Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘WWII’

Hope You Are Well

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 3, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Strategic Air Command” (1955) — movie review
Today’s review is for the Cold War military drama “Strategic Air Command”, directed by Anthony Mann and starring James Stewart as Lt. Col. Robert “Dutch” Holland, the former WWII bomber pilot turned professional baseball player who is recalled to active duty;  June Allyson as Sally Holland, his loving but increasingly worried wife who struggles with the strain of military life;  Frank Lovejoy as Gen. Hawkes, the no‑nonsense commander who believes in Holland’s abilities and the mission of SAC;  and Harry Morgan as a fellow crewman who adds a touch of humanity and camaraderie to the flight scenes.  The film follows a successful major-league third baseman who is pulled back into the Air Force Reserve and into the emerging world of long‑range nuclear deterrence, forcing him and his wife to confront the personal cost of constant readiness, dangerous training flights, and the possibility of never coming home.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film.  I approached it knowing only that it starred James Stewart and that it was often described as a semi‑propagandistic collaboration between Hollywood and the U.S. Air Force during the early Cold War.  Stewart himself was a decorated bomber pilot in WWII, so his casting adds a layer of authenticity that few actors of the era could match.  The film was a box‑office success and received praise for its aerial photography, which was cutting‑edge for 1955.  Historically, the movie sits at an interesting intersection:  part recruitment film, part domestic drama, part technological showcase.  It reflects a moment when America was shifting from conventional warfare to nuclear deterrence, and the Strategic Air Command was being positioned as the backbone of national security.
Plot:  Dutch Holland is a star third baseman for the St. Louis Cardinals, enjoying a comfortable civilian life and a stable marriage when he is unexpectedly recalled to active duty in the Air Force Reserve.  He and Sally uproot their lives and move from base to base as Dutch is retrained to fly the massive B‑36 Peacemaker and later the sleek B‑47 Stratojet as part of SAC’s around‑the‑clock readiness posture.  The long flights, harsh schedules, and constant relocations put increasing strain on their relationship, even as Dutch becomes more committed to the mission and the men he serves with.  A serious in‑flight emergency forces Dutch to confront his own mortality and the toll his service is taking on Sally.  The film ultimately resolves with a compromise that tries to honor both his sense of duty and his responsibility to his family, reflecting the era’s belief that national security required sacrifice not just from service members, but from their spouses as well.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Pretty good;  solid;  excellent aerial photography;  a bit slow and preachy;  yes, mostly.
Any good?  Yes, this is a good film, though not a great one – even by the standards of its day.  It works best when it leans into authenticity:  the procedures, the aircraft, the sense of duty, the quiet professionalism of the crews and the commitment of the families.  The story is straightforward and a bit stiff, but there is a sincerity to the way it treats service and sacrifice that still comes through.  The domestic drama gives the film emotional grounding, even if it occasionally feels like it is there to underline the message rather than to complicate it.  IMHO, the movie is most interesting now as a time capsule of early Cold War anxieties and confidence, showing how America wanted to see its strategic forces and the people who manned them.
Acting:  James Stewart carries the film.  His performance as Dutch feels natural and lived‑in, and knowing his real‑life background as a bomber pilot makes his calm professionalism and occasional flashes of doubt feel even more believable.  June Allyson does a good job as Sally, even though the script mostly gives her variations on worry, frustration, and loyalty.  She manages to make the strain of repeated moves and long absences feel real.  Frank Lovejoy brings authority and a certain stern warmth to Gen. Hawkes, the kind of commander who is tough but not cartoonish.  Harry Morgan and the other supporting players add small touches of humor and humanity around the edges.  Overall, the acting is solid and very much of its time:  restrained, earnest, and focused on selling the seriousness of the mission.
