingness to fight and there is no reason to believe they will stop resisting even if Russia were to somehow gain control of the entire country. | |
| It is recognized in military experience that it takes a six to one advantage of offensive to defensive forces to have a “high” expectation of offensive victory with three to one being the “bare minimum” to hope to achieve success. This is not to say it “can’t” happen for an equal or smaller offensive force to defeat a larger defensive force, but it is not generally true. | |
| Current estimates are that Russia has 1.1 million men under arms and approximately 600,000 of that 1.1 million are near Ukraine or currently engaged in the war. Ukraine has about 800,000 troops in service. Obviously, not all of the 800K can be committed to the fight with Russia as there are other borders to defend. But, my point stands… It is EXTREMELY unlikely Russia will EVER defeat and subdue Ukraine as long as the Ukrainians are willing to resist. | |
| Historically, Russia’s two greatest military assets have been “General Distance” and “General Winter”. Unfortunately, neither of these can help Russia when it is the Russians who are doing the attacking instead of the defending. Now, if Russia is willing to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the conflict, then all bets are off. I would concede Russia could inflict horrendous damage on Ukraine – both populace and land – but at what cost when the prevailing winds will blow any residual effects from West to East and directly back over Russia? | |
| No… The sooner Putin declares victory and withdrawals from Ukraine and the Crimea, the better off Russia will be. What started out as an exercise of power has devolved into an exercise in saving face – and Putin will lose that, too. History and numbers are against him… | |
| . | |
| Click here (24 June) 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. | |
So Now We Know…
Posted in General Comments, tagged #47DonTheTraitor, Afghanistan, General Comments, President Trump, President Zelensky, Russia, Special Military Operation, Texas, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin on March 3, 2025| 2 Comments »
| #47:DonTheTraitor has announce he has ordered the “temporary” suspension of military aid to Ukraine pending his being convinced Ukraine is “really” seeking peace and that Ukraine is also willing to sign a mineral “deal” with the United States. | |
| No exact terms for the peace negotiations have been announced, but it looks like the cessation of fighting will be based on a complete return of Russian land currently occupied by Ukrainian forces, the acceptance of the status quo of current Russian occupied Ukraine land, the resignation of President Zelensky and the surrender of future mineral rights from Ukraine to the United States. | |
| It is impossible to definitively say which side is “winning” the Russia v. Ukraine war, but it is clear that the Russian “special military operation” that was supposed to last as long as it took tanks to drive from Russia to Kiev (3 to 7 days) has now passed its three YEAR anniversary. And, Russia is militarily spent and needs time to rebuild it’s military – personnel, weapons and ammunition stores. | |
| Russia cannot take a break in the war to refit without taking more military losses and risking civil unrest internally. So, to engineer this “interlude”, Putin has engaged President Trump in staging a dust-up in the Oval Office to feign offense at the insult of President Zelensky not being grateful enough to the United States (aka: King Trump) for aid we have provided to Ukraine. | |
| We (America and our allies) do not know WHY President Trump is aiding Russia, but it is historical fact that Trump has two primary motivators: his fragile ego and his desire for increased wealth. Unfortunately, we will have to leave it to history to reveal which is the motivation here. | |
| The bottom line for military aid is the European Union will have to step up and provide weapons and munitions immediately. They must recognize they can either stop Russia in the Ukraine or they will have a continental conflict within 10 years. If the leaders of the EU want to know what that will look like in their countries, they can simply visit Eastern Ukraine. | |
| As for Ukraine and a mineral treaty with the United States… As I’ve stated in prior posts – ANY treaty will not be worth the paper it is written on while this Administration is in office. Donald Trump does NOT honor contracts and as soon as he feels he has an opportunity to extort additional terms and concessions, he will do so. President Zelensky would be FAR better off signing a mineral treaty with the EU or some sub-group of the EU. At least then Ukraine will have some chance of reaching an honest treaty. | |
