Titanic | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Titanic’

20th Century Blues Are Getting Me Down

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alfred Bridges, Best Art Direction Oscar, Best Director Oscar (Lloyd), Best Picture Oscar, Boer War, Cavalcade (1933) — movie review, Clive Brook, Diana Wynyard, Edith Harris, Ellen Bridges, Fanny Bridges, Frank Lawton, Frank Lloyd, General Comments, Herbert Mundin, Hollywood, Irene Browne, Jane Marryot, Joe Marryot, Margaret Harris, Margaret Lindsay, Movie Reviews, Reviews, Robert Marryot, Strong Movie Recommendation, Titanic, Una O’Connor, Ursula Jeans, World War I on May 28, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Cavalcade” (1933) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical / family drama “Cavalcade”, directed by Frank Lloyd and starring Diana Wynyard as Jane Marryot, the upper‑middle‑class wife trying to hold her family together through wars, losses, and the changing world; Clive Brook as Robert Marryot, her steady, duty‑first husband; Una O’Connor as Ellen Bridges, the Marryots’ maid whose own family rises and falls alongside them; Herbert Mundin as Alfred Bridges, Ellen’s husband, whose drinking and bad luck catch up with him; Frank Lawton as Joe Marryot, the younger son who comes of age just in time for World War I; Ursula Jeans as Fanny Bridges, Ellen and Alfred’s daughter, who grows up to be a music‑hall performer; Irene Browne as Margaret Harris, Jane’s close friend and neighbor who weathers the same storms from a slightly different vantage point; and Margaret Lindsay as Edith Harris, Margaret’s daughter, who marries the Marryots’ older son and ties the families together even more tightly. The film follows both families from New Year’s Eve 1899 through the early 1930s.

Background: This was my first viewing of “Cavalcade”. I’d never heard about the film until I compiled my list of Best Picture Oscar winners. Released in 1933, the film won three Oscars: Best Picture, Best Director (Frank Lloyd), and Best Art Direction. Wynyard was also nominated for Best Actress. Historically, it’s one of the early “big sweep of history” films — the kind that jumps across decades and uses one family (or two in this film) to show how the world changed. It was a major Fox production at the time, but it hasn’t stayed in the public memory the way some other early winners have.

Plot: The story starts on New Year’s Eve 1899. Jane and Robert Marryot are celebrating the new century. Robert soon leaves to fight in the Boer War. Their maid Ellen and her husband Alfred are also affected, as Alfred enlists. When the men return, Robert is knighted and Alfred uses his wartime savings to buy a pub. Things look up for both families until Alfred’s drinking leads to his death. The Marryot boys grow up. Edward (the older son) marries Edith Harris, the daughter of Jane’s friend Margaret. He later becomes a soldier. Joe falls for Fanny Bridges, now a performer. The film moves through the big events of the era: Queen Victoria’s death, the Titanic sinking (which claims Edward), and then World War I. Joe and Fanny marry, but Joe is killed in the war. By the 1920s and early 1930s, Jane and Robert are older and looking back on everything they’ve lived through — the good, the bad, and the losses that never really go away. The movie ends on another New Year’s celebration, with the couple wondering what the future will bring.

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; stage‑like but fine; several; mostly yes.

Any good? Yes. “Cavalcade” is a good film for what it is: an early‑1930s attempt to show how regular families lived through major events. It’s not deep, but it’s sincere. The story jumps around a lot, but the emotional moments still land. It feels like a time capsule — not just of the years it covers, but of how people in 1933 thought about those years.

Acting: Wynyard is the standout. She plays Jane with dignity and quiet sadness. Brook is steady as Robert. O’Connor and Mundin give the Bridges family some warmth and humor, and their scenes help balance the Marryots’ more formal world. Lawton and Jeans are fine as the young couple. Browne and Lindsay add another layer as Margaret and Edith, showing a parallel family that shares the same shocks but from a slightly different social angle. The acting is theatrical by modern standards, but that’s normal for early sound films. It works well enough.

Filming / FX: The movie looks like a prestige production from its era: careful sets, controlled lighting, and mostly static camera work. The transitions between years use music and little “cavalcade” images. The Titanic moment is short but effective. The World War I scenes rely on smoke, trenches, and sound more than action. The art direction (which won the Oscar) is the strongest part — the sets feel lived‑in and help sell the passage of time.

Problems: Several. The movie jumps forward so often that some emotional beats feel rushed. The class commentary is uneven. Some speeches feel dated and preachy. The story leans on coincidence and melodrama. And the stage roots show — a lot of scenes feel like they were lifted straight from the play. None of this ruins the film, but it does make it feel older than some of its contemporaries. What DOES almost ruin the film is the terrible film footage and sound. The film is obviously old and in low resolution. It is in need of some serious restoration. Many of the songs lyrics are unrecognizable as English because the sound is so bad. Again, it needs lots of restoration. Fortunately, most of the dialogue is fine and understandable so I was able to follow the conversations when the actors are speaking.

