Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Wyoming’

Without A Witness, It Just Disappears

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 14, 2026| 3 Comments »

“Taking Chance” (2009) — movie review
Today’s review is for the military drama “Taking Chance”, directed by Ross Katz and starring Kevin Bacon as Lt. Col. Michael Strobl, a Marine officer who volunteers to escort the body of a fallen Marine, PFC Chance Phelps, back to his hometown in Wyoming;  Guy Boyd as the sergeant escorting his own brother, another family’s grief intersecting with Strobl’s journey;  Mike Colter as Master Gunnery Sergeant Demetry, instructs the escorts in proper etiquette for transport of remains;  Enver Gjokaj as Corporal Arenz (‘Sergeant’ in film’s dialogue) who was with Chance when he died, giving Strobl (and us) a brief, grounded account of the firefight;  Paige Turco as Stacey Strobl, LtC. Strobl’s wife; and John Bedford Lloyd as General Kruger, Strobl’s commanding officer who initially questions, then approves, Strobl’s decision to volunteer for the escort duty.
Background:  I’d never heard about this film when it first aired on HBO, so I didn’t catch it until much later (early last year) when YouTube started sending me clips.  This is my second viewing.  I was curious because of the subject matter — the military escort of a fallen soldier — and because I generally have liked performances by Kevin Bacon over the course of his long acting career.  As an HBO film, “Taking Chance” didn’t get a theatrical release, but it made a strong impression on critics and audiences, especially veterans and military families.  It was nominated for ten Primetime Emmy Awards and won six, including Best Actor for Bacon.  It’s not a war movie in the traditional sense (there are no battle scenes) but it’s one of the more powerful films I’ve seen about the cost of war.
Plot:  Lt. Col. Strobl, a desk-bound Marine officer, is haunted by casualty reports from Iraq.  When he sees that a young Marine from his home state has been killed, he volunteers to escort the body home.  The film follows Strobl’s journey from Dover Air Force Base to Wyoming, documenting every step of the military’s dignified transfer process.  At Dover, he’s briefed by the sergeant in charge of the procedures and walks through the meticulous care given to Chance’s remains and personal effects.  On the flights and layovers, he encounters airline workers, fellow travelers, and other service members (including a sergeant escorting his own brother) who show quiet respect for the fallen Marine.  Along the way, he meets a Korean War veteran, Charlie Fitts, who thanks him and connects the sacrifice of past and present generations.  When he reaches Chance’s hometown, he’s met by a Major from a local nearby posting and community members who line the streets to honor Chance.  He also speaks with the sergeant who was with Chance when he died, getting a brief, unvarnished account of the firefight.  The film is episodic (a series of moments rather than a traditional narrative), but each one adds to the cumulative emotional weight.  There’s no big twist or dramatic confrontation.  The power comes from the restraint, the ritual, and the way people respond to the presence of sacrifice.
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 respectful;  not many;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Taking Chance” is a quiet, dignified film that earns its emotion without pushing for it.  It’s not flashy, and it doesn’t try to make a political point.  It just shows what happens when a Marine dies and how the military, and the country, honors that sacrifice.  The film’s strength is in its simplicity and its attention to detail.  It doesn’t need to do more than show the journey.  That’s enough.
Acting:  Kevin Bacon carries the film.  He’s in almost every scene, and he plays Strobl with a mix of professionalism, guilt, and quiet reverence.  It’s a restrained performance (no big speeches, no breakdowns) but it’s deeply felt.  The supporting cast, even in small roles, add to the sense of authenticity:  the sergeant at Dover giving Strobl his instructions, the sergeant escorting his own brother, the major in Chance’s hometown, the sergeant who was with Chance when he died, and the airline and funeral personnel all feel like real people doing real jobs.  Tom Aldredge’s brief turn as Charlie Fitts is a standout moment, and Paige Turco and Brian Delate, as Strobl’s wife and commanding officer, give quiet, grounded support that rounds out Strobl’s world.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is clean and understated.  The film uses natural light and muted colors to reflect the somber tone.  There are no special effects to speak of, and that’s appropriate.  The focus is on the process:  the flag-draped casket, the salutes, the quiet moments of reflection.  The camera often lingers just long enough on hands, uniforms, and small gestures to let the meaning sink in (without dialogue / narration).  The film’s visual style matches its subject:  respectful, unadorned, and sincere.
Problems:  Not many.  If anything, the film’s biggest risk is that it might feel too slow or too quiet for some viewers.  There’s no traditional plot arc, and the emotional beats are subtle.  But that’s also the point.  The film isn’t trying to entertain.  It’s trying to bear witness.  Just like the escort…  Some viewers might wish for more background on Chance Phelps himself or more time with his family, but the film deliberately keeps the focus on Strobl’s experience and the broader ritual of military honor.  Depending on your expectations, that narrow focus may feel like a limitation or a strength.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s not a film you “enjoy” in the usual sense, but I found it very moving and worthwhile.  It made me think about the people behind the headlines and the quiet ways we honor service and sacrifice.  The accumulation of small, respectful gestures (from strangers at airports to local law enforcement and the hometown major) hits harder than any big speech could.  It’s a film that stays with you because what it has to say, it doesn’t have to say out loud.  It can simply show you…
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “Taking Chance” is a powerful, restrained film that honors the dignity of military service and the rituals of remembrance.  Kevin Bacon gives one of his best performances, and the ensemble of supporting roles (from the sergeants and officers to the civilians along the way) makes the journey feel real.  If you’re looking for a thoughtful, respectful portrayal of military sacrifice, without politics or melodrama, this is a MUST see.  It’s a reminder that sometimes the smallest gestures offer the most respect.
Final Thought:  I am a big lover of serendipity / “Chance“.  In this film, Bacon’s character is reviewing a list of soldiers “killed in action” (KIA) and sees the hometown of a deceased Private is the same as where he was from so he feels compelled to ask to escort the remains.  It turns out, the “hometown” is actually where Private (Chance) Phelps “formally” enlisted and not his actual hometown.  The military services normally return remains to your enlistment point, but his family has requested he be sent to his actual hometown for burial, which is in Wyoming and not in Colorado (Lt. Col. Strobl’s home state).  The irony, of course, is that none of this “experience” should have happened, because the “hometown” was the reason for the LtC to request the duty AND for his Commanding Officer to approve it.  Once again, pure “chance”…
.
Click here (14 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 »

