Wikipedia | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Wikipedia’

A Rather Convoluted Lack Of Justice

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Agnes Wickfield, Aunt Betsey Trotwood, Basil Rathbone, Best Picture Nomination, Charles Dickens, David Copperfield (1935) — movie review, Edna May Oliver, England, Frank Lawton, Freddie Bartholomew, General Comments, George Cukor, London, Madge Evans, Maureen O’Sullivan, MGM, Movie Reviews, Mr. Micawber, Mr. Murdstone, Reviews, Roland Young, Strong Movie Recommendation, The Great Depression, Uriah Heep, W. C. Fields, Wikipedia on June 10, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“David Copperfield” (1935) — movie review
[Apologies (in advance) to any post readers who may find this review excessively long / detailed. Although, the movie itself isn’t unusually long, the multiple story lines are each important to the plot and therefore make an adequate review long and convoluted, too. Because I’ve never read the novel, this review had to be “supplemented” by reading other reviews – and particularly Wikipedia (for novel and film). I did try to “incorporate” and not plagiarize. LoL. I’ll try to get back to shorter and more reader friendly reviews going forward.]

Today’s second review is for the classic film adaptation “David Copperfield”, directed by George Cukor and starring Freddie Bartholomew as young David, gentle, observant, and trying to survive a childhood full of loss and cruelty; Frank Lawton as the adult David, earnest and hopeful as he tries to build a life of his own; W. C. Fields as Mr. Micawber, the eternally optimistic debtor whose charm somehow outweighs his irresponsibility; Edna May Oliver as Aunt Betsey Trotwood, sharp‑tongued, fiercely protective, and the first adult to truly stand up for David; Basil Rathbone as Mr. Murdstone, the cold, domineering stepfather who tries to crush David’s spirit in his early years; Maureen O’Sullivan as Dora, the sweet but fragile young woman David marries; Madge Evans as Agnes Wickfield, David’s steady childhood friend and moral compass who quietly becomes the real partner of his adult life; and Roland Young as Uriah Heep, the oily, “’umble” clerk whose false modesty hides a calculating ambition. The film follows David from childhood hardship to adult self‑discovery, weaving together Charles Dickens’ humor, heartbreak, and social criticism.

Background: This is my first viewing of this film. I’ve never read the Dickens’ source novel nor seen any of the other versions. This film was a major production for its time and it received three Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Film Editing, and Best Assistant Director. It’s historically significant as one of the earliest large‑scale Dickens adaptations that tried to capture both the sweep of the novel and the emotional beats of the characters. It’s also remembered for W. C. Fields’ performance as Micawber, which many critics still consider one of the best Dickens character portrayals ever put on screen. The film came out during the Great Depression, and audiences responded strongly to its themes of perseverance, kindness, and the hope that life can get better if you keep going.

Plot: The story begins with David’s birth and early childhood, where he lives happily with his widowed mother until she marries Mr. Murdstone. Murdstone and his equally harsh sister quickly take over the household, imposing strict discipline and emotional cruelty. [Side note: in old England, a widow retained use of real property after a husband’s death, but she didn’t “own” it. If she remarried, the “ownership” of the property passed to the new husband. In this case, to the cruel and abusive Mr. Murdstone and not to the bloodline heir: David.] After David fights back, he’s sent away to a boarding school and later to work in a London bottling factory — a grim, lonely existence. Eventually he runs away to find his Aunt Betsey Trotwood, who takes him in and gives him a real home. From there, the film follows David into adulthood: his friendships with the ever‑optimistic Mr. Micawber and the loyal Traddles; his deepening bond with Agnes Wickfield, who quietly supports him through setbacks and bad choices; his infatuation and marriage to Dora, which turns out to be more fragile than he wants to admit; his growing awareness of Uriah Heep’s scheming; and his eventual discovery of love, purpose, and stability. The story builds toward the exposure of Heep’s fraud, the collapse of several illusions in David’s life, and his gradual realization of who he is and what (and who) he truly wants. It’s a long journey (both funny and sad), but always grounded in the idea that character is shaped by hardship and the people who help you through it.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; very good; classic MGM craftsmanship; a few; yes.

Any good? Yes. “David Copperfield” is a strong adaptation without the novel’s length. The pacing is steady, the emotional beats land, and the film balances humor and hardship in a way that feels more honest than sentimental. It’s not perfect — some sections feel rushed, others linger — but overall it’s a well‑crafted, engaging film that still works almost ninety years later. The story’s themes of resilience, kindness, and personal growth come through clearly.

Acting: Freddie Bartholomew is excellent as young David — expressive, vulnerable, and believable in every scene. Frank Lawton, as the adult David, is solid if a bit understated, but he carries the later sections well enough. W. C. Fields is the standout: his Micawber is warm, funny, and surprisingly restrained (for Fields), and he steals every scene he’s in. Edna May Oliver is terrific as Aunt Betsey — sharp, commanding, and unexpectedly tender. Basil Rathbone makes Murdstone genuinely intimidating, and Roland Young gives Uriah Heep the perfect mix of false humility and quiet menace. Maureen O’Sullivan’s Dora is sweet and appealing, which makes her limitations feel sad rather than annoying. Madge Evans brings a calm, steady presence to Agnes, and even though the film doesn’t give her much time. You still feel why she is the person David should have been leaning on all along. The supporting cast is large, but most of them make their characters feel distinct and memorable.

Filming / FX: This is classic 1930s MGM — polished sets, careful lighting, and a sense of scale that makes the world feel full and realistic. The black‑and‑white cinematography is clean and expressive, especially in the darker childhood scenes. The London sequences look convincingly grimy, and Aunt Betsey’s home feels warm and safe by contrast. There are no special effects to speak of, but the production design does most of the heavy lifting. The crowd scenes, the courtroom, and the various interiors all feel like part of a coherent world. The editing is smooth, and the film has that “studio prestige” look that MGM specialized in during the era.

Problems: A few. The film compresses a very long novel, so some characters and subplots feel rushed or simplified. The transitions between childhood and adulthood are abrupt. Dora’s story line, in particular, feels underdeveloped — she’s sweet, but the emotional impact of her arc is muted compared to the book. Agnes, while present and important, could have used more screen time to fully sell the shift from “friend” to “true partner” for viewers who don’t know the novel (like me – LoL). The tone occasionally swings too quickly between humor and tragedy. And, like many adaptations of its time, the film softens some of Dickens’ harsher social criticism. None of these issues ruin the movie, but they keep it from being a fully complete version of the novel.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s warm, engaging, and surprisingly moving. The performances (especially Fields, Oliver, and the two Davids) give the story real heart, and the film’s mix of humor and hardship feels true to Dickens. I appreciated the craftsmanship, the pacing, and the way the film captures the idea that life is shaped by the people who help you along the way. The Micawber scenes are genuinely fun, and the quieter moments with Agnes and Aunt Betsey give the film emotional weight. It’s not a movie I’d watch every year, but it’s one I’m glad I’ve finally seen.

Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation. “David Copperfield” is a well‑acted, historically significant adaptation of one of Dickens’ greatest novels. Its Best Picture nomination makes sense, and its influence on later Dickens films is clear. If you enjoy classic Hollywood, literary adaptations, or stories about resilience and personal growth, this one is well worth your time. It’s not perfect, but it’s heartfelt, memorable, crafted with care, and it does a respectable job of bringing David, Dora, Agnes, and the rest of Dickens’ world to the screen.

.
Click here (10 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.

Read Full Post »

Too Much Chlorine In The Pool – It Made My Eyes Sting

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Burt Lancaster, Frank Perry, General Comments, Hollywood, Janet Landgard, Janice Rule, Low to Skip-It Movie Recommendation, Marge Champion, Movie Reviews, Ned Merrill, Reviews, River of Lucinda, Shirley Abbott, Sydney Pollack, The Swimmer (1968) — movie review, Wikipedia on May 30, 2026| 6 Comments »

“The Swimmer” (1968) — movie review
Today’s review is for the psychological drama “The Swimmer”, directed by Frank Perry (with some uncredited work by Sydney Pollack) and starring Burt Lancaster as Ned Merrill — the fit, confident suburbanite who decides to “swim home” through his neighbors’ backyard pools; Janet Landgard as Julie, the young former babysitter of the Merrill family who tags along for part of the journey; Marge Champion as Shirley Abbott, one of Ned’s former mistresses; Janice Rule as an angry woman from his past; and various neighbors who shift from friendly, to confused, to irritated as Ned’s day gets stranger. The movie follows Ned as he tries to hold onto his mental image of his life. [Spoiler Alert: A life that is already long gone.]