Filming / FX:  This is where the movie really shines.  The aerial photography of the B‑36 and B‑47 is impressive, even by modern standards.  The film takes its time showing takeoffs, formations, cockpit procedures, and in‑flight refueling, and you can feel the size and weight of the aircraft.  VistaVision and Technicolor are used to full advantage, with bright skies, gleaming aluminum, and wide shots that make the bombers look both beautiful and intimidating.  The interiors feel reasonably authentic for the period, and the base locations give a sense of the scale of SAC’s operations.  There are no “effects” in the modern CGI sense, but the practical flying footage is the real star here, and it holds up remarkably well.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing is slow, particularly in the middle third, where the film repeats the cycle of flight, strain at home, and renewed commitment without adding much new information.  The domestic scenes sometimes feel like they exist mainly to reinforce the idea that sacrifice is necessary, rather than to explore the characters in depth.  The dialogue can be a bit stiff and speech‑like, especially when generals or doctors are explaining the importance of the mission.  The film also leans heavily toward a positive, almost promotional view of SAC, which may feel simplistic or one‑sided to modern viewers.  None of these issues make the movie bad, but they do keep it from being as emotionally rich or dramatically complex as it could have been.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes, mostly.  I enjoyed the historical context, the aircraft footage, Stewart’s performance, and was surprised by Allyson’s even better performance.  The movie has a calm, confident tone that fits its subject, and the flying sequences are genuinely engaging.  The domestic drama did not always land for me, but it did give the story some needed human stakes beyond the hardware.  It is not a film I would watch for thrills or surprises, but as a look at how the 1950s imagined and justified the new world of nuclear‑age air power, it is both interesting and, at times, moving.
Final Recommendation:  A moderate recommendation for the average viewer.  “Strategic Air Command” will be a stronger recommendation for fans of aviation history, James Stewart, or those who lived through the Cold War and the military films of that era.  The aerial photography alone makes it worth seeing at least once.  Allyson’s presence (more than Stewart’s) gives the story a powerful emotional center.  It is very much a product of its time, with all the strengths and limitations that implies, but that is also part of its value.  If you are interested in how Hollywood and the Air Force worked together to present the Strategic Air Command to the public, or if you simply enjoy well‑shot flying sequences wrapped around a sincere (if somewhat idealized) story about duty and family, this film is worth your time.
.
Click here (3 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 »

Won’t You Ring Dem Bells

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 12, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Bells of St. Mary’s” (1945) — movie review
Today’s review is for the classic drama “The Bells of St. Mary’s”, directed by Leo McCarey and starring Bing Crosby as Father O’Malley, the easygoing, quietly stubborn priest assigned to a struggling parochial school;  Ingrid Bergman as Sister Mary Benedict, the disciplined, idealistic nun whose faith in her students is matched only by her determination to keep the school alive;  Henry Travers as Horace P. Bogardus, the wealthy businessman whose plans for a new office building collide with the sisters’ hopes;  Joan Carroll as Patsy, a shy girl dealing with family troubles;  and William Gargan as Joe, Patsy’s father trying to rebuild his life.  With this ensemble, the film blends gentle humor, faith, and community spirit into a story about hope, charity, and the quiet battles fought in everyday life.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film, although I’ve heard about it for years because of Bing Crosby’s Oscar-winning role in “Going My Way” (1944), to which this is a sequel.  “The Bells of St. Mary’s” was released in 1945 and became a major box-office success.  It was the highest grossing film of the year.  It received eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Crosby), Best Actress (Bergman), Best Director, and Best Film Editing.  It didn’t win any Oscars, but its historical significance is clear:  it was one of the earliest mainstream films to portray Catholic clergy with warmth and humor, and it helped cement Crosby’s Father O’Malley as one of Hollywood’s most enduring characters.  The movie is also remembered for its gentle tone during the final months of World War II, offering audiences a sense of comfort and optimism.
Plot:  Father O’Malley arrives at St. Mary’s, a parochial school run by a group of nuns led by Sister Mary Benedict.  The school is in poor condition, and the sisters hope that a wealthy businessman, Horace Bogardus, will donate his new office building to them once he sees their good work.  O’Malley, more practical, thinks the school may need to close.  The two leaders clash (kindly, but firmly) over teaching methods, discipline, and the future of the school.  Meanwhile, the film follows several smaller stories:  Patsy, a young girl struggling with her parents’ separation;  a timid boy learning to stand up for himself;  and the sisters’ attempts to keep their community afloat.  As Christmas approaches, misunderstandings, illnesses, and personal sacrifices come to a head.  The film builds toward a bittersweet resolution involving Sister Mary Benedict’s health, the fate of the school, and the quiet grace of people doing their best for one another.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  simple and effective;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Bells of St. Mary’s” is a gentle, warm-hearted film that works because it doesn’t try to be more than it is.  It blends humor, faith, and small human moments into a story that feels sincere rather than sentimental.  The pacing is steady, the emotional beats land, and the film earns its reputation as one of the classic “comfort” movies of the 1940s.  It’s not flashy.  It’s quietly effective.