The Price Of Life Is Blood

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 13, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Unforgiven” (1992) – movie review
Today’s review is for the (violent) Western:  “Unforgiven” (1992), starring Clint Eastwood as William Munny (a retired gunslinger turned hog farmer, widowed and haunted), Gene Hackman as Sheriff “Little Bill” Daggett (a brutal lawman with a fondness for carpentry), Morgan Freeman as Ned Logan (Munny’s old partner, coaxed into one last ride), Richard Harris as English Bob (a traveling gunslinger with a flair for self-mythology), Jaimz Woolvett as The Schofield Kid (a nearsighted braggart desperate to prove himself), Frances Fisher as Strawberry Alice (the brothel’s matron and moral center), and Anna Levine as Delilah Fitzgerald (the prostitute whose assault sets the story in motion).
Background:  This is my first time viewing this film – LONG after its Oscar sweep.  (LoL – 30 years plus.)  I’m not against Western’s or Eastwood, it’s just this film came out while I was transitioning to live in England and I just never got around to watching it back in the day.  After that, it just fell off of my radar.
Plot:  A prostitute is disfigured by a drunken cowboy in the town of Big Whiskey, Wyoming.  The local sheriff, Little Bill, refuses to punish the men beyond a few ponies as restitution.  Outraged, the women pool their money to offer a bounty for the cowboys’ death.  Enter William Munny — once a feared killer, now a widowed farmer struggling with pigs and parenthood.  He’s drawn back into violence by the promise of money and the goading of the Schofield Kid.  Munny recruits his old partner Ned, and together they ride toward a reckoning.  What follows is a slow, grim unraveling of myth, morality, and mortality.
So, is this movie any good?  The acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  stark and effective;  several (mostly philosophical);  yes.
Any Good:  Yes — “Unforgiven” is an interesting re-mythology of the typical American Western where the good guys are good and the bad-guys are bad.  It strips the Western of its romanticism and replaces it with regret, ambiguity, and consequence.  There are no heroes here — only men trying to survive their reputations.  The film challenges the viewer to reconsider what justice looks like when everyone is compromised.  The film won four Academy Awards, including: Best Picture, Best Director (Clint Eastwood), Best Supporting Actor (Gene Hackman), and Best Film Editing.
Acting:  Eastwood is restrained and haunted (typecast) — his Munny is a man who’s done terrible things and knows it. Hackman’s Little Bill is terrifying in his casual cruelty, especially when he’s smiling (typecast).  Freeman’s Ned adds warmth and conscience (typecast), though his fate is a reminder that good intentions don’t guarantee survival.  Harris’s English Bob is a walking contradiction — charming, cowardly, and ultimately pathetic.  Woolvett’s Kid is all bravado until the killing starts.  The supporting cast is solid, but this is Eastwood’s film — both in front of and behind the camera.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is muted — dust, dusk, and shadows.  The town of Big Whiskey feels like a place where hope goes to die (shades of “Man with no name“).  The violence is sudden and ugly, never stylized.  There are no flashy special effects — just atmosphere and tension.  The film’s visual is “Western”, but more dirty than scenic.
Problems:  Several.  The film expects us to root for Munny, even as he becomes the killer he once was.  It analyzes the myth of the noble gunslinger, but still ends with a blood-soaked climax that feels like catharsis for both Munny and for the viewer.
Did I Enjoy the Film:  Yes.  You root for Munny, even as you (sometimes) recoil (but expect) from what he does.  That’s the film’s genius — and its danger.  It’s not just a Western;  it’s trying to be a eulogy for the Western.  It doesn’t succeed…
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “Unforgiven” is worth viewing for anyone interested in the evolution of the Western myth, the psychology of violence, and the power of cinema to challenge its own typecasted stories of “classic” good-guys versus bad-guys.  This film is rated “R” for violence.
.
Click here (13 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 »