Background: This was my first viewing of this film which was recommended by a high school friend a while back. I’d never heard of it and he described it as “that Burt Lancaster pool movie.” It didn’t get any Oscar nominations, but I gather (from Wikipedia) that it has picked up a cult-ish following over time. Historically, it seems to sit between old‑school Hollywood and the more personal, character‑driven films of the 1970s. Lancaster took a chance here, and it shows. The film was a box-office flop, but the film critics loved it and they said it was one of Lancaster’s best roles.

Plot: Ned Merrill shows up at a neighbor’s pool one morning, cheerful and full of energy. He’s told one of the neighbors has a new pool installed and he decides (with this additional pool) that he can get home by swimming across a chain of backyard pools he calls the “River of Lucinda,” (after his wife). At first, everyone seems happy to see him. As he moves from house to house, people bring up things Ned doesn’t want to talk about: money problems, social embarrassment, and issues with his family. Julie joins him briefly but leaves when his behavior gets odd (“creepy”) and he frightens her. A former mistress confronts him. A public pool crowd treats him badly. By the time he reaches his own house, it’s empty and locked. The final scene makes it clear Ned’s life isn’t what he’s been pretending (remembering / imagining) it is and hasn’t been for some time.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: No; (strangely) very good; modest; a multiple; no.

Any good?: No. This is a strange movie and it didn’t work for me. The shift (descent) from light to dark is steady / progressive, but increasingly less believable. It’s not a traditional story and it uses a lot of allegory to convey feelings. I rarely like films which do this, as I feel most of the time it’s lazy storytelling. In this case the film’s more of a slow reveal about a man who can’t face reality. The predictable ending lands, but I was left feeling: “Who cares?” because the film never gave me any reason to care about the main character.

Acting: Lancaster carries the film. He plays Ned as confident on the outside and slowly fracturing mentally underneath. Landgard started well as Julie, but quickly became (IMHO) less and less believable as both a character and as an actress. Champion and Rule both have strong scenes that (at least) push Ned’s story forward. The supporting cast does what’s needed and most everyone (with the exception of Landgard) felt like they might be real people.

Filming / FX: Shot mostly outdoors with natural light. It looks like a late‑1960s film: a little rough, but fine. The editing is sometimes abrupt, but it fits the tone. No real “effects,” just straightforward filming that supports the story. There are some vague / out of focus “memory” scenes which I feel were common effects back in the 60s and early 70s. Not quite “psychedelic” effects, but in that vein. LoL. They didn’t work then, and they don’t much work sixty years later.

Problems: A bunch. The pacing drags – particularly in the horse pen / jumping scene. The film didn’t start well… There is no explanation how Ned got to the “friend’s” home to start the film (as all Ned has on is swimming trunks) and he’s all the way across the county from his home. There is no explanation for his financial downfall, although there is a comment from a friend about getting him a job (with a pay cut). Many scenes feel a bit too symbolic. The tone shift from light and friendly to dark and isolated is never addressed. The ending is feels abrupt – not because it happens quickly, but because there is quite literally no explanation for any of the film. None of these individually “breaks” the movie, but the sum of them made me feel like the film simply collapsed of its own fatigue pretending to be about something.

Did I enjoy the film? No. It’s not a “fun” watch and it’s not even particularly interesting. Lancaster’s performance kept me engaged, but the movie ends up being “memorable” only because it makes so little attempt to make sense.

Final Recommendation: Low to skip-it recommendation. “The Swimmer” is unusual in films I’ve had recommended (or have seen). It’s reasonably well‑acted for its time period and might be worth seeing if you really like character‑driven stories. It seems an interesting piece of late‑1960s film making, but it’s not a MUST see for anyone (IMHO). Based on professional film critics reviews, it’s definitely worth a look if you are at all interested in Lancaster’s body of work.

.
Click here (30 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 »

There Are Dangers In Being Honest… Heartbreak

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Dr. Eloise Cavendish, Earl Grey Tea, Elizabeth Bennet, General Comments, Hallmark Movie, Jane Austen, Mallory Jansen, Moderate Movie Recommendation, Movie Reviews, Paging Mr. Darcy (2024) — movie review, Pride & Prejudice, Princeton University, Reviews, Sam Lee, Wikipedia, Will Kem on May 13, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Paging Mr. Darcy” (2024) — movie review
Today’s second film review is for the Hallmark romantic comedy “Paging Mr. Darcy”, starring Mallory Jansen as Dr. Eloise Cavendish, a serious Jane Austen scholar (a PhD) who is invited to be the keynote speaker at a conference and finds herself surrounded by Regency-era / Jane Austen cosplay enthusiasts; Will Kemp plays Sam Lee, the charming nephew of one of the conference organizers who has been hired to portray “Mr. Darcy” for the festival and who quickly becomes both an irritation and an unexpected ally; and a supporting cast of Austen‑obsessed attendees who provide varying degrees of humor, awkwardness, and earnest enthusiasm. The film is a light, modern riff on the opposites‑attract / Pride & Prejudice formula, wrapped in bonnets, waistcoats, and a very predictable but pleasant Hallmark structure.

Background: This is my first viewing of this film. I’ve seen boatloads of Hallmark movies (mostly around the holidays), but this one caught my eye because of the Austen angle and it’s free (with ads) on YouTube. Released in 2024, “Paging Mr. Darcy” is part of Hallmark’s ongoing attempt to broaden its seasonal offerings beyond Christmas romances. The film didn’t (and wouldn’t ever) win any serious cinematic awards (Hallmark films rarely do), but it did get some attention online for its Regency‑festival / P&P cosplay angle / setting and for leaning into Austen fandom without completely drowning in it. I went in with moderately low expectations and a cup of tea (Earl Grey, Hot) — which is probably the correct way to approach most Hallmark films anyway. LoL

Plot: Dr. Cavendish (Eloise), is a dedicated literature PhD. (with an emphasis in Jane Austen) scholar, who is invited to be the keynote guest speaker at a Jane Austen fan convention. She recognizes it won’t be an academic event but rather is a full‑blown cosplay festival complete with dance cards, swooning fans, and a hired “Mr. Darcy” who knows more about charming crowds than understanding Austen. She accepts the invitation because one of the organizers is on the hiring committee for a position she is seeking at Princeton University. Sparks fly (some irritated, some romantic) as Eloise tries to maintain her dignity while Sam (the man hired to play Mr. Darcy) tries to get her to loosen up and enjoy the convention. Misunderstandings ensue, feelings develop, (blah, blah, blah – it’s a Hallmark movie) and the film builds toward the inevitable dance, confession, and tidy resolution. Did I mention it’s Hallmark? You know the beats before the music starts.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes (for what it is); solid; simple and bright; a few; yes.

Any good? Yes — within the boundaries of the Hallmark formula. “Paging Mr. Darcy” is pleasant, lightly humorous, and earnest enough to work. It doesn’t try to reinvent Austen or the rom‑com genre; it just wants to give you a comfortable, predictable story with attractive leads and a few clever nods to Austen / Regency tropes. The film succeeds because it doesn’t overreach (at all). It knows exactly what it is and stays in its lane.

Acting: Mallory Jansen is quite good as “Eloise” — grounded, intelligent, and believable as someone who loves Austen for the ideas rather than the fantasy. Will Kemp brings charm and a bit of mischief to Sam, and the two have more than enough chemistry to carry the film. Kemp looks very familiar, but I really can’t place him from anything. At any rate, he clearly has a knack for playing men who are slightly better than they initially appear, and that works here. The supporting cast is fine, though most are playing types rather than characters: the overeager fans, the old friends who can narrate the main characters background(s), the oblivious younger sister with an awkward suitor. Nobody embarrasses themselves (in their roles), and a few scenes (particularly the garden practice dance sequence) shows genuine warmth.

Filming / FX: This is Hallmark, so the filming is clean, bright, and safe. The Regency festival setting gives the production team an excuse for costumes, outdoor tents, and candlelit dances. The cinematography is straightforward, and the editing keeps things moving. There are no special effects to speak of, and the film doesn’t need them. The visual tone matches the story: light, pleasant, and idealized.