Acting:  Crosby is relaxed and believable as Father O’Malley — calm, patient, and quietly persuasive.  Bergman is excellent as Sister Mary Benedict, bringing dignity, strength, and warmth to a role that could easily have become one-note.  Their scenes together are the heart of the film.  Henry Travers adds charm as Bogardus, and the supporting cast (especially Joan Carroll as Patsy) gives the story emotional grounding.  Nobody overacts, and the performances feel natural for the era.
Filming / FX:  The film is straightforward visually — clean black-and-white cinematography, simple sets, and gentle lighting.  There are no special effects to speak of, but the look fits the tone:  warm, modest, and focused on the characters.  The school interiors feel lived-in, and the Christmas scenes have a quiet charm.  The editing is smooth, and the film’s simplicity works in its favor.
Problems:  A few.  The movie is long for such a small-scale story, and many scenes feel stretched out.  The tone can be overly sentimental, especially by modern standards.  The subplot involving Patsy’s family is touching but occasionally melodramatic.  And the film’s portrayal of discipline and education reflects its era — some viewers may find it quaint or old-fashioned.  None of these issues break the film, but they stood out on a first viewing.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s gentle, sincere, and quietly uplifting.  I appreciated the warmth of the performances, the small moments of humor, and the film’s belief in kindness and community.  It’s not a movie I would watch every year, but I found it comforting and surprisingly moving.  It’s the kind of film that leaves you feeling a little better than when you sat down to start watching it.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “The Bells of St. Mary’s” is historically significant for its Oscar nominations, its portrayal of clergy, and its place in mid-century American cinema.  It’s rated “Approved” under the old Production Code and is suitable for all audiences.  If you enjoy classic Hollywood dramas, gentle character stories, or films with a warm holiday spirit, this one is well worth your time.  It’s not a perfect film, but it’s a heartfelt and memorable one.
A Final Thought:  Most viewers will probably not notice but when they are saying the “Pledge of Allegiance“, they omit the phrase:  “One nation under God“.  This is because it wasn’t added until 1954 as a reaction to the “Cold War” fear of “Godless Communists”.  There was a surge in religious belief post WWII and Korea and some religious organizations (notably the Knight’s of Columbus) had begun adopting / including the phrase in their private (Catholic) schools.  The author (Francis Bellamy) of the original version of the “Pledge” did not include the “religious” phrase and was, in fact, a supporter of the separation of Church and State.
.
Click here (12 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 »

Whoever Saves One Life Saves The World Entire

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 3, 2026| 2 Comments »

“Schindler’s List” (1993) — movie review
Today’s second film review is for the historical drama “Schindler’s List”, directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler, the German businessman and opportunist who gradually transforms into a reluctant savior of more than a thousand Jewish workers;  Ben Kingsley as Itzhak Stern, the quiet, meticulous accountant whose moral clarity and steady courage help guide Schindler toward doing the right thing;  Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth, the brutal, unpredictable SS officer whose cruelty embodies the terror of the Nazi occupation;  Embeth Davidtz as Helen Hirsch, the Jewish housemaid living under Goeth’s constant threat;  and a large supporting cast portraying factory workers, families, soldiers, and survivors whose stories give the film its emotional weight.  The performances feel realistic and human, which is essential for a film dealing with events of this magnitude.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  There is no particular reason for the delay in my viewing what has uniformly been proclaimed as one of the greatest movies ever.  I just have a bias against modern movies being made in black and white and I am already familiar with the general information of the “Holocaust“.  I did approach this viewing with a mix of respect and hesitation.  Released in 1993, the film was a major critical and commercial success.  It received twelve Academy Award nominations and won seven, including Best Picture, Best Director (Spielberg), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score.  Historically, the film is significant because it brought mainstream attention to individual stories of survival during the Holocaust, and it helped cement Spielberg’s reputation as a director capable of handling deeply serious material.  The movie is based on Thomas Keneally’s novel “Schindler’s Ark,” which itself was based on real testimonies from survivors.