It Feels Like A Western Shakespeare

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 10, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Hostiles” (2017) — movie review
Today’s review is for the western / drama film:  “Hostiles” (2017) starring Christian Bale as Captain Joseph Blocker, Rosamund Pike as Rosalee Quaid (a traumatized widow), Wes Studi as Cheyenne Chief Yellow Hawk, and Rory Cochrane as Master Sergeant Thomas Metz (Blocker’s longtime friend and fellow soldier).
Background:  I like Bale, Pike and Studi, so I thought I’d pick up this film to check it out.  That was about 2021 (COVID era), and then I just never quite got around to watching it.  It’s been popping up on my “get around to watching list” lately, so now I have.  This is my first viewing of the film.  Like most kids of the late 50s and early 60s, I played a lot of cowboys and Indians.  I also loved viewing the movies and TV shows.  Then, around 1971, I read “Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee” and my whole perception of “America” changed…  Yes, I watched the “Spaghetti Westerns” / Clint Eastwood trilogy, but the shine of the “American Western” was gone.  It REALLY died with the satire of “Blazing Saddles” and it’s taken me a slow feed of Westerns over the decades to get my interest back in appreciating the genre as an “art form”.
This is a movie, set in 1892, about a battle-hardened U.S. Cavalry officer (Bale / Blocker) who is reluctantly carrying out orders to escort a dying Native American Chief (Studi / Chief Yellow Hawk) and his family back to their homeland in Montana.  Blocker, who has spent most of the last two decades fighting and killing Native Americans, refuses the assignment, but under threat of court martial and loss of his pension (he is set to retire), he accepts the detail.  The film emphasizes Blocker is a man of duty and he has killed because it was his job and not because he “enjoyed” it.  This is why he initially hates the Chief.  He feels the Chief and his tribes enjoyed butchering in the name of war.  In the end, Blocker realizes many of his side (and under his command) misinterpreted his actions and they (as he imagined the Indians) DID enjoy the slaughter.
The journey begins and along the way, Blocker’s party encounters Rosalee Quaid, whose entire family was slaughtered by Comanche raiders.  Blocker buries her dead and then gently prods her to join the group.  Quaid wants to die and be buried along side her family, but in the end chooses life.  As the group faces ambushes, internal tension, and moral conflicts, Blocker begins to see the humanity in the Chief (and his family) he once called enemy.  Likewise, Quaid finds that not all Indians are the same and some can be loving families, too.
So, is this movie any good?  How is the acting?  The action scenes?  Is it entertaining?  Did I like it?  In short:  yes;  very good;  okay to good;  so-so;  and, yes – very much!
Any good?  Well, it didn’t win any Oscars and it didn’t even get nominated for any, but I felt it was every bit as good as “Dances With Wolves“.  The actual filming is beautiful and the “roughness” of the journey is emphasized by the caked on dirt and muck the characters acquire on their face and clothes.  This is a “subtle” realism I (perhaps strangely) enjoy seeing in film.
How’s the acting?  Very good!  Again, all the characters – but Bale’s in particular – are “deep”.  Even the “bad-guys” look and act the part.  Possibly the sole exception are the Comanche warriors who are completely lacking in background development.  They’re simply presented as butchers / savages.
How’s the action?  Within reason, it’s actually pretty good, too.  The gun fights are “mostly” realistic for effects and for tactics.  And, where they are not realistic, they are “mostly” at least possible.  I could quibble, but it’s “just” a movie…
Is it entertaining?  Yes, but not in the traditional sense (except at the VERY end).  This is “Unforgiven” or “The Outlaw Josey Wales“, not “The Lone Ranger” or “Silverado“.  Although there is quite a bit of graphic violence, this movie is more about the character’s changing than the typical Western shoot-em up.  So, introspection over gunfights.  It needs to be added that if you substitute the towers of John Huston’s Arizona / New Mexico for the plains of Montana and Wyoming, you have an idea of the visual beauty of the vistas / landscapes captured in this film.
And did I like it?  Yes, very much.  Bale continues to impress me with his performances.  All, I can say is I’ve yet to see him in a comedy or funny role, so “intense” may be all he can do.  I also continue to like Pike’s acting even if it seemed a little “uneven” in this film.  The film says the group has enough provisions for a month, but it’s not at all clear how long the trip actually takes – it felt a LOT longer.  Pike’s character just seemed to me to get over her family’s slaughter a little to quickly.  Okay, a LOT too quickly.  But I still liked her performance.  The supporting cast (especially Studi and Cochrane) add depth and a surprising amount of realism and profound dignity.
Is the ending realistic?  Who cares!  It’s what I was rooting for and I’m happy it was in the film.  (Now, you’ll have to see the film to find out what I’m talking about…  LoL)
Problems?  I said I wasn’t going to quibble, so just one…  NO experienced military person is going to shoot / injure someone at 10 yards, shoot them again at twenty (-ish) yards and then put down his firearm to get a knife to walk out to the injured guy “just” to gut him.  He might still have his firearm, or if you’re sure you saw him drop it, he might have a second one which he pulled out while you turned your back to get the knife.  You approach with the knife (your firearm still in hand and ready to shoot).  IF both hands are empty, then you can holster your firearm and “gut” him.  There were a couple of other “details” like this, but again, I’m quibbling about Hollywood.
Final recommendation:  highly recommended!  If you’re into films that challenge their genre’s tropes and explore the emotional toll of being human – feeling hatred, loss, and (sometimes) eventual forgiveness, this is a very good film – and a great Western.  But, remember, it’s NOT a feel-good film.  It’s a feel-something about others / discover-something about yourself film.  It asks: “Can you learn to forgive?”  And, of course, given the violence and implied sexual assaults, this is not a movie for young children.
.
Click here (10 July) 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 »