Problems: A few (minor). The script leans heavily on misunderstandings that could be resolved with a single honest conversation (a common Hallmark issue). Some of the Austen references feel surface‑level, as if the writers skimmed a Wikipedia or Austen Quotes page rather than reading the novels. The “academic vs. actor” tension is fun (different) but occasionally forced. And, as always in the Hallmark genre, the film wraps up too neatly. None of these issues spoil the movie, and I knew what I was getting when I sat down with my popcorn (eh, tea).

Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s not profound; it’s charming. The leads are likable, the setting is fun, and the film doesn’t take itself seriously. I smiled more than once, and I appreciated that the story respected Eloise’s intelligence rather than turning her into a complete caricature of Elizabeth Bennet. It’s a pleasant, low‑stakes romance — exactly what Hallmark fans expect when we tune in for viewing.

Final Recommendation: Moderate recommendation (for the general public); Strong for us Hallmark fans. “Paging Mr. Darcy” is a light, enjoyable Hallmark romance with appealing leads and enough Austen flavor to keep things interesting. If you enjoy cozy, predictable rom‑coms or have a soft spot for Austen‑themed stories (like me), this one is worth your time. It’s not a must‑see, but it’s a pleasant way to spend 90-ish minutes — preferably with a mug of tea and genre level expectations.

.
Click here (13 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 »

Reverend Mother, I Have Sinned

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Austria, Baroness Schraeder, Captain Georg von Trapp, Christopher Plummer, Eleanor Parker, General Comments, Highly Recommended Movie, Italy, Julie Andrews, Max Detweiler, Movie Reviews, Nazi Party, Reverend Mother, Reviews, Richard Haydn, Robert Wise, Salzburg, Switzerland, The Sound Of Music (1965) — movie review, The Wizard of OZ, Wikipedia on May 9, 2026| 2 Comments »

“The Sound Of Music” (1965) — movie review
Today’s second film review is for the family musical “The Sound Of Music”, directed by Robert Wise and starring Julie Andrews as Maria, the cheerful and slightly chaotic postulant whose energy can’t be contained; Christopher Plummer as Captain Georg von Trapp, a widowed naval officer who runs his household like a ship; Eleanor Parker as the Baroness Schraeder, elegant and calculating in her own way; Richard Haydn as Max Detweiler, the opportunistic friend who always seems to land on his feet; and a full lineup of child actors playing the seven von Trapp children, each with their own personality and timing. The film follows Maria’s assignment to the von Trapp household, her growing bond with the children, her complicated feelings for the Captain, and the family’s eventual escape from Austria as the political situation darkens.

Background: I first saw this film as a kid, and like most people, I remembered the songs long before I remembered the story. Over the years, I’ve come back to it in pieces: usually on TV, usually around the holidays, and it’s one of those movies (like “The Wizard of Oz“) that seems to exist in the culture whether you watch it or not. It was a massive hit in 1965, won multiple Oscars, and cemented Julie Andrews as the go‑to performer for roles requiring warmth, clarity, and a voice that can cut through anything. The film is based on the stage musical, which was itself based on the real von Trapp family, though the movie takes plenty of liberties. The “escape” over the mountains is pure fiction and was in the play and movie only for dramatic effect. In real life, they boarded a train for Italy in the daytime with legal paperwork (according to Wikipedia, Captain von Trapp was born in Italy). Still, it’s one of the most recognizable musicals ever made, and it’s hard to imagine American pop culture without it.

Plot: Maria is a young woman in a Salzburg convent who can’t quite settle into the discipline of religious life. The Reverend Mother sends her to serve as governess to the seven von Trapp children, whose father runs the household with strict rules and a whistle. Maria brings music, play, and affection back into the home, and the children respond immediately. As Maria and the Captain grow closer, the Baroness sees the writing on the wall and quietly bows out. Meanwhile, Austria is being pulled into the Nazi orbit (absorbed into the “Greater” Germany), and the Captain’s refusal to cooperate puts the family in danger. The final act follows their successful attempt to flee the country, using a singing festival as cover. The movie ends with the family hiking over the mountains toward Switzerland.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; very good; excellent; a few; yes.

Any good? Yes. This is one of those films that works because it commits completely to what it is: a big, earnest musical with memorable songs and a straightforward emotional arc. There’s nothing complicated about it, and that’s part of the charm. The pacing is slower than modern audiences might expect, but the story moves with confidence, and the emotional beats land cleanly.

Acting: Julie Andrews carries the film with a mix of sincerity, humor, and a voice that never wavers. Christopher Plummer brings more edge than you’d expect for this kind of role, which helps keep the story from turning into syrup. The children are surprisingly consistent (no small feat when you have over a half dozen of them) and Eleanor Parker gives the Baroness just enough bite without turning her into a villain. Richard Haydn adds a light comic touch that never gets in the way.

Filming / FX: The location shooting in Austria gives the movie a sense of space and freshness that studio musicals often lack. The opening helicopter shot of Andrews on the hill is still impressive. The interiors are clean and simple, and the musical numbers are staged in a way that lets the performers do the work without a lot of tricks. The sound is clear, the colors are bright, and the whole thing feels carefully put together. The closing helicopter shot of the family escaping over the mountain if visually impressive until you notice the wind blowing the tall grass around them is from the helicopter downdraft and lessens as the helicopter pulls away. LoL.

Problems: The movie is long, and you feel it in the middle stretch. Some scenes linger past their natural endpoint, and a few of the songs repeat ideas the film has already made clear. The romance between Maria and the Captain develops early, and the political tension arrives late enough in the film that they feel almost like separate stories. None of this spoils the film, but it does make the last hour feel different from the first two.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes! It’s hard not to. The songs are familiar, the performances are warm, and the movie has a confidence that makes it easy to settle into. Even if you know every beat, it still works (for me anyway). It’s a film that understands exactly what it wants to be, and it delivers that without apology.

Final Recommendation: Highly recommended. “The Sound Of Music” is worth viewing if you enjoy musicals or want something that balances lighthearted family moments with a more serious final act. The performances are strong, the songs are timeless, and the film retains its reputation as a classic. It’s long, but it rewards the time you spend with it.

.
Click here (9 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 »

Mutiny Without Bogey Or A Ship

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Captain Luther Blakely, Commander Barney Greenwald, Commander Katherine Challee, Copilot, Critics Choice Awards, General Comments, Herman Wouk, Humphrey Bogart, Jake Lacy, Jason Clarke, Kiefer Sutherland, Lance Reddick, Lieutenant Commander Philip Queeg, Lieutenant Stephen Maryk, Monica Raymund, Movie Reviews, NAACP Image Awards, Pulitzer Prize, Reviews, Strong Movie Recommendation, The Caine Mutiny, The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (2023) — movie review, U.S. Navy, Wikipedia on December 13, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial” (2023) — movie review
Today’s review is for the legal drama “The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial” (2023), starring Kiefer Sutherland stars as Lieutenant Commander Philip Queeg, a naval officer whose authority is challenged under extraordinary circumstances; Jason Clarke plays Commander Barney Greenwald, the defense attorney whose sharp intellect and moral ambivalence anchor the proceedings; Jake Lacy portrays Lieutenant Stephen Maryk, the officer who relieved Queeg of command during a storm, while Monica Raymund appears as prosecutor Commander Katherine Challee, pressing the Navy’s case with precision. The ensemble is rounded out by Lance Reddick, in one of his final performances, as Captain Luther Blakely, presiding over the court with gravitas.

Background: Based on Herman Wouk’s stage play (itself adapted from his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel “The Caine Mutiny“), this 2023 film re-imagines the courtroom drama for modern audiences. The film received nominations at the Critics Choice Awards (Best Actor for Sutherland, Best Movie Made for Television) and at the NAACP Image Awards (Outstanding Actor for Lance Reddick).

Plot: Skipping all of the shipboard action of the original film, this film unfolds entirely within the confines of a military courtroom. Lieutenant Maryk is charged with mutiny after relieving Commander Queeg of duty during a typhoon, claiming Queeg’s erratic behavior endangered the ship. The trial pits duty against conscience, regulation against survival. As testimony reveals Queeg’s paranoia and Maryk’s desperate decision, the case becomes less about legality and more about the fragile line between leadership and collapse. The climax arrives not with a verdict alone, but with Greenwald’s searing moral reckoning — a reminder that justice and truth are not always aligned.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; surprisingly good ensemble; restrained and effective; minor limitations; yes.

Any Good? Yes. “The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial” is a masterclass in one-set, dialogue-driven tension. It strips away spectacle, relying instead on words, silences, and the weight of moral ambiguity. As Friedkin’s (the director) final film is deceptively simple — one room, one trial — yet it resonates with timeless questions of authority, loyalty, and conscience.