| From a historic perspective, it should be noted that Ukraine is only about 10% smaller than Afghanistan and both are roughly the size of our State of Texas. Afghanistan fell to both Russian and American invasions in a relatively short period of time – weeks to months. The problem both superpowers had was – although the Afghan national army was beaten – the people never gave up fighting. Eventually, both invading forces were driven from a country who’s people they could not defeat. | |
| . | |
| Click here (3 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. | |
While Listening To A #DonTheCon Speech
Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged #DonTheCon, All Hat And No Cattle, American Politics, George Berkeley, Inference, Meaning, Philosophy, Quotes, Texas, Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, Words on October 2, 2024| Leave a Comment »
| My inference will be that you mean nothing at all. That you employ words to no manner or purpose without any design or signification whatsoever. | |
| ― George Berkeley | |
| From: “Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous“ | |
| [#DonTheCon says he wants to campaign on issues, but he never offers a “policy”. He says he was to detain and deport “illegal” aliens, but never defines who is actually “illegal” or how he plans to accomplish this deportation or how he intends for us to pay for it. As always, he is (as they say in Texas) “all hat and no cattle…” — kmab] | |
| . | |
| Click here (2 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. | |
Moves
Posted in 2024 Book Review, American Football, Book Review, Disclaimer, General Comments, Reading, Reviews, Sports, tagged 2024 Book Review, All The Moves I Had - book review, Ayn Rand, Baltimore Colts, Born-Again Christian, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, CTE, Disclaimer, Faith, Floating, God, Jim Brown, Johnny Unitas, Luck, National Football League, NFL, NFL Films, NFL Hall of Fame, Raymond Berry, Strong Book Recommendation, Texas, Wayne Stewart on March 17, 2024| Leave a Comment »
| “All The Moves I Had” (2016©) — book review | |
| Today’s book review is for “All The Moves I Had”, an autobiography about the life of Raymond Berry and was co-written by Wayne Stewart. This is the second book review of a trio of “Colts” books I purchased at the end of last year / start of this year. Back in the 1960s, there were two “givens” in the world of the National Football League (NFL). The first was that Jim Brown was the greatest running back to ever carry a football. The second – and some would argue this should be the first – was that Johnny Unitas was the greatest quarterback to ever throw a football. The author: Raymond Berry was Johnny U’s favorite target. | |
| This book covers the life, times, experiences and testimony of a man who developed himself from a boy in Texas to an NFL Hall of Fame pass receiver through hard work, focus and single minded determination. Unlike most autobiographers, Berry doesn’t claim he did it all by himself. He says (repeatedly) he had a few gifts, but mostly, it was luck and “God’s blessings” which got him where he got to in life. | |
| So, is this book any good? Is it realistic in it’s narration of football preparation / training and / or game depictions? Is it entertaining and / or interesting? And, finally, do I recommend this book? Yes to all of the above. | |
| Any good: The book is told as a first-person narrative . Duh – it’s an autobiography. Berry is kind of the philosophical polar opposite of Ayn Rand… He says: “Yeah, I worked hard. But I had a lot of things break my way. That’s why I ended up famous.” Berry ultimately attributes a good chunk of this “luck” to God’s graces. He devotes an entire chapter to his “born-again” faith. Having said that, the book is more about personal and moral character than it is about religious faith. I found both aspects of his story to be appealing. | |
| Realism, characters and historic depictions: Berry covers each step in his path to becoming a football player, pass catcher and (later) coach. He provides descriptions of high school, college and professional games. He frequently provides details which offer insight into why things happened (from his perspective) and not just “what” happened. I found a lot of interesting tidbits of information about his teammates, his opponents and his philosophy of playing sports (not just football). It is amazing to me that now, thanks to modern technology, we can actually see these players and their achievements in a way we were never able to view them before. If I had one negative comment about the book, it would be Berry almost NEVER has anything bad to say about anyone he actually names. If their name appears, it’s a compliment. If there’s no name, then it’s not. | |