Plot:  The story begins with Oskar Schindler arriving in Kraków as a businessman looking to profit from the war.  He bribes officers, cultivates relationships, and uses Jewish labor (through Stern’s help) to run a profitable enamelware factory.  As Nazi policies escalate — ghettos, deportations, executions — Schindler witnesses increasing brutality, particularly under Amon Goeth’s command.  The liquidation of the Kraków ghetto becomes a turning point, as Schindler begins to see his workers as people rather than resources.  When the Plaszów labor camp is closed and its prisoners are to be sent to Auschwitz, Schindler compiles a list of workers he claims are essential to his new factory in Brünnlitz.  The list becomes a lifeline.  The film follows the workers’ transfer, the near-loss of the women to Auschwitz, and Schindler’s efforts to protect them until the war ends.  The story concludes with Schindler fleeing as a war criminal, the workers being liberated, and a modern-day epilogue showing survivors and descendants placing stones on Schindler’s grave.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  stark and powerful;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Schindler’s List” is one of the most powerful historical dramas ever made.  It’s long, heavy, and emotionally draining, but it earns every minute.  The film doesn’t sensationalize the Holocaust;  it presents events plainly, which makes them even more devastating.  The story works because it focuses on individuals:  their fear, their resilience, and their small moments of hope.  Even knowing the broad outline of the history, the film still feels immediate and personal.
Acting:  Neeson gives one of his best performances — confident, flawed, and gradually transformed by what he sees.  Kingsley is excellent as Stern, grounding the film with quiet strength.  Fiennes is terrifying as Goeth, playing him with a mix of charm, cruelty, and unpredictability that makes him one of the more memorable villains in film history.  Davidtz brings dignity and vulnerability to Helen Hirsch.  The supporting cast (factory workers, families, soldiers) all feel authentic, which adds to the film’s impact.  Nobody feels out of place or theatrical.
Filming / FX:  The black-and-white cinematography is striking and gives the film a documentary feel.  The choice to film this way makes the violence and suffering feel more real, not less.  The few moments of color (most famously the girl in the red coat) stand out without feeling gimmicky.  The camera work is steady and purposeful, and the production design recreates the period with painful accuracy.  John Williams’ score is haunting and memorable, but it never overwhelms the scenes.  There are no special effects to speak of — the film relies on realism, not spectacle.
Problems:  A few.  The film is long, and some scenes feel emotionally overwhelming to watch.  Schindler’s transformation, while powerful, can feel a bit compressed given the scale of the events around him.  Goeth’s character, while brilliantly acted, sometimes feels almost too monstrous — though that may be more a reflection of the reality than the film.  None of these issues break the movie, but they make it a film you have to be in the right frame of mind to watch.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  “Enjoy” is a complicated word for a film like this, but I found it deeply moving and worth the time.  The performances are excellent, the story is important, and the film making is top-tier.  It’s not a movie I would watch often, but it’s one I’m glad I’ve finally watched.  It’s a reminder of both the worst and the best of humanity.
Final Recommendation:  Very high to must see recommendation.  “Schindler’s List” is historically significant, emotionally powerful, and one of Spielberg’s greatest achievements.  It’s rated R for violence, language, and disturbing images, and it’s absolutely not for younger viewers.  But for adults interested in history, moral courage, or powerful storytelling, this is essential viewing.  It’s not an easy film to watch or contemplate.  It is an important one — and one that will certainly stay with you long after the credits roll and the lights come back on.
.
Click here (3 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 »

Refusing To Die

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 11, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Sisu” (2022) — movie review
Today’s review is for the brutal, mythic WWII action thriller:  “Sisu” (2022), starring Jorma Tommila as Aatami Korpi — a solitary Finnish prospector whose quiet excavation of gold is interrupted by a retreating Nazi death squad, Aksel Hennie plays Bruno Helldorf, the SS commander whose cruelty is matched only by his underestimation of Korpi, Jack Doolan and Onni Tommila appear as Wolf and Schütze, two Nazi subordinates who learn — too late — that their prey is not a man to be hunted, and Mimosa Willamo plays Aino, a captured Finnish woman whose resilience becomes a mirror to Korpi’s own.