Acting: Kiefer Sutherland channels Humphrey Bogart and delivers a brittle, unnerving Queeg, his nervous tics and halting, raised voice / speech capturing a man unraveling under pressure. Jason Clarke is superb as Greenwald, balancing cynicism with reluctant empathy. Jake Lacy’s Maryk embodies quiet conviction, while Monica Raymund’s Challee is sharp and unyielding. Lance Reddick lends dignity and solemnity to the proceedings, his presence a poignant reminder of his passing. The ensemble’s chemistry ensures that every verbal / legal exchange feels weighted with consequence.

Filming / FX: The cinematography by Michael Grady emphasizes close-ups and confined framing, heightening the claustrophobia of the single set, courtroom. The testimony rhythm feels taut, while subtle camera shifts underscore shifts in power and perception during the trial. There are no flashy effects — the drama is entirely human — but the restraint is its strength. Because there are no ship-board scenes, there are also no opportunities for the poor (to modern standards) special effects I noted in the original version.

Problems: A few. The single-location setting may feel static to viewers accustomed to broader cinematic scope. Going into it, I didn’t realize this was going to be a one-stage set film. It didn’t really make it better or worse as a film – just different. The dialogue-heavy structure demands attention and patience, which some may find challenging. The poor FX of the original are avoided in this film by simple exclusion. Still, these are minor quibbles in a film that thrives on intensity rather than spectacle.

Did I Enjoy the Film? Yes. The film is compelling in its simplicity. Watching Queeg unravel, Maryk defend his desperate choice, and Greenwald deliver his final moral indictment is both unsettling and profound. It is not a film of action, but of ideas — and the ideas and our questions linger long after the credits. It this film “better” than the original. No, but neither is it “worse”. The original film is (IMHO) about military leadership and command. This version is about Queeg’s mental health and military law / justice. …Just a different emphasis.

Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation. “The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial” is recommended viewing for fans of courtroom drama, military history, or (film director) Friedkin’s legacy. It is historically significant as Friedkin’s final film, and it carries the weight of both artistic closure and thematic resonance. Rated PG-13 for language and thematic elements, it is a restrained but powerful meditation on authority and conscience. Watch it for Sutherland’s brittle command, Clarke’s moral reckoning, and Friedkin’s final, disciplined directorial vision. Note: The comment about Friedkin’s “final film” and “weight” are straight from the AI (Copilot) draft. I am too new to film / cinema to know about or appreciate the work(s) of most producers, directors, sound or cinematography folks. I’m only about 10% through the significant films of the last 97 years, and I frequently see these folks get mentioned in the AI and on Wikipedia articles when I do research, but I don’t have enough viewing personal experience (breadth or depth) to know if the assessments are accurate.

.
Click here (13 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 »

The Devil At The Top Of The Stairs

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Burke Dennings, Chris MacNeil, Columbo, Detective William Kinderman, Ellen Burstyn, Father Damien Karras, Father Lankester Merrin, General Comments, Georgetown, Jack MacGowran, Jason Miller, Kitty Winn, Lee J. Cobb, Linda Blair, Max von Sydow, Movie Reviews, Reviews, Sharon Spencer, The Exorcist (1973) – movie review, Very Highly to Must See Movie Recommendation, Washington D.C., Wikipedia on September 4, 2025| 2 Comments »

“The Exorcist” (1973) – movie review
Today’s review is for the supernatural horror landmark / classic: “The Exorcist” (1973), starring Ellen Burstyn as Chris MacNeil (a single mother and actress), Linda Blair as Regan (the possessed daughter), Max von Sydow as Father Lankester Merrin (elder priest with prior exorcism experience), Jason Miller as Father Damien Karras (Jesuit psychiatrist with his own faith issues), Lee J. Cobb as Detective William Kinderman (detective investigating Dennings suspicious death), Kitty Winn as Sharon Spencer (Chris’s assistant), and Jack MacGowran as Burke Dennings (volatile film director and ill-fated house-guest).

Background: I first saw “The Exorcist” sometime in the early 1970s during its initial release / run. This is the first movie I recall genuinely scaring me while watching it (and for some time afterwards). This was my first time re-watching it, although bits of the movie have been replayed in comedy skits and horror send-ups over the last 50 years. Watching it again now, with adult eyes and a better grasp of theology, psychology, and film technique, I realize: this movie isn’t just about horror — it’s about belief, guilt, and the limits of human understanding. It is still genuinely scary – although, I won’t be losing any sleep over it.

Plot: We open in Iraq, where Father Merrin uncovers ominous relics during an archaeological dig — foreshadowing a confrontation with an ancient evil. Shift to Georgetown, Washington D.C., where actress Chris MacNeil is filming a movie while living with her 12-year-old daughter, Regan. Chris hears strange noises in the attic, sees her daughter’s shaking bed, and then increasingly erratic / violent behavior from Regan escalates into full-blown supernatural chaos. Medical tests reveal nothing. After Regan violently assaults doctors and levitates, Chris turns to the Church. Enter Father Karras, a priest in his own crisis of faith, grieving his mother and doubting his vocation. After Fr. Karras gathers evidence of possession, the Church sanctions an exorcism, calling in Merrin – one of the few living priests who have conducted an exorcism. What follows is a harrowing battle of wills, faith, and endurance against the demonic entity that knows everyone’s deepest fears. The ending is tragic, redemptive, and ambiguous enough to keep religious believers and horror fans debating for decades.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? How about the filming / FX? Are there any problems? And, did I like the film? Short answers: Yes; very good; terrifying; a few; this is a CLASSIC movie – but it is not for the squeamish or weak at heart.

Any good? Yes. And not just “good for its day” — it’s a genre-defining masterwork in horror. The pacing is deliberate, the tension builds systematically – one step at a time, and the horror is as much psychological as much as it is visceral.

Acting: Burstyn is brilliant — her portrayal of maternal desperation is raw, grounded and “feels” real. Blair, at just 14, delivers a performance that’s still (after 50+ years) unsettling / terrifying. Even knowing the FX tricks behind them, the scary scenes can still make me sit up in my chair. Von Sydow brings gravitas and weariness to Merrin, while Miller’s Karras is the emotional core of the film: he is a man torn between the science of his training and faith, guilt and duty of his upbringing. Cobb adds a touch of “Columbo” as the detective who suspects something’s off but can’t quite name it.

Filming / FX: This is a horror film and the FX are powerful and shocking. The medical scene, during Regan’s diagnosis, was considered (by the audience) the most disturbing scene, but there are numerous scenes during the possession which are (IMHO) more emotional and frightening. There is a lengthy description of the lighting, staging and special effects on the Wikipedia page for the film.

Any bones to pick? Realism — 1, 2, and 3… Let’s start with the medical scene which bothered so many in the viewing audiences: cerebral angiography as horror? Effective, yes, realistic, yes, but also medically excessive. Next, the Church’s approval of an exorcism seems a bit fast-tracked, given how rare and bureaucratically complex such rites are. And finally, the physical toll on the priests — especially Merrin — feels under-explained. He arrives already frail, and the demon seems to know it. But we never learn why he was chosen (again) – except prior experience, or what happened in his previous exorcism – which supposedly nearly killed him.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes, though “enjoy” is definitely the wrong word. “The Exorcist” is disturbing, thought-provoking, and deeply atmospheric. Every scene – from bright desert sun to fog-shrouded Georgetown streets – all contribute to a sense of isolation and dread. You are alone and facing the unknown. This film is not just a horror film; it’s a exposition on suffering, faith, and the terror of the unknowable. And yes, it’s still scary.

Final recommendation: Very highly recommended to Must see — especially if you’re a fan of psychological horror genre, theological drama, or watching a cast of serious actors wrestle with forces beyond comprehension. Caution: There are multiple intensely visual scenes in this movie! It is not appropriate for children, young teens or for those with extreme religious beliefs.

