Bridges Beneath the Surface

“Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” (2023) – movie review
Today’s film review is for the “Aquaman” sequel “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” (2023), again starring Jason Momoa as Arthur Curry / Aquaman, the somewhat reluctant monarch of Atlantis.  Momoa’s Aquaman is joined once again by Patrick Wilson as Orm, the estranged brother whose uneasy alliance forms the film’s emotional spine.  Yahya Abdul-Mateen II reprises his role as Black Manta, the vengeful human adversary wielding a deadly ancient power.  Amber Heard appears in short scenes as Mera, while Nicole Kidman’s Atlanna provides maternal gravitas (also in brief scenes).  Directed by James Wan, the film closes out the DC Extended Universe with a neon-lit spectacle of brotherhood, vengeance, and reluctant kingship.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this sequel.  It is a film I have been waiting on, but “they” just never got around to dropping it to my price point.  They finally did – and here we are.  LoL.  Released in December 2023, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is the sequel to the 2018 box office hit “Aquaman” (review here).  Unlike its predecessor, which grossed over $1 billion worldwide, this installment struggled commercially and critically.  This film did not receive / deserve Academy Award nominations, nor did it achieve historic recognition, though it holds “some” significance as the closing chapter of a decade-long cinematic universe.
Plot:  Arthur Curry, now King of Atlantis, faces a new threat when Black Manta uncovers the cursed Black Trident, a weapon tied to an ancient evil.  Driven by vengeance for his father’s death, Manta unleashes ecological devastation across the globe.  To stop him, Aquaman must ally with his imprisoned brother Orm, forging a fragile bond between them.  Their uneasy hero’s quest takes them across oceanic kingdoms, hidden temples, and perilous battles, culminating in a confrontation that tests Arthur’s philosophy: “A true king builds bridges, not walls.”
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  mixed;  dazzling but uneven;  several;  yes — with caveats.
Any good?  Yes — but uneven.  The film delivers moments of charm and spectacle, yet suffers from narrative clutter.  As the final DCEU entry, it somehow feels less than a triumphant send-off.  Still, the brotherly dynamic between Arthur and Orm provides thematic depth, elevating the otherwise formulaic plot.
Acting:  Momoa leans fully into his charismatic, wisecracking persona, balancing humor with physical gravitas.  Wilson shines as Orm, offering nuance and reluctant vulnerability.   Abdul-Mateen II’s Black Manta is menacing, though undercut by thin characterization.  Kidman lends dignity, while  Heard’s reduced role leaves Mera sidelined.  Wilson’s, Kidman’s, and Heard’s features have aged since the original and all three have had to be softened with CGI in their close-ups.  This is most noticeable when flashbacks are used to “narrate” the story-line.  The ensemble works best when Momoa and Wilson share the screen, their chemistry grounding the film’s emotional core.
Filming / FX:  James Wan’s direction favors maximalist spectacle:  sprawling underwater battles, bioluminescent landscapes, and kinetic chase sequences.  One “problem” was the underwater battle “felt” reminiscent of the underwater battle in the “G.I. Joe” film series mixed with the melee scenes from the last two “Avengers” movies thrown in for good measure.  Kinda “been there, done that…”  The production design is imaginative, blending comic‑book flamboyance with mythic grandeur.  Yet the CGI is inconsistent — at times breathtaking, at others cartoonish and distracting.  Rupert Gregson-Williams’ score adds heroic resonance but lacks the memorable punch of some other DC entries and it’s own original sound(s).
Problems:  Several and (some) kind of significant.  The film is overstuffed with subplots, from ecological allegory to family drama, all diluting it’s narrative focus.  The “worst” example was the wandering across the “dangerous” island, which felt like it was directly lifted from the “King Kong” (2005) movie.  It was dumb in that film and it was no better here.  The second “big” issue is that the “Manta” villian is just not a worthy opponent – in power-suit or not.  So, of course the film resorts to “Ancient Magic” to beef up his strength.  (But, again, it just really doesn’t work logically, although it’s fine visually.)  There are CGI inconsistencies (camera focus softening and sharpness) which continue to undermine viewer immersion, but I found them much less distracting than in the original.  Go figure…  The sidelining of Mera weakens franchise continuity and I think there must have been some off-screen explanation of which I am unaware.  As the capstone of the DCEU, it delivers a “satisfying” sense of closure.  (IMHO)  That’s not as great a compliment as it might seem as most of the DCEU films have been entertaining (enough), but mostly mediocre films, (at best).  IMHO the exception was “The Dark Knight” trilogy, which I found to be entertaining and pretty good films, too.  (Okay, number three wasn’t that good a “film”…  LoL)
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes — cautiously.  The humor, brotherly banter, and occasional visual splendor make it very watchable.  Although lacking the more direct story-line of the original, I found I enjoyed this film more than the first.  Enjoyment depends on embracing Momoa’s charisma and the film’s visual excess while forgiving structural flaws.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate Recommendation.  The “Problems” section of this review makes the film sound worse than it was.  “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is not a bad film, but it is not a great one either.  It holds historic significance as the final DCEU installment, yet (IMHO) it lacks the resonance of a true finale.  Watch it for Momoa’s exuberance, Wilson’s reluctant allyship, and the thematic reminder that leadership is about building bridges — especially between competing brothers.
Final Note / Thought:  All five of the main family characters are aging out of these roles, so I believe the DCEU will need to reboot them with different actors if corporate powers want to move this franchise branch forward.
.
Click here (31 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 »