Background:  I came to “Sisu” with the expectation of a ultra-violent WWII commando based war movie – via a YouTube “Short”.  Post viewing, but in preparation for this review, I found out it had won multiple awards at in Europe — including Best Picture, Best Actor (Tommila), Best Cinematography (Kjell Lagerroos), and Best Original Music (Juri Seppä and Tuomas Wäinölä).  It also won the Saturn Award for Best International Film.  But, from the “Short”, I didn’t expect a film that felt like “John Wick” (action-driven spectacle) by way of Tarkovsky (a slow, contemplative, philosophical style) — a blood-soaked fairy tale with the pacing of a western and the soul of a national myth.  “Sisu” supposedly doesn’t translate directly into English (or German), but it roughly means a kind of stoic, unyielding determination.  This film is a cinematic representation of that word — personified.
Plot:  Set in 1944, during the final days of WWII, the film opens with Aatami Korpi panning for gold in the remote Finnish wilderness.  He finds it — a motherlode — and begins his journey to cash it in.  But the land is crawling with Nazis conducting a scorched-earth retreat.  When they try to steal his gold and leave him for dead, Korpi reveals himself not as a miner, but as a former commando — a one-man death squad with nothing left to lose.  What follows is a series of escalating confrontations:  knives, land mines, tanks, and underwater breath-holding that borders on supernatural.  Korpi survives hangings, stabbings, shootings, and even a plane crash — all with grim silence and a dogged refusal to die.  The film builds toward a final showdown in a bombed-out town, where Korpi reclaims his gold and his dignity, leaving a trail of Nazi corpses in his wake.
So, is this movie any good?  The acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  visceral;  stunning;  a few;  yes — with a grin.
Any good?  Yes.  “Sisu” is a lean, mean, genre-bending war film that trades talk and narration for execution (and I DO mean “execution”).  It’s not a history lesson — it’s a myth.  The film’s structure is episodic, almost like chapters in a graphic novel or watching a Tarantino directed movie.  Each set piece escalates the stakes, and each survival feels (mostly) earned.  It’s NOT realistic — but it’s not trying to be.  It’s a cinematic embodiment of Finnish grit.
Acting:  Jorma Tommila is extraordinary.  His Aatami Korpi speaks maybe a dozen words in the entire film, but his performance is all physicality, presence, and haunted resolve.  He’s not just tough — he’s elemental.  Aksel Hennie plays Helldorf with sneering arrogance, and his unraveling is extremely satisfying to watch.  Jack Doolan and Onni Tommila (yes, Jorma’s real-life son) add texture to the Nazi ranks — cowardice, cruelty, and confusion.  Mimosa Willamo’s Aino is fierce and grounded, offering a counterpoint to Korpi’s mythic silence.  The cast is tight, and every performance serves the film’s tone.
Filming / FX:   The cinematography is stunning — wide shots of desolate tundra, close-ups of blood and grit, and a color palette that shifts from gold to ash.  The FX are practical and brutal:  exploding heads, impalements, and one underwater sequence that defies logic but not emotion.  The film’s violence is stylized but never cartoonish.  It’s extremely gory, yes — but it’s also (strangely, almost) beautiful.  The score works to add both tension and some melancholy.
Problems:  A few.  The film’s pacing is uneven — the first act is slow, the middle relentless, and the ending abrupt.  The lack of dialogue (by Korpi) may frustrate viewers looking for character development.  Some of Korpi’s survivals stretch credibility (and how!) — especially the underwater escape and the plane crash finale.  But these moments are part of the film’s mythic tone.  “Sisu” isn’t asking you to believe — it’s asking you to experience.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes!  “Sisu” is a film that knows exactly what it is:  a blood-soaked fable about endurance, revenge, and national identity.  It’s not subtle, but it is intense and intentful.  Watching Korpi drag himself across the tundra, gold in hand and dog at heel, is strangely moving.  It’s a film that made me laugh, wince, and cheer — often in the same scene.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation (with the qualification of being extremely violent).  “Sisu” is not a traditional war film — it’s a cinematic folk tale with bullets and landmines.  The cast is lean, the dialogue minimal, and the violence — operatic.  It won multiple awards at Sitges (European) and the Saturns (American Sci-Fi / horror), and while it didn’t receive any Academy Awards, it carved out a place in cult cinema.  If you’re looking for realism, look elsewhere.  But if you want to see what happens when a man becomes a legend — and a legend becomes a cinematic force — watch “Sisu.”  It’s golden.