.
Click here (4 September) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Not Enough

Posted in General Comments, Guitar, History, Movie Review, Movies, Music, Music and Concerts, Reviews, tagged Bea Palya, Cécile de France, Django -- movie review, Django Reinhardt, France, General Comments, Gypsy, History, Jazz, Jean Reinhardt, Johnny Montreuil, Joseph Reinhardt, Louise de Klerk, Low to Moderate Movie Recommendation, Low to Moderate movie review, Music, Naguine Reinhardt, Nazi Germany, Paris, Reda Kateb, Romani, Swing, Switzerland, Wikipedia, World War II, YouTube on May 20, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Today’s review is for the French drama “Django” (2017) about the World War II years in the life of Django Reinhardt (aka: Jean Reinhardt). Reinhardt was born in Belgium although the movie implies he spent most of this life (adult life anyway) in France. Reda Kateb plays Django Reinhardt, Cécile de France plays Louise de Klerk (a “sponsor” who tries to get Django from France to Switzerland), Bea Palya plays Naguine (Dgango’s wife), and Johnny Montreuil plays Joseph Reinhardt (Dgango’s younger brother and band member).

Background: I’ve been learning about (and how to play) guitar since January 2021. Three things all beginners are supposed to do are: identify a guitar player who’s music excites you; identify a style of music you want to play (which may or may not be the same as your “hero”); and, identify a style of guitar instrument you think looks cool and which you can dream about playing. Unfortunately (for me), I still don’t have any of these “must have’s”. In my efforts to find my “guitar hero”, I’ve watched a ton of YouTube videos and a handful of movies. Watching this film was effort in that vein…

Plot: The movie begins with some of Django’s extended family (Romani) being harassed and murdered. The scene jumps a few years and an adult Django is playing guitar in a dance bar in Nazi occupied Paris during WWII. Even though the jazz / swing style of music being played is considered “black – American” music, it is popular in Europe and in particular the French and the Germans.

The Nazis are rounding up “sub-humans” for forced labor and being “Gypsy” / Romani, Django is detained for examination / classification. Django is to be deported but his “sponsor” Madam de Klerk arranges for a Nazi officer to arrange a tour of Germany for Django’s band. Django refuses the tour and tries to flee France for Switzerland. Eventually, the French underground help him get out of France and into neutral Switzerland. The movie ends with Django conducting a performance in a church after being reunited with his family. The screen shifts to a photo montage of victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

Note: I recognize that being Gypsy and being Romani are not the same thing. The movie dialog does say this, but I didn’t feel it emphasized it, nor did it make any attempt to explain the difference between the two groups. I looked them up as background for this review.

So, is the movie any good? How’s the acting? How’s the music and guitar playing? And, did it help me on my personal journey to discover music?

Well, so-so; hard to tell; so-so to okay; and, not really.

Any good? I didn’t get much out of this film. It is a French film and the sub-titles are done very poorly. To start off, they are not in time to the speaking. A sub-title will flash on the screen and disappear and then the person will begin speaking (before you can read what they’re going to say). The test font size is small, so it’s difficult to read even if you can catch it with a pause. And, finally, the sub-titles are moving around the screen, so depending on where the speaker is positioned, the text moves – left, right, center, and randomly depending on the turn of the speaker. Bottom line: I’m sure I missed a good chunk of the dialogue simply because my eyes were looking at the wrong part of the screen when someone was speaking – and by the time to move your eyes (to the far left in order to read left to right), a different person is speaking and the text has moved again…

Even if the sub-titles were satisfactory, I don’t think there was enough narration to explain what was happening. I think (maybe) Django is a semi-legendary musician in France / Europe and much of the background for the film is “just” culturally understood. I don’t really know because I’m not terribly familiar with music, French or European culture. Bottom line is the movie seemed long and rather tedious to me.

Acting? Same thing. I have no idea if the acting is considered to be good or not. I was not overly impressed. Just too big a culture gap.

Music and guitar? I’m not a fan of jazz music. I don’t have a sufficient listening background or understanding of it to know if what I was hearing was any good or not. It didn’t move me to want to pick up one of my guitars. When Django’s band switched to “swing” style, I did enjoy the music quite a bit more. I have listened to bits of swing over my lifetime and do have a minor appreciation for this style of music.

As for the guitar… Django was injured in a fire while a youth which forced him to play without the use of his ring and little finger of his fretboard hand (his left hand). After the injury, Django relearned to play with only his two functioning fingers (index and middle). The movie implies this meant he had to play more solo style “notes” / lead guitar. Indeed, Django is cited by many YouTube “instructors” as proof that physical difficulty is not insurmountable if you have the desire to play. Fortunately, the guitar is an incredibly flexible instrument which permits a player to play the “same” chord, but with a different (alternate) voicing. Was the guitar acting / playing interesting? Of course! Did I learn anything? Nope. Oh, well…

Final recommendation: low to moderate. As a historical interest film, the movie brings to light some of the persecution of the Romani peoples in Europe. Other than that, I didn’t find a great deal of much to attract me. Again, I’m not sure if I have a bias against “foreign” films or just French and Italian films. Would “fixing” the sub-titles have helped? I don’t know that for sure, either. I would not go so far to say it was a bad film. It just didn’t do anything for me – no insight to the musician or to the music. There is a limited amount of music and video of Django available on YouTube and there is a bio on Wikipedia if anyone is interested in exploring Django to greater depth.

.
Click here (20 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 »

The “Good Old Days” Were Democratic, Unionized And Taxed

Posted in Disclaimer, Economics, History, Other Blogs, Pictures, Politics, tagged #47:DonTheFelon, American Politics, Citizens United, Dark Money, Democrats vs Republicans, Disclaimer, Economics, Google Search, History, Marginal Income Tax Rates, Taxable Income, Unions, Wikipedia, World War II on April 11, 2025| 2 Comments »

We hear a lot of talk from #47:DonTheFelon and MAGA about the “Good Old Days” when the United States was the dominant power in the world. Most historians would say this dominance was the result of the rapid industrialization during World War II and the fact we were the only major economy to come out of the War with no physical damage to our nation’s manufacturing infrastructure.

I’m sure that was a major contributing factor…



But that’s “just” jobs…

IMHO the primary reason for the fond memories was because this was the era of maximum unionization (job and increased income opportunity) of the workforce AND the majority of the time both the House and the Senate were controlled by the Democrats. It was the Democrats which gave us Social Security, weekends off, a 40 hour work week, overtime pay for extra hours, employer paid-for retirement plans, etc – the list goes on… In 1954, almost 34% of the workforce was unionized (manufacturing and salaried employees). Unionization is currently less than 10% of all employees in the U.S.

The “good old days” were when Democratic politicians ran the country. When did we “start” to lose manufacturing? Late 70s, accelerating in the 80s through 2010. Are those “jobs” ever coming back. NO!! The plants “may” return, but they’ll be automated, use a significantly smaller number of staff and most of the staff will be highly educated staff who work on the automation – not on the product being manufactured.

Just imagine a time (pre-1964) when the marginal tax rate for income over $180K (roughly $750K in today’s money) was 91%. In 1964 the top marginal income tax rate was lowered to 70%. It currently sits at about 37%, but remember, that’s “taxable” income. Many ultra-wealthy don’t pay anywhere near that rate as they use tax laws (“loop-holes”) to reduce their “taxable” income. And, of course, many corporations pay NO income tax at all!!!

We must get “Citizens United” overturned and get “dark money” out of American politics. Now is our time to defend American Democracy from the Trump Administration and authoritarianism.

Disclaimer: I make no claim of ownership to the above chart which was found via a Google search. I believe it was generated by Wikipedia. The specific location is: File:Combined–Control of the U.S. House of Representatives – Control of the U.S. Senate.png – Wikimedia Commons

.
Click here (11 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.

Read Full Post »

Pick Box Number Three

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Quotes, Reviews, tagged A Midsummer Night's Dream, Al Pacino, Antisemitism, Antonio, Bassanio, Catholic Church, Drama, Jeremy Irons, Jessica, Joseph Fiennes, Justice, Love, Lynn Collins, Moderate To Strong Movie Recommendation, Movies, Olde English, Portia, Revenge, Romance, Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare, Shakespeare In Love, Shylock, The Merchant Of Venice -- movie review, Usury, Wikipedia, Zuleikha Robinson on March 19, 2025| 2 Comments »

Today’s review is for the 2004 period-piece “romance / drama” film: “The Merchant of Venice” staring Al Pacino as Shylock, Jeremy Irons as Antonio, Joseph Fiennes as Bassanio, Lynn Collins as Portia, and Zuleikha Robinson as Jessica. According to Wikipedia, the movie is the first “big-screen” adaptation of the play.

Background: This is (yet) another of my steps to experience / obtain a little English literature / culture. I have viewed multiple Shakespeare films (plays) and so far reviewed: “A Midsummer’s Night Dream“, “Romeo & Juliet” and “Shakespeare In Love“. The last being a fictional portrayal of Shakespeare’s actual writing of “Romeo & Juliet“ and not a “work” of Shakespeare.