Best Wishes For 2026!

It seems the older I get, the more I wish for everyone to have the same two things every year:  friendship and good health…
Cheers to you, my blog readers!  Here are my “other” wishes for you for 2026:
May you always find three welcomes in life
In a garden during summer,
At a hearth during winter,
And in the hearts of friends throughout all your years.
—    A traditional Irish blessing
Please don’t “drive under the influence”…  Stay Alive.  Stay Healthy.
Please have a happy (and safe) New Year’s Eve!
.
Click here (31 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 »

Goldfish Man

“Aquaman” (2018) – movie review
Today’s review is for the DC superhero spectacle “Aquaman” (2018), starring Jason Momoa as Arthur Curry / Aquaman (a half-human, half-Atlantean reluctant hero torn between two worlds), Amber Heard as Mera (a fierce Atlantean princess and warrior who becomes Arthur’s ally, partner and romantic interest), Patrick Wilson as Orm / Ocean Master (Arthur’s ambitious half-brother seeking dominion over land and sea), Willem Dafoe as Vulko (Arthur’s mentor and royal counselor), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Manta (a vengeful mercenary whose hatred fuels much of the surface-based conflict), Nicole Kidman as Atlanna (Arthur’s mother and exiled queen of Atlantis), and Dolph Lundgren as King Nereus (a ruler caught in the tides of political alliance and Mera’s father).  Directed by James Wan, the film creates a mythic underwater world of kingdoms, creatures, and battles that blend comic-book grandeur with blockbuster spectacle.
Background:  This film was one of the last films I saw at a theater before I stopped going to them.  I didn’t think much of it at the time and only retained the barest memory of the film:  a visually interesting, but mostly dumb comic-book action movie.  I discussed it with my younger daughter who felt it was so dumb it bordered on insulting.  She said if she hadn’t been with friends, she would have left the theater mid-movie.  Released in December 2018, “Aquaman” was the sixth installment in the DC Extended Universe (DCEU).  With a budget estimated between $160–200 million, it grossed over $1.15 billion worldwide, making it the highest-grossing DCEU film at that time.  While it did not win any Academy Awards, it received multiple Saturn Award nominations (including Best Comic-to-Film Motion Picture, Best Director for James Wan, and Best Supporting Actress for Amber Heard) and earned recognition for its visual effects and production design.  Historically, it stands as the first DC film to cross the billion-dollar mark, cementing its place as a commercial milestone in superhero cinema.
Plot:  Arthur Curry, raised on land but heir to Atlantis, is drawn into a conflict when his younger half-brother Orm seeks to unite the underwater kingdoms against the surface world.  Guided by Vulko and aided by Mera, Arthur must retrieve the legendary Trident of Atlan to prove his worth as king.  Along the way, he confronts Black Manta’s vendetta, navigates Atlantean politics, and embraces his destiny as protector of both land and sea.  The narrative blends a mythic hero quest, a family drama (almost a soap-opera), and environmental allegory, culminating in a climactic battle for Atlantis and Arthur’s acceptance of his dual heritage.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  charismatic but uneven;  spectacular and immersive;  tonal shifts and overstuffed plot;  yes — with caveats.