| As for realism, the descriptions of the long term physical toll the sport has on the participants was strikingly honest. Berry even discusses the issue of “CTE” (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy). Berry puts it down to poor sportsmanship and poor coaching – both of which are tolerated by the League. Berry spends a few pages explaining that at one time, there were no face guards and nobody led with their heads on blocking or tackling. Berry feels the game can still be great even without the head trauma. That is, if the League really wanted to make the game safer for players, they could. Another observation I found resonance with was Berry’s opinion that we can’t / shouldn’t compare players from various eras because the game is so different now. His example is the time span for pass release in today’s game is almost twice (if not more) than it was in his player days. In addition to giving receivers time to get farther down field, it also gives quarterbacks more time to circuit through their options to find the open receiver. Berry feels the quarterbacks today are rarely as good as before because there is little to no expectation a quarterback will accurately read a defense between the huddle and the walk-up to the line of scrimmage. That’s why the QB needs the extra time during the play – to decide where to throw the ball to. | |
| Entertaining / interesting: I found the book more interesting than entertaining. I’m not sure why, but I didn’t get a sense of watching NFL Films (entertainment) from Berry’s writing. It was more a sense of being in a history class and watching the teacher draw arrows on battlefield maps kind of feeling. I don’t know if that was a matter of writing style or just an attitude of mine towards the things being described. From Berry’s stories of training all year-round, to practicing catching (to develop timing) with the quarterback after “official” training was over, to explaining why some coaches seem to do better than others… there were a host of ideas to be gleaned from this book. One particular “technique” struck me: Berry says he attributes his long career (and lack of serious injury) to “floating”. He would leave the ground, catch, tuck and then explode out of his landing. Berry says he feels too many receivers are injured because one or both of their feet are planted when they are first hit / tackled. He claims he was bounced around quite a bit, but he rarely had his ankles, knees or hips exposed to extreme flexing by not being locked to the ground by his cleats when initially hit in the act of catching. | |
| Final recommendation: Strong recommendation. IMHO this book is better than the “Johnny U.” biography I read / reviewed previously. Reading this book, it’s clear why many sports writer’s felt Berry changed both offensive football and the concept of being a wide receiver into what we think of in today’s game. The “Johnny U” book was more of the NFL Films type of book. I’ve enjoyed them both; just for different reasons. | |
| Disclaimer: I purchased this book at normal / full price (for a used book in “good” condition) through Amazon and no compensation has been provided to me by anyone for my opinions in this review. | |
| . | |
| Click here (17 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. | |
Where Did You Go In Texas?
Posted in Included Video, Quotes, Series (TV or Streaming) Review, Song Lyrics And Videos By Others, Videos, tagged Favorite Lines, Included Video, La Grange -- music video, Quotes, Texas, YouTube, ZZ Top on October 26, 2021| Leave a Comment »
La Grange |
|
| Favorite Line(s): | |
| Rumour spreadin’ ’round |
|
| In that Texas town | |
| About that shack outside La Grange | |
| And you know what I’m talkin’ about | |
| Just let me know | |
| If you wanna go | |
| . | |
| Click here (26 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. | |
Republican Governors Don’t Help
Posted in Politics, Quotes, tagged American Politics, Common Knowledge, Common Sense, COVID-19, Mississippi, Mythos, Neanderthal, Quotes, Republican Governors, Robert M. Pirsig, Texas, Wearing Masks on March 9, 2021| Leave a Comment »
| What keeps the world from reverting to the Neanderthal with each generation is the continuing, ongoing mythos… the huge body of common knowledge that unites our minds as cells are united in the body of man… | |
| — Robert M. Pirsig | |
| [I’m looking at you Texas and Mississippi… How many “extra” / more have to die before you tell your folks to wear masks? — kmab] | |
| . | |
| Click here (9 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. | |
-
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
- 328,420 hits
Kevin Barrett's Blog 
It’s Cheaper Than A Hotel And We’ll Be In Miami By Winter…
Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar, Best Director Oscar (Schlesinger), Best Picture Oscar, Brenda Vaccaro, Dustin Hoffman, Enrico “Ratso” Rizzo, Florida, General Comments, Hollywood, James Leo Herlihy, Joe Buck, Jon Voight, Low Moderate Movie Recommendation, Miami, Movie Reviews, New York City, Park Avenue, Rain Man, Rated "X", Reviews, Sylvia Miles, Texas, The American Dream on May 8, 2026| Leave a Comment »
Rate this:
Share this:
Read Full Post »