Plot: This movie has two main themes: 1) antisemitism / revenge / justice, and 2) love. Young Bassanio seeks to marry Portia and borrows funds (from Shylock) to woo her. Shylock (a wealthy Jewish / merchant / lender) loans the money with a guarantee / contract from Antonio (the “true” merchant of Venice and Bassanio’s benefactor). Antonio is confident he will be able to pay the money back because he has multiple ships carrying goods from which he expects a tremendous return. The contract stipulates if there is a failure to pay, Shylock can request a “pound of flesh” from Antonio. The romance angle is Portia has multiple suitors and her father has devised a “three-box-test” for them to see which is the most deserving of her hand in marriage. There is a sub-romance of Shylock’s daughter (Jessica) falling in love and running off with a Christian (and stealing some of Shylock’s wealth). Blah, blah, blah… Bassanio wins the test, but it takes too long to settle / marry and by the time it’s all said and done, the contract has expired and Antonio has failed to pay back the funds. Antonio’s ships are presumed lost at sea. The contract goes to court because the “pound of flesh” Shylock wants is from Antonio’s heart. Blah, blah, blah, big trial – Shylock wins but is “denied” his prize via a legal loophole – he can take “flesh”, but not blood. Blah, blah, blah… Happily ever after.

Is the movie any good? The movie was critically well received, but a box-office failure earning back only 2/3rd of the production costs. Okay, but did I think it was “good”? I had a lot of problems with the movie’s unresolved antisemitism and Shylock’s forced conversion to Christianity, but this movie was the “best” of the plays / adaptations I’ve seen to date. Yes, I still had problems with the “Olde English” language and social references, but the dialogue / plot movie seemed to make sense and work (for me).

Is this a good romance / drama movie? Yes, for me anyway. Drama: the court scene was pretty well done and I enjoyed the dialogue. It wasn’t particularly “realistic” to have a female lead pretend to be a male, but I guess that’s a Shakespeare “thing”. Romance: I felt there was more “chemistry” between the two leads than in any of the other movies I’ve watched so far. I don’t know if that’s down to the actors or the writing being better. I guess I’ll have to see at least one other version before I can make that call.

As a period piece, this movie is well shot for atmosphere and costume. The camera was sharp without being harsh and the costumes were neither too grungy nor too elegant.

Is the movie entertaining? Again, I like this movie and I was entertained. Other than the English problem, my biggest negative is “personal”. It’s hard to “enjoy” and be “entertained” by a movie when you are concentrating and listing for famous lines (which may never materialize). Maybe I just missed them, but I didn’t find that many “well known” lines. The most memorable for me: “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” This is part of a Shylock soliloquy which had multiple phrases I recognized.

A plus was this film had an intro which served to set the table with a bit of narration / explanation / background. The opening scene shows Antonio spitting on Shylock’s face and a near social riot as the Jewish population is forced to live in a Venice ghetto and are hated because they charge interest on the loans they provide. Way back when, interest was considered “usury” and condemned by the Catholic Church.

Final recommendation: moderate to strong. If you want to “see” this play in a movie setting, this seems a good option. I don’t think of this play as “top tier” Shakespeare, but I found this movie version interesting, entertaining and worth watching. Again, it’s the best of the few works I’ve seen to date. Final note: I don’t know if it’s unique to this version or not, but I’ve always heard the joke about “you know it’s Shakespeare if everybody dies at the end”, but not everyone dies at the end of this movie.

.
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 »

Another Turning Test

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alicia Vikander, Androids, Artificial Intelligence, Caleb Smith, David Krumholtz, Deepseek-R1, Deus Ex Machina, Domhnall Gleeson, Ex Machina -- movie review, God From Machine, Harry Potter franchise, Jason Bourne, Latin, Laura Croft, Marvel Comics, Moderate Movie Recommendation, Moon Knight, Mr. Universe, Nathan Bateman, Oscar Isaac, Reviews, Serenity, Star Wars franchise, Tomb Raider, Turing Test, Wikipedia, YouTube on February 22, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Today’s review is for the 2014 science fiction / suspense film: “Ex Machina” staring Domhnall Gleeson as Caleb Smith (a computer programmer), Alicia Vikander as Ava (the “female” android with artificial intelligence), and Oscar Isaac as Nathan Bateman (the ultra-wealthy CEO of a software development company).

Background: This is a film / DVD which I have owned for several years – I’m not sure how many – which has started to come up on my YouTube feed due (I think) to my recent interest in DeepSeek-R1 (artificial intelligence software). So, I decided to breakdown and actually watch the film.

Basically, Smith “wins” a company lottery and gets to spend a week with the CEO of the company he works for in the CEO’s super secluded home / estate. Smith is not sure what he’s supposed to be doing this week, but he hopes to pick the boss’s brain and, being a nerd, he wants to learn as much as possible about AI and the future direction of the company. Bateman (the CEO) is actually bringing Smith up to test an anatomically correct “female” android with artificial intelligence. Smith is to see if the android (Ava) can pass a modified “Turing Test“. The “Turing Test” is a test to determine if a human can ask some hidden responder a series of questions and thereby determine if the responses are coming from a human or a computer demonstrating artificial intelligence. Bateman tells Smith that Ava has already passed the “standard” Turing Test and what he (Bateman) wants to know is if the android can demonstrate emotional attachment and feminine interest in Smith. If yes, the android is “truly” conscious. Because Ava has already passed the basic Turning Test, the fact she is an android is not being tested by Smith so he is allowed to see her and “know” Ava is not human. Smith is only there to confirm if he believes the android demonstrates consciousness.

So, is this movie any good? Is it good science fiction? Are the special effects good? Is it entertaining? Yes, mostly, visually yes and yes.

Back in its initial release, the movie was generally well received by both movie critics and the general viewing audience. I don’t remember it coming out and I don’t remember any “buzz” about the film way back then (or since). I picked up the DVD in one of those $5 racks at some point and just set it aside for future viewing. I think I’d heard of Isaac before, but I wouldn’t swear to it. To be honest, I think I bought the DVD based on a case of mistaken identity. I thought Isaac was David Krumholtz, who plays the hacker “Mr. Universe” in the movie “Serenity” (2005). I liked that actor (Krumholtz) in that role so I figured: “What the heck. How much have I lost if it’s only a fiver?” Of course, Isaac is much better known now days for his roles in the Star Wars franchise, “Dune” and in the Marvel “Moon Knight” series. I saw Vikander in the last Jason Bourne movie (“Jason Bourne“, 2016) and the re-boot of “Tomb Raider” as Laura Croft. I don’t recall seeing Gleeson in anything before or after this film, but I gather he was one of the Wesley kids in one of the Harry Potter movies.

Is this a good Sci-Fi movie or a good AI movie? Mostly – just mostly – yes, on both counts. It was not clear to me how demonstrating female interests or emotional connections establishes “true” consciousness. But, whatever. It’s a plot device to explain the motivation of the characters in the movie. And, that’s pretty much how it goes for the rest of the movie… The film works as a series of plot devices (but not really as “good” science – fiction or fact – or as “good” artificial intelligence). In other words, it all works as long as you don’t spend too much time thinking about any of it.

Special effects: It won an Oscar for best visual effects. Considering the film is over 10 years old, the visuals are done well and still hold up. That is, when the android is in android form.

Is the movie entertaining? Yes. The entertainment value comes from a reasonable amount of cinematic tension built up during the majority of the film. My three issues with the film are: 1) the ending (the third act) felt rushed and raised the most problems for my sense of suspension of disbelief. This noticing your sense of suspension is what makes a great movie slip down to only a good movie. 2) Why do humanoid androids uniformly end up as female, subservient, and sex slaves? And, 3) There is a scene at the end of the film where Ava does a couple of android things (parts replacements) and then displays full frontal nudity. I don’t have a problem with nudity if it advances the plot of the movie. I felt this was more gratuitous (lingering) nudity than anything to do with the plot.

Final recommendation: moderate. I did enjoy watching this film even if it isn’t a “great” AI movie. SciFi movies are supposed to raise questions about (current or future) humanity or horror (or both). This film does the former via the exposition / dialogue, but that’s when the movie is actually the slowest pace. It does get around to horror – well, deaths anyway, but that’s when the “sense” mentioned above goes off the rails. The movie is rated “R”. Parents may not want children or younger teens to watch this film – particularly unsupervised.