Any good?  Yes.  “Aquaman” is a vibrant, over-the-top superhero adventure that succeeds as a visual spectacle and mythic origin story.  It’s not subtle, but it delivers energy, humor, and scale that distinguish it from somewhat darker DCEU entries like “The Dark Knight / Batman” franchise and the Snyder Justice League.
Acting:  Jason Momoa embodies Aquaman with swagger and humor, turning Arthur into a likable rogue-turned-hero.  Amber Heard brings strength and elegance as Mera, though their chemistry occasionally feels pretty forced.  Patrick Wilson’s Orm is operatic in ambition, while Yahya Abdul-Mateen II’s Black Manta adds surface / land-based menace.  Nicole Kidman lends gravitas to Atlanna, and Willem Dafoe provides steady mentorship.  The ensemble is strong, but Momoa’s charisma clearly dominates.
Filming / FX:  James Wan’s direction embraces spectacle:  neon-lit Atlantis, colossal sea creatures, and kinetic underwater battles.  Don Burgess’s cinematography and Rupert Gregson-Williams’s score amplify the grandeur.  The visual effects, particularly the rendering of Atlantis and its creatures, are immersive and imaginative, though occasionally overwhelming (unrealistic)  in their excess.  The film shifts between extremely sharp focus and extremely air-brushed – which I found to be frequently more distracting than appropriate / helpful.  While the CGI is visually entertaining, almost none of it makes ANY sense and the viewer really has to set logic aside and just say:  “Okay. It’s a comic-book movie…“
Problems:  The film suffers from tonal inconsistency — flipping between campy humor and epic gravitas.  Like most “super-hero” / comic movies (and comic books, too) the film can’t decide how strong or how invulnerable Aquaman is.  One minute he’s trying to avoid getting hit by bullets and the next he’s taking rocket and plasma blasts to the chest.  The plot is overstuffed, with multiple villains and kingdoms competing for attention.  Some dialogue leans toward cliché, and pacing issues arise in the middle act.  There is a mandatory visual introduction to Atlantis which is more or less an underwater version of “Coruscant” (the StarWars Emprire) and 23rd century New York City from “The Fifth Element“.  Still, these flaws are offset by the visual energy of the production.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes — for what it is – a comic-book adaptation.  “Aquaman” is fun, colorful, and unapologetically grandiose / mythic / operatic.  It’s best enjoyed as a visual ride rather than a tightly woven narrative (watch it;  don’t over-think it).  Momoa’s performance and Wan’s spectacle make it memorable, even if it lacks the depth of other superhero films.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate recommendation.  “Aquaman” is a landmark in the DCEU for its billion-dollar success and its embrace of mythic spectacle.  Watch it for Jason Momoa’s charismatic Aquaman, the dazzling underwater visuals, and James Wan’s operatic direction.  It’s not an “Oscars” type of film, but it has carved out historic significance as one of DCEU’s most commercially successful films to date.  Basically, it’s a dumb movie, but I was entertained.
.
Click here (30 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 »

A Penultimate Message To Close Out 2025

Among the liberties of citizens that are guaranteed are … the right to believe what one chooses, the right to differ from his neighbor, the right to pick and choose the political philosophy he likes best, the right to associate with whomever he chooses, the right to join groups he prefers.
—     William O. Douglas
Former Associate Supreme Court Justice
.
Click here (30 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 »