Did I enjoy the film? Mostly yes. It’s interesting, sometimes moving, and worth seeing as an early Best Picture winner. The performances are sincere, and the film captures the emotional weight of the early 20th century in a simple, straightforward way. It’s not a movie I’d re‑watch often, but I’m glad I finally saw it.

Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation (with the caveat that you need to enjoy older films). “Cavalcade” is historically significant for its Oscars and for being one of the first big “family saga across decades” movies. It’s dated, but it’s well‑made for its time and has enough emotional weight to make it worth viewing. If you’re interested in early Hollywood or Oscar history, this one is worth your time.

.
Click here (28 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 »

Somebody Has To Take The Fall

Posted in General Comments, History, Leadership, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Captain Charles McVay, General Comments, Good to Strong Movie Recommendation, History, Jaws, Leadership, Lt. Adrian Marks, Movie Reviews, Nicolas Cage, Reviews, Thomas Jane, Titanic, Tom Sizemore, USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage (2016) — movie review on October 7, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage” (2016) — movie review
Today’s review is for the WWII naval disaster film “USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage” (2016), starring Nicolas Cage as Captain Charles McVay (the commanding officer of the doomed cruiser), Tom Sizemore as McWhorter (a seasoned crewman), Thomas Jane as Lt. Adrian Marks (the pilot who spots the survivors), and a supporting cast of earnest but uneven performances. The film attempts to dramatize the true story of the USS Indianapolis, which delivered components for the Hiroshima bomb and was subsequently sunk by a Japanese submarine — leading to one of the worst shark-infested survival ordeals in naval history.

Background: I’ve long been familiar with the tragedy of the Indianapolis — its top-secret mission, its sinking, and the horrific ordeal that followed. (Anyone who has seen the movie “Jaws” has heard the story.) I approached this film with a curiosity and caution. The tragic story is worthy of cinematic treatment, but it also demands restraint and respect in depiction. I never expect historical perfection, but I always hope for sincerity and historical fidelity – which was mostly delivered in this film.

Plot: The film opens with the ship’s covert delivery of atomic bomb components. After completing the mission, the Indianapolis is torpedoed and sinks rapidly. Roughly 900 men survive the initial attack, only to face dehydration, hallucinations, and shark attacks over the next four days. In terms of raw data: the crew numbered about 1,200; about 900 entered the water (survived the initial sinking); a little over 300 were eventually saved. The narrative interweaves scenes of bureaucratic delay, romantic subplots, and Cage’s portrayal of McVay as a man burdened by command and injustice. The film concludes with McVay’s court-martial, suicide and eventual exoneration.

So, how’s the movie? The acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I like / enjoy the film? Short answers: Mixed; earnest; uneven FX; several; yes.

Any good? Yes — if you’re willing to look past the technical shortcomings and focus on the emotional core. The film doesn’t always succeed in its execution, but it tries to honor the men who served and suffered. That effort matters to me as a veteran.

Acting: Nicolas Cage delivers a restrained performance, portraying McVay with quiet dignity. (I’m not a fan of Cage, so I was happy to see the restraint and dignity this role deserved.) Sizemore and Jane add credibility, and the supporting cast — while occasionally melodramatic — feels sincere. The romantic subplot is unnecessary, but it doesn’t derail the film. Cage’s best moments come when McVay confronts the weight of command and the injustice of being scapegoated.

Filming / FX: The CGI is inconsistent. Most of the ship sequences are clearly poorly done CGI. The sinking sequence lacks realism and feels more like a poorly done re-shoot of a smaller “Titanic“. However, the underwater shark filming and the Japanese submarine are serviceable adequate.

Problems: Several. The film tries to appeal to too many audiences by juggling too many tones — romance, action, courtroom drama, survival horror — and ends up fragmented. The film’s pacing is uneven because of this. The dialogue occasionally feels like it’s veering into cliché, but again, it’s probably just too many story-lines. For me, the poor CGI distracted from the visual enjoyment (immersion) of the film. Still, it feels like the film’s heart is in the right place.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes. Not because it’s absolutely historically accurate, but because it attempts to tell a story that matters. I didn’t walk away impressed by the filmmaking, but I did walk away reminded of the sacrifice, suffering, and injustice endured by the crew – and ultimately by their Captain. That’s worth something – quite a bit – to me.

Final Recommendation: Good to strong. “USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage” is not a great film (technically / cinematically), but it’s reasonably well acted and a sincere film. If you’re interested in naval history, survival ethics, or the legacy of wartime command, it’s worth watching. Just temper your expectations and focus on the miracle of some crew surviving and not the shame of the scapegoating.