#IncompetentDonald: On The Road To Ruin

Posted in History, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 14, 2018| Leave a Comment »

My mechanic told me “I couldn’t fix your brakes, so I made your horn louder.”
    —    Steven Wright
[Without any significant accomplishments (which the majority of Americans actually supported) during his first two years as President, #IncompetentDonald chose to use the mid-term elections campaign to spread hate and fear.  The results were a (not surprising) repudiation of the President where the number of Americans voting against Republicans increased from three million votes (Trump vs. Hilary popular vote loss count) to over six million (nationwide total – see image below) in the House and twelve million (nationwide total) in the Senate.  It is only the fact that Republicans outnumber Democrats in States with smaller populations which has allowed them to retain control of the Senate.  In the United States, each State gets two Senators irrespective of the State’s population.  The House, on the other hand, gets Districts assigned based on populations with a minimum of one.  Some of the States with smaller populations (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming) only have one Representative (called “at large”) with their “District” being the entire State.  The Senate is “inherently” less “democratic” for the nation by design.  Additionally, by only having one-third of its members up for re-election in any given election, it is also “inherently” more moderating (i.e. “conservative”) in representing the overall population of both the State and the nation.  (The Senate is the “brake” in this metaphor.)  Because the entire House of Representatives is up for re-election each election period, the House tends to reflect the political swings in the electorate more quickly and more radically – direction and degree – when the country is shouting “Stop” or “Speed-up”.  (The House is the “horn”.)

Image showing Democratic nationwide vote difference in 2018

Democratic nationwide vote difference in 2018
Of course, the comparison of vote totals above – numbers for President, House and Senate – are comparing apples to oranges to bananas.  And / but, they also do NOT take into account the significant gerrymandering done as of the 2010 census, which heavily tilted the House Districts in favor of the Republicans.  This makes the wins by the Democrats even MORE impressive!  It remains to be seen if those changes will remain when we go back into a Presidential turnout.  It also highlights the importance of Democrats working at the State level to regain control of as many State governorships and legislatures as possible heading into the next (2020) census and subsequent House redistricting.  The number of seats is controlled at the Federal level, but the actual redrawing of the Districts is done by the individual States.
This last part, the census and the redistricting is why it is vitally important for the electorate (the voters) to stay active during the run-up to 2020 (the census) and then immediately after through 2022, when the redistricting will normally occur.  In other words, you (voters seeking to make a progressive difference) can’t go to sleep between now and 2022 or the Republicans can continue and increase their relative positions through 2032.   By the way, the gerrymander is not (by any means) unique to the Republicans.  The Democrats have also used it to protect their seats.  The difference is the modern day use of computers to track voters and then specifically target the isolation of opposition voters to maximize their count while minimizing their effect.  For example, one State (Pennsylvania) had 51% of the vote (Democrats), but seated 5 out of 18 Districts (28% of the House seats) in 2012 because Republicans controlled the State legislature.  So, a word to the wise…  If you want to keep the house after 2020, stay awake and stay active!
Finally, for an excellent explanation of Gerrymandering, please read the linked article:  “This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see“, which appeared in the Washington Post a few years back.  I re-read it every year to remind myself of what is at stake.   —    kmab]
.
Click here (14 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 »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started