.
Click here (11 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Seeing Too Clearly, Too Soon

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 20, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell”  (1955)  —  movie review
Today’s movie review is for the historical / biographical military courtroom drama:  “The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell”  (1955), starring Gary Cooper as Col. Billy Mitchell (a decorated World War I veteran and a passionate advocate for a strong, independent U.S. Air “Service”, predicting the future of air warfare), Charles Bickford as Maj. Gen. Jimmy Guthrie (based upon Maj. General Charles Pelot Summerall and Maj. General Robert Lee Howze – who represent the old guard of the military which believes air power is an unproven and unnecessary expense in a time of “lean” budgets), Ralph Bellamy as Congressman Frank R. Reid (Mitchell supporter and civilian defense attorney), Rod Steiger as Major Allen W. Gullion (special attorney brought in to help prosecute Mitchell), Elizabeth Montgomery as Mrs. Margaret Lansdowne (widow of Naval Aviation Officer, who testifies in Mitchell’s defense), Jack Lord as Lt. Cmdr. Zachary Lansdowne (Naval Officer who dies on USS Shenandoah and friend of Mitchell), Dayton Lummis as General Douglas MacArthur (one of the presiding judges at the trial).
Background:  I first saw this film as a child (pre-10).  As best I can recall, this is my third viewing of the film since then.  I have a fairly distinct memory of three main take-aways from this film:  1) that if you are an expert in your special field, it is possible to “reasonably” predict certain aspects of the future;  2) that some men will stand up and defend the country and their honestly held principles irrespective of the consequences;  and, 3) that Rod Steiger is one heck of an actor.  This was one of the first times I KNEW the actor was an actor in a role, but also that he was portraying the character brilliantly.
Plot:  The film opens with Billy Mitchell demonstrating the power of air attack by successfully sinking a former German battleship from the air, a feat that defies the skepticism of his superiors.  When his efforts to modernize the air service are continually rebuffed, he is demoted and exiled to a desk job in Texas.  After a series of ignored reports (by Mitchell) and bureaucratic stonewalling (by the War Department), there are a number of fatal accidents involving outdated aircraft and airships, which includes the death of his friend Zack Lansdowne, Mitchell gives a scathing interview to the press publicly accusing the War Department of “incompetence and criminal negligence.”  The result:  a court-martial for insubordination.
The trial becomes a battle of wills (and integrity) between Mitchell, who uses the platform to champion air power, and the military establishment, which seeks to silence him.  With Congressman Reid’s help, Mitchell’s defense shifts from a legal argument to a moral one, bringing in witnesses military and civilian pilots like Eddie Rickenbacker and Fiorello LaGuardia (future mayor of New York City) to prove his point.  Despite a passionate defense, Mitchell is found guilty of insubordination with subsequent loss of rank and suspended from the service.  The film concludes on a bittersweet note, with Mitchell’s conviction leading to a posthumous vindication of his ideas and a legacy that helped establish the U.S. Air Force as a separate branch of the military.
So, is the movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The realism / FX?  Problems?  Did I like the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  solid to very good / exceptional (Steiger);  surprisingly sharp;  yes, but minor;  and, yes I did like re-watching this film.
Any good:  IMHO – This is a dramatically compelling film.  It builds Mitchell’s case through dialogue, conviction, and historical weight.  The pacing is deliberate (may seem slow to some) and the stakes feel real (even 100 years after the actual trial).  The film is neither a court room or military “thriller” as much as it is (in context) a biographical tip of the hat to an outstanding officer who was willing to sacrifice his career for the defense of the nation.  The film follows the structure of a classic courtroom drama:  opening salvo, procedural maneuvering, witness testimony, and final summation.  What drives the film is the tension between an officer’s duty to his service and the dissent with policy he expresses which is driven by his conscience.  As stated repeatedly in the course of the film, Mitchell isn’t trying to escape punishment — he’s trying to force an acknowledgement that the very nature of warfare has changed and the “official” position will weaken the country’s defense in future war.  The courtroom becomes a proxy battlefield for the future of military doctrine.