.
Click here (7 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 »

One Great, One Enjoyable, One Terrible…

Posted in Faith Family and Friends, Movies, Work, tagged 2012 - Movie Review, Alec Baldwin, Avatar, Harvey Keitel, Highly Recommended Movie, Inception, Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Matt Damon, Monthy Python and the Holy Grail, Recommended Movie, Sore Throat, Star Knight - Movie Review, The Departed - Movie Review, The Quick and the Dead, Titanic, Virus, Woody Harrelson, Work on April 24, 2011| 1 Comment »

First off, Happy Easter to all. Christ is risen!!

I’ve been off work a few days this week with a viral infection in my throat which has made it very difficult to swallow (and sometimes breathe). The result is that I’ve had some time (between sleeping) to watch a few movies. Normally when I’m off work, I like to read, but I’ve found when I’m ill I can’t really concentrate enough to make reading enjoyable. Anyway, the three movies I’ve watched are: “2012” (a disaster epic from 2010), “The Departed” (an undercover cop movie from 2006), and “Star Knight” (a science fiction / history – “They’ve visited us” – movie from 1985).

The first movie, “2012” was a very enjoyable disaster epic with fairly spectacular special effects (and some banal ones as well). The acting is so-so, but the effects make the movie. The best acting in the movie is done by Woody Harrelson – who I normally don’t care for mainly for his choice of roles. In this movie, he is the predictor of the disaster, comes across as believably paranoid / crazy and is genuinely great in the role. I guess I like him as crazy but not dark. This was the third time I’ve seen this movie. The first was at the theater, where the big screen made the SFX look fantastic (particularly Los Angeles sliding into the Pacific and the destruction of Yellowstone). The second time I watched it was after the DVD came out and I watched it on my TV at home. To be honest, the movie did not carry over well from the big screen to the home viewing. I have a 48 inch hi-def screen, but a lot of the smaller SFX details did not come across when viewed from 8 to 10 feet away. In contrast, this third viewing was on my 32 inch flat-panel connected to my PC and viewed from about 2 to 3 feet away, and it was terrific. It didn’t make the movie better, but it made the viewing better. I’ve noticed a similar viewing effect when I’ve watched some other films – most notably, “Avatar“. So my recommendation is this is a very entertaining SFX disaster movie, but see it on as big a screen as you can and sit as close as you can. Recommended.

The second movie, “The Departed” is a police / mob undercover movie with a number of major young(-ish) movie stars including Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg and some oldie but goodies Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen and Alec Baldwin. The movie is set in Boston and the main conflict is between good mole (DiCaprio) in the mob and bad mole (Damon) in the police. The movie is very well done as characters, plot and pace go. I had some minor problems with the poor use of technology, but all in all it was a terrific movie. I can’t honestly say it’s appropriate for everyone to view as there is a considerable amount of foul language, so there are age and sensitivity issues for the viewing audience. Other than that, highly recommended! Oh, and a shout out to my daughter Rebecca for recommending this to me.

The third movie, “Star Knight” is an alien visits earth in the middle-ages movie. It was done in the mid 1980’s so there has to be some allowance for the SFX – which for that period are actually pretty good. The movie, however is terrible!! The best thing about this movie is it is only 91 minutes long, so you’re not wasting 92 minutes of your life. There are a few movies I will see just because the actors in the films are known quantities and are predictors of quality. The movie they are in may not be great, but almost without exception, their role is outstanding. Among these are actors like: Bogie, Hepburn, Tracy (from the oldies) and Nicholson, Streep and (my personal favorite) Duvall. There are some younger actors emerging though who I think will one day be in a similar category. I like Damon, Wahlberg and DiCaprio. Of these three, I must admit, Wahlberg seems to have the most limited range of characters. DiCaprio is the most recent addition to my list. I have seen very little of his work and did not enjoy him or the movies I saw him in early: “Titanic” and “The Quick and the Dead“. Anyway, last year I thoroughly enjoyed him in “Inception” and I think he was also exceptional in the movie just above (“The Departed“). Well, (that’s a long way to get to here), one of my other all-time favorite actors has been Harvey Keitel. Again, I have not always liked the movies he was in, but I always liked him. This movie is definitely the exception. He is bad and the movie is terrible. In fairness to Harvey, the movie, a Spanish film originally called: “El caballero del dragon (The Knight of the Dragon)“, was on sale for $4 and it had a pretty good DVD jacket and blurb on the back, but I bought it on the strength of his name. As stated previously, this was both a waste of time and money. I am hoping Keitel did this as bad camp, because it is almost – but not quite – so bad it is funny. There is a vague nod to “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” (I hope that is what it is) in one scene, but even as camp, the movie fails. I guess even the best actors will take any role just to stay active. Sorry Harvey… This is among the worst movies I have EVER seen. Frankly, I don’t even have another movie to compare it to because I’ve blotted them out of my memory, too.

.
Click here (24 April) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.