Final comment: As for the film title… I believe it comes from the phrase “Deus ex machina”, which Wikipedia says is: “a plot device in storytelling where an unsolvable problem is abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence. It is used to resolve plot situations, surprise the audience, or bring a tale to a happy ending. The term comes from Latin and Greek, and it refers to a way of working out paradoxes or ambiguity.” The literal translation from Latin is: “God from machine.“

.
Click here (22 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 »

No Soy Yo

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Music and Concerts, Quotes, Reviews, tagged Alice Bloomfield, Beauty and the Beast, Cab Calloway, Charles Aidman, Daniel Valdez, Edward James Olmos, El Pachuco, George Shearer, Hamilton, Henry Reyna, John Anderson, Judge F.W. Charles, La La Land, Library of Congress, Marry Poppins, Paint Your Wagon, Poor to Moderate movie recommendation, South Pacific, Spanish, Swing Dancing, Tando, Target Audience, That's Entertainment, The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, The Wizard of OZ, Tyne Daly, United States National Film Registry, West Side Story, Wikipedia, Zoot Suit (1981) -- movie review on August 9, 2023| Leave a Comment »

“Zoot Suit” (1981) — movie review (my advance apologies: this is a long review)
Today’s review is for the musical / drama movie “Zoot Suit” starring Daniel Valdez as Henry Reyna (the main character / “gang leader”), Edward James Olmos as “El Pachuco” (Henry’s conscious and the film’s narrator), Charles Aidman as George Shearer (Henry’s Defense Attorney), Tyne Daly as Alice Bloomfield (civil rights activist / journalist), John Anderson as Judge F.W. Charles (the racist judge in the trial). This film is about the trial of some young Mexican gang members which roughly corresponds with some Mexican-American race riots in the Los Angeles area in the early 1940s. The film is an adaptation of a theatrical play of the same name which explored the event, trial and aftermath as a social / racial commentary.

Background: For many decades after the Mexican-American War, American’s of Mexican descent were the subject of open “racial” discrimination in the American Southwest – particularly in Southern California. A “zoot suit” is a men’s two-piece suit with high-waisted (typically to the lower ribs instead of at the waist), wide-legged, tight-cuffed, pleated trousers with button-suspenders and a belt (typically 2-3 inches below the top of the pants), and a long (typically knee-length) coat with wide lapels and wide padded shoulders. The suit was almost always worn with a long watch-chain (from waist to mid-calf and back to the pocket) together with a wide-brimmed fedora (“Tando” / hat). The look was a fashion fad carryover from the big band (Cab Calloway) era of the 1920s-30s and became widely adopted by many African-Americans and other minorities – particularly young Mexican-Americans in Southern California who had the nickname “pachuco” (which roughly translated to “young gangster“).

Basic plot: Shortly after the death of a “pachuco” at a dance, members of a rival gang are arrested and tried for the death. The film shows only four of the gang members, but their were actually closer to twenty (in real life). The film showcases the abusive treatment and the flagrant prejudice on display at the trial. All of the four are found guilty, but all are subsequently freed after appeal (lack of evidence and improper judicial procedures during the trial which prejudiced the jury towards a guilty verdict). The play ends with a number of actors listing how Reyna’s (the main character) life played out – 1) goes to war and wins a Congressional Medal of Honor; 2) commits another crime and goes back to prison for life; and, 3 ) gets married, has five children and lives a full life.

Within this story we are shown the “discussion” of societal circumstances, prejudice, a lack of work opportunities, and peer pressure intermix in the life of a young charismatic Mexican-American (Reyna), which is portrayed as a conflict between Reyna and his conscious (El Pachuco). Pachuco is extremely negative and claims this IS reality and Reyna’s only reality and certainty for the future.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? How’s the singing / dancing? And, is this movie worth seeing? In order: so-so; terrible; okay (with qualifications); and, it might be.

Any good: I first saw this movie during it’s theatrical run back in 1981. I was unimpressed then. I am still unimpressed. I seem to have a bias for musicals and I’m not sure how to describe it (the bias). Either I really like it, or I don’t. Like: “The Lion King“, “The Little Mermaid“, “Beauty And The Beast“, and “That’s Entertainment“. Unmoved: This movie, “Hamilton“, and “La La Land“. And then there are musicals where I only like one or a couple of songs, for example: “Marry Poppins“, “Paint Your Wagon“, “The Wizard of OZ” and “South Pacific“, but don’t think much of the overall film.

The idea of a movie about a play where audience members are part of the flashback scenes was just very off-putting to me. I felt like: make up your mind! Do a play and have the audience on stage or do a (musical) movie and don’t show the audience, just the actors when they’re in the flashback. It seemed as if the director was trying to create an artificial fourth wall and then break it and re-create it when it suited the story. Except I never felt it suited the story to reintegrate.

Acting: Plays which are filmed tend to suck. This movie follows the rule (it’s really more of a general observation). Plays are actually quite different from movies. An actor in a play (particularly and older play) can’t rely on being “mic’d” up and so they not only have to exaggerate their voice, they have to exaggerate their expressions to convey what’s happening to a live audience. The problem is: WE are NOT a live audience. As acting in a play, the acting was okay to good. As acting in a film – it was terrible!

Singing / dancing: As bad as I know this will sound – I DON’T speak Spanish and despite the music, the songs did nothing for me! If you are going to make a movie with Spanish songs – exclusively – then give me sub-titles, so I can understand what you are trying to convey. Music itself is expressive, but if there are accompanying lyrics, I want to know what’s being sung. Now, I know the cost of sub-titles “may” have been a problem back in 1981, but I don’t believe it was. (And I don’t think it’s too much to add closed captioning, now.) I think it was just laziness or inconsideration to your potential audience during production. …Or, maybe I just am not a part of the “target audience”.

Despite the above comment, the dancing was pretty typical (very good) staged dancing for a play or for a film. The style was “swing” so there was a lot of spins and gymnastics and there was a good mixture of wide-angle shots and close-ups to help us appreciate the spirit of the music and the artistry of the dancers. I was also struck by how much color there was in the dance numbers. It reminded me of a number of Indian musical films I’ve viewed over the last few years.

Worth seeing: I have very mixed feelings here as I did when I first saw this film forty years ago. As a Mexican-American, I felt a certain sense of pride in being depicted “at all” in a film. This film does illuminate some aspects of our culture and our desire to both exist in and stand out in American society / culture. As a minority, we still had (and have) much to offer this country (our home). On the other hand, I felt a bit like I (my culture) was being used as a cultural re-tread of “West Side Story“. And, yes, the film left “ME” with the feeling that “our” story was really more about the mistreatment of the working families than it was about the mistreatment of young gangsters. This is the problem of seeing “yourself” so infrequently represented in film. I want each story to convey a positive message; not a mixed or negative one. But, I guess that’s me being sensitive… …And, it’s not very close to reality where every sub-culture has its good and bad aspects.

Final recommendation: poor to moderate. [Wikipedia says:] “In 2019, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”.” As much as I would like to feel “biased” for a representative film, this film may be culturally representative, but it’s just not a very good film. I wanted to feel more sympathetic during the movie, but I just never got that far because the movie never gave me a reason to feel close to the gang members. Of course, I was emotionally outraged by the trial scenes and the blatant racism of the prosecutor / judge / court, but it (the racism) wasn’t “surprising”, or really, even “unusual” feeling. It was just (to me tragically) expected as this trial was also representative of America in the 1940s. Maybe, if you are fluent in Spanish, you’ll get more from this film than I did.

One additional comment: Back in 1981, before the internet allowed us to look these things up, I felt Olmos’ character was “El Diablo” (the devil / a demon) and not Henry Reyna’s conscious. I felt the same after this viewing.

.
Click here (9 August) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

A Reminder Of Pride And Responsibility

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged Canada, Code Of Ethics, Obligation Of An Engineer, Obligation Of The Order, Order Of The Engineer, Philosophy, Quotes, Ritual Of The Calling, Symbols, Wikipedia on February 15, 2022| Leave a Comment »

The Order of the Engineer is an association for graduate and professional engineers in the United States that emphasizes pride and responsibility in the engineering profession. It was inspired by the success of the Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer, a similar and much older Canadian ceremony, and is a common presence in American engineering schools.

Oath:
Before joining, members must take an oath to abide by a code of ethics called the “Obligation of an Engineer“:
I am an Engineer. In my profession, I take deep pride. To it, I owe solemn obligations.