Acting:  Gary Cooper plays Mitchell with “command” intensity / authority — not as a firebrand, but more a principled career soldier.  His performance is “to type” and reminiscent of a cross between “Sergeant York” and “Fountainhead“.  The supporting cast, including Charles Bickford and Rod Steiger, bring gravitas to their roles, especially in the courtroom scenes.  The film’s true acting powerhouse is Rod Steiger as Major Guillion, who brings a searing intensity to the courtroom scenes.  He is a truly menacing and formidable opponent / prosecutor against Mitchell.
Realism / FX:  The film sticks close to the historical record.  The core events are factual.  The courtroom scenes feel authentic, and the military bureaucracy is portrayed with maddening precision (in and out of court).  You can feel the weight of protocol pressing down on principle.  The aerial footage is minimal (and primitive), but the film isn’t about dogfights — it’s about doctrine, policy and funding.  The use of actual historical footage, particularly of the destroyer sinking, adds a layer of realism.  Given the cinematic technology of the era, the special effects are limited, but the film’s strength is in dialogue and drama, not visual effects.
Problems:  For me the plot’s primary “problem” comes from its historical simplification of defense budgetary processes in order to fit a two-hour film.  Basically, there is none.  Up until WWII, the US Government ALWAYS demobilized and then underfunded the military for political reasons that had nothing to do with defense of the nation.  This is mentioned, but simply glossed over.  Also, some viewers (as previously mentioned) may find the movie slow going leading up to actual court-martial.  I didn’t have this problem, but I recognize some might.  Neither of these are really “problems” in the normal sense of film continuity or outright factual errors.
Did I like the film?  Yes.  I have seen this film a couple of time since my initial viewing and it continues to hold up as well as my memory of it does.  (LoL)  Mitchell’s story isn’t triumphant in the conventional sense — he loses the trial, is stripped of rank, and dies before his vindication (Pearl Harbor and WWII).  The film honors his foresight and integrity.  It’s a reminder that being right isn’t always enough — and that sometimes, the system punishes truth before it accepts let alone embraces it.
Final recommendation:  Strong to Highly recommended.  This is a film for fans of historical drama, military ethics, and courtroom tension.  It’s also a film about about vision, sacrifice, and the lonely cost of being an individual with honor and a sense of duty who is ahead of your time.  As a piece of film-making from the mid-1950s, this film is a strong, if somewhat stolid, courtroom drama.  It’s not “12 Angry Men“, but it’s also not far from it.
Addendum:  On reviewing my alphabetical listing of reviews I note I have already reviewed this film back in 2019.  Not much change, but the original review is here…
Addendum 2:  (21 Aug 2025)  On further research, it turns out Col. Mitchell did not receive a Congressional Medal of Honor.  In fact, he received a “Congressional Gold Medal” (which I had never heard of before).  Apparently there was some mix-up between the title of the award and the actual award of record (in Congress).  The U.S. Force still lists Col. Mitchell as a recipient of the MoH, but Congressional records do not.
.
Click here (20 August) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Rosebud II

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 23, 2023| Leave a Comment »

“The Aviator”  (2004)   —   movie review
Today’s review is for the biographical drama “The Aviator” about a part of the life of billionaire Howard Hughes.  The movie stars:  Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes (wealthy film maker / aircraft enthusiast / businessman), Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn (movie star and one of Hughes many female friends), John C. Reilly as Noah Dietrich (Hughes’ business manager), Kate Beckinsale as Ava Gardner (movie star and one of Hughes female friends), Alec Baldwin as Juan Trippe (aviation business competitor / CEO of Pan-Am Airlines), and Alan Alda as Senator Ralph Owen Brewster (a U.S. Senator who has loyalty to Trippe).