As an engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance and respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession. I will always be conscious that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of the Earth’s precious wealth.

As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given, without reservation, for the public good. In the performance of duty, and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give my utmost.

…

During the ceremony, engineering graduates take the Obligation of the Order. After each member takes the obligation, they put their hand through a large representation of the Engineer’s Ring. A member of the Order of the Engineer then places a stainless steel ring, known as the Engineer’s Ring, onto the little finger of the graduate’s dominant hand. The ring is worn on the little finger so that it will drag across any surface on which the wearer writes, providing a constant reminder of the engineer’s oath.

Each inductee takes the obligation, signs a certificate of obligation and wears the ring as a symbol of their pride in the Order and their obligation to the profession, as well as the public. Often, friends and family join the new initiates to celebrate after the ceremony.

This information was found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer

.
Click here (15 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 »

Three Or Four Elements

Posted in Education, Guitar, Music, tagged Arts And Culture, Dynamics, Education, Google, Guitar, Harmony, Melody, Music, Rhythm, Wikipedia on October 7, 2021| Leave a Comment »

I have been learning to play guitar since January of this year. Although I’ve always liked music and songs, I’ve never given much thought to what music is. I mean, I’ve always considered it as “sound” (in a physics sense), but learning to “play” music (make sounds) has turned into a deep and enriching exercise in itself. Last night, I read someone’s definition of “music” as a combination of three things: rhythm, melody and harmony. I thought this was interesting, so, today I went on Google and Wikipedia to see what they had to say about it…

There seems to be a (little / minor) disagreement about what “makes” music. Most of what I read agrees with the three parts above, but I also found other sources which added a fourth: dynamics.

This is my simplistic understanding of each:
1) Rhythm: the beat and speed of the sound(s);
2) Melody: the grouping of the sounds (typically making it – the “music” – distinctively memorable) into start, order and ending;
3) Harmony: the mixing of sounds for effect (happy / sad, blending / discordant); and,
4) Dynamics: how loud or quietly / soft or hard something sounds.

I’m sure any readers who are “real” musicians will find my explanation / understanding of these elements of music simplistic, and I’m okay with that. LoL! I think it’s amusing (amazing) I’ve enjoyed music my whole life, but never thought about ANY of this. And, to be honest, I have large blind spots about most things under “arts and culture”. I know I don’t know about them, but I have no idea how much I don’t know about them. It’s fun starting to learn!

C’est la vie…

.
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 »

Learning Stages

Posted in Education, Faith Family and Friends, Family and Friends, Family History, Guitar, Guitar Stuff, Music, Philosophy, Quotes, Science and Learning, tagged Family, Learning Guitar, Learning Music, Learning Performance Skills, Music Lessons, Philosophy, Quotes, The Four Stages Of Learning, Wikipedia on August 19, 2021| Leave a Comment »

Over the weekend, I had another music / guitar lesson from my brother-in-law. He has a degree in music, plays saxophone professionally, and has been teaching music in public schools for over twenty years. Part of the lesson was to think about “*learning performance skills*“. Here is a modified version of his lesson (with supplemental info from Wikipedia)…

The four stages of learning skills are:
Unconscious incompetence (You don’t know that* you don’t know and you don’t know what you don’t know.*)
The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognize their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage. The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.

Conscious incompetence (You know that you don’t know something and recognize you don’t know it.)
Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, they recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.

Conscious competence (You know what you know, but you have to concentrate on it to do it well.)
The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.

Unconscious competence (You don’t have to think about what you know how to do in order to do it.)
The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become “second nature” and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.

.
Click here (19 August) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Escape From Planet Junkyard

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged "Snake" Plissken, Arcadia 234, Blade Runner, Caine 607, Colonel Mekum, IMDB, Jason Isaacs, Jason Scott Lee, Kurt Russell, Moderate Movie Recommendation, Movies, Predator, Science Fiction movies, Sergeant Todd 3465, Stargate, StarTrek, StarWars, West Point, Wikipedia on November 25, 2020| Leave a Comment »

“Soldier” — movie review
Today’s review is of the 1998 action movie, “Soldier“, starring Kurt Russell as “soldier” Sergeant Todd 3465. We know this because he has “Todd 3465” tattooed on his face. Whatever…

Okay. Todd is the product of the selective training of soldiers from “orphaned” youth (i.e. babies). The film progresses through their aging and training into dispassionate killer soldiers whose only sense of self is tied up in their profession of violence and following orders absolutely without question. Selected trainees who cannot make the grade are summarily executed, so only the “best” survive. Todd survives the training and multiple battles / wars to become a “seasoned” veteran.

Along comes the movie bad-guy in the form of West Point graduate Colonel Mekum (played by Jason Isaacs) who brings along a group of replacement soldiers which have been genetically altered to be superior to the previous batch who were “only” a selected, raised and trained batch (which is Todd’s group).

Mekum uses one of his new soldiers (Caine 607, played by Jason Scott Lee) to demonstrate the groups superiority and the new soldier defeats the old in three-on-one combat. Two are killed and the third (Todd) is presumed dead and all three bodies are disposed of as a “training accident”. Todd is dumped on a the garbage planet “Arcadia 234”. Apparently, in the future, we have such a shortage of resources on Earth we have to explore other worlds to survive, but we have such an abundance of energy that we can transport naval aircraft carriers to other planets to dispose of them (along with a host of other laughable items).

Todd wakes up and finds himself injured on this junkyard planet with a bunch of settlers whose re-settlement ship crashed on this planet. They’ve made due the best they can, but basically live like homeless folks somewhere in southern California – hot, dry with terrible sand storms. And, of course, they nurse him back to health…

Blah, blah, blah… Todd discovers his humanity and begins to make friends.

Now, the good Captain wants to give his men some combat experience, so he decides to land on a junk yard planet and kill anyone they may find there. (Because that’s how all good officers train their new soldiers.) Of course, the new guys stumble on Todd’s friends and Todd doesn’t take too kindly to his new family being slaughtered. So, he goes all Rambo (v5, not v1) on the new guys, but he doesn’t have to show any mercy (v1), so he just kills them all (definitely v5).

Blah, blah, blah… Lots of explosions, fights and killing goes on and Todd kills all of the new guys with the big final set piece / fight scene against – you guessed it – Caine 607 – the last remaining new soldier. Todd wins, gathers up the settlers and they commandeer the dead soldiers’ space ship and continue to the original settlement location, with everyone lives happily every after. Well, all except Mekum, who accidentally blows himself (and Arcadia 234) to smithereens.

So, is this movie any good? Does it work within any of its genres: Sci-Fi, action-hero, “Escape from New York / LA / Stargate / Arcadia 234”, family protecting killer soldier (I mean hero) versus genetically engineered killer soldiers? Did I enjoy it and / or find it entertaining? Well, despite the fact this movie was an absolute bomb at the box office, I would say: Yes. Sometimes. And, yes! Of course I enjoyed it. I mean seriously. Read through that list of genres, again. Talk about a pitch being in the batter’s wheelhouse!

Seriously. This is not a very good movie unless you are seeking a simple minded, summer-type, action movie with fights, explosions, special effects, and (“Oh, the humanity of it!“) one emotionally fulfilled killer wiping out a couple of dozen emotionally unfulfilled killers. Did I mention there are fights, explosions and special effects? In other words, you paid for “Snake” Plissken, so eat your popcorn ’cause you’re getting “Snake” Plissken. The movie doesn’t make ANY sense on so many levels, you just have to hit the switch and say: “Okay, blah, blah blah… How long until the next fight and explosion”. On that level, this is actually a pretty good movie and I found myself rooting for Todd and emotionally fulfilled (me, not Todd) when Mekum blows himself up. Evil fails spectacularly and good is triumphant!!

Final recommendation: moderate. This movie never tries to be anything it isn’t and is successful at being what it is: a pretty good pop-corn and soda / matinee / action-hero film. Put it this way, I’ve owned this DVD for over 10 years and this is only the third time I’ve viewed it. Good enough to keep on the shelf and watch again sometime, but not good enough to schedule another viewing in the immediate future. A final note: If you are a total film nerd, there are literally dozens of references to other movies (StarTrek, *StarWars, Predator, Blade Runner*) and many of Russell’s roles from other movies. Now that you’ve been told this, you HAVE to view the movie just to see if you can find them. You KNOW you do… Then go check out the Wikipedia and IMDb pages to see how close you got to their lists. Caution: it’ll cost you another viewing or two to confirm who is right.

.
Click here (25 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.