Basic plot:  After a brief introductory shot of Hughes’ mother giving him a bath and teaching him to spell “quarantine”, we move to the adult life of Hughes as a film maker.  He wastes a lot of money to make a lot of money.  We then see him with an interest in aircraft.  Interested in aircraft, Hughes buys a controlling interest in Trans World Airlines (TWA).  Hughes promotes streamlining aircraft and sets an air speed record.  Then he sets the record for around the world flying.  During WWII, Hughes makes a greater fortune from government contracts.  One contract calls for a troop transport.  The War ends and Hughes is left with no interest in his giant plane.  Hughes crashes one of his test planes and is burned badly.  He becomes addicted to drugs to control the long-term accident pain.  Hughes suffers multiple sessions of progressively worsening Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).  Hughes becomes increasingly reclusive due to his OCD.  In order to force Hughes out of the airlines business, Juan Trippe gets a Senator to accuse Hughes of war profiteering and calls Hughes in for a public hearing.  Hughes testifies, but turns the table on the Senator and the bill to grant Trippe’s company (Pan-Am) a monopoly on international routes fails.  Hughes promises that if his troop transport doesn’t fly, he will leave the country.  Hughes flies the plane.  Hughes continues his descent into madness and repeats the word his mother was teaching him to spell.  The end.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The special effects?  Do I recommend this film?  In order:  Yes;  good to great;  so-so;  yes.
Any good:  As a period piece drama, this movie is very good.  As a movie watcher, I found the historical aspects of film making to be really interesting.  Even though Hughes’ life extended thirty years beyond this film – and well into my own – I had no reason to be interested in him and I wasn’t.  He was just another really wealthy guy who was also crazy.  I had no idea Hughes was important in so many different industries (film, aircraft, oil, and real estate).  As such, it was even more interesting to learn about Hughes’ impact on the U.S. as a country and as a society.
Acting:  Okay.  I get it now.  DiCaprio is a great actor.  I’ve seen him in a range of roles and he’s been great to superb in most of them.  So, I’m almost all in.  My early dislike of him from “Titanic” and “The Quick and the Dead” seems in error.  I still don’t like him as much as Matt Damon, but it’s getting pretty close.  In fact, at this point I’d say DiCaprio’s a much better actor than Damon, but I still like Damon’s movies more.  I enjoyed both Blanchett and Beckinsale in their respective roles.  I am a big fan of Hepburn’s and I thought Blanchett did a very good impression of her.  I don’t know enough about Gardner to say the same for Beckinsale;  but, I liked the performance and it made me more interested in seeing some of Gardner’s other films.  My only real memory of Gardner was as the mistress in “Seven Days In May“.  I can’t say I’ve ever seen Reilly in a role I’ve been interested in seeing.  I was surprised to see him in a serious role.  I thought his “thing” was dumb comedies.  He wasn’t bad.  I don’t know anything about Pan-Am or Trippe, but Baldwin was unconvincing in the role.  Baldwin came across as a sleazeball, but not as a corporate executive – let alone a CEO.  On the other hand, I liked Alda as the “on-the-take” Senator.  Horses for courses I guess.
Special effects:  There were quite a number of aircraft flying scenes.  Some were much better than others.  I thought the crash / injury scene was very good.  I thought the “Spruce Goose” flying scene was particularly poor.  The computer generation wasn’t right for me.  Considering all the build up to the big flight, I’d have thought they might have invested more money or talent into getting that scene to a hire standard than I saw.  Of course, the movie is almost twenty years old, now, and technology has gotten a lot better since then.  Maybe, I’m spoiled.
Final recommendation:  Strong to Very Highly.  I’m not sure why, but I really enjoyed this film.  I guess DiCaprio, Blanchett and Beckinsale just impressed me.  A bit like how I felt after watching “Inception“.  I don’t know enough about OCD, mental illness, or the particulars of Howard Hughes’ condition to comment on those issues raised by the film – but they were interesting.  In a way, I’m glad we were spared the last thirty years of his life when he had the full descent into his mental condition.
Final comment:  The beginning and ending repetition of “quarantine” was very reminiscent of the the “Rosebud” repetition in “Citizen Kane“.  I don’t know if it was meant to be a nod to that movie, but it sure felt like it to me.
.
Click here (23 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 »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started