Mahoney Sisters Can’t Carry A Melody

“The Broadway Melody” (1929) – movie review
Today’s review is for the landmark musical drama “The Broadway Melody” (1929), directed by Harry Beaumont and starring Charles King as Eddie Kearns (a songwriter and performer whose ambition is matched only by his romantic entanglements), Anita Page as Queenie Mahoney (the younger sister whose beauty and vulnerability draw both admiration and exploitation), and Bessie Love as Hank Mahoney (the elder sister, pragmatic and fiercely loyal, whose dreams of stardom are tested by betrayal and sacrifice).  Supporting roles include Jed Prouty as Uncle Jed, Kenneth Thomson as Jock Warriner (a wealthy socialite with predatory intentions), and Mary Doran as fellow performer May.  This ensemble anchors MGM’s first all-talking musical, a film that not only defined the backstage musical genre but also became the first sound film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture.  Perhaps less significant due to its being only the second ever Best Picture winner, it was also the first film to double-up as the highest gross attendance for the year.
Background:  In my continuing effort to gain an appreciation for cinema, I’m trying to work my way through a number of lists of great movies.  This film was second to receive the Best Picture Oscar.  I watched this on YouTube for free with no commercial interruptions.  Released in 1929, “The Broadway Melody” arrived at the dawn of Hollywood’s transition from silent films to “talkies.”  MGM promoted it as its first all-sound motion picture, and audiences flocked to see the spectacle of synchronized music, dialogue, and dance.  With a modest budget of $379,000 and a box office return of $4.4 million, the film was both a commercial and cultural triumph.  Its success paved the way for sequels (“Broadway Melody of 1936“, 1940, 1947) and cemented the musical as a dominant Hollywood genre.
Plot:  The story follows sisters Hank and Queenie Mahoney, vaudeville performers who journey to New York City to break into Broadway. Eddie Kearns, a songwriter and Hank’s longtime friend, introduces them to producer Francis Zanfield.  While Hank struggles to secure their place in the show, Queenie’s beauty attracts attention, particularly from wealthy Jock Warriner.  Eddie, initially Hank’s romantic interest, finds himself drawn to Queenie, creating a painful love triangle.  As Queenie is tempted by Jock’s wealth and Hank realizes Eddie’s affections have shifted, tensions rise.  Ultimately, Queenie rejects Jock’s superficial advances, Eddie declares his love, and Hank sacrifices her own happiness for her sister’s future.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  earnest but uneven;  innovative but dated;  several;  frankly, no, but with historical appreciation.
Any good?  Historically, yes;  personally, no.  “The Broadway Melody” is a fascinating artifact of early sound cinema.  While its narrative feels melodramatic by modern standards, its cultural significance and pioneering use of sound make it essential viewing for film historians and enthusiasts.
Acting:  Bessie Love delivers the standout performance as Hank, balancing grit with vulnerability.  Her Oscar nomination for Best Actress was deserved.  Anita Page embodies Queenie’s innocence and allure, though her role leans heavily on archetype.  Charles King’s Eddie is energetic but occasionally stiff, reflecting the transitional acting style of early talkies.  The supporting cast provides texture, though most characters serve as foils rather than fully developed personalities.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography by John Arnold captures both the intimacy of backstage life and some of the spectacle of musical numbers from that period.  The film includes two brief Technicolor sequences — a novelty at the time — which underscores MGM’s ambition.  Musical highlights include “You Were Meant for Me” and the titular “Broadway Melody,” staged with choreography that, while static compared to later musicals, thrilled audiences in 1929.
Problems:  Multiple and some severe.  The pacing is uneven, with melodramatic dialogue that feels stilted today (IMHO).  Having said that, there are some expressions used and I don’t know whether they are New York, Broadway, or simply era based.  For example:  Hank accuses Eddie of not fighting for Queenie because the other guy has more “jack” (money) than he (Eddie) does.  The love triangle dominates the narrative at the expense of deeper exploration of Broadway’s competitive world – which IS explored in cinema at least once in every decade since.  Sound technology was still in its infancy, resulting in awkward pauses and limited camera movement.  Queenie’s characterization leans toward objectification, reflecting gender norms of the era.  The acting, dancing and singing is actually quite terrible from all three of the lead characters.  It’s difficult to tell if the fault is the sound recording available in those days, or if the actors were really just that bad.  LoL  The female leads asks the male lead to sing them a song in their hotel room and a full orchestration breaks out in the background.  At no point did I feel there was any chemistry (romantic or sisterly) between any of the three leads.  Credit to the two female leads, they held their own (acting) in their individual / solo scenes.  King tries to sing a “swing” based version of the title song, but it comes across as a poor man’s Al Jolson – and suffers in the comparison.  There were more problems, but I don’t want to proverbially “beat a dead horse.”
Did I enjoy the film?  No — with reservations.  What enjoyment I did have came less from the story itself and more from the film’s historical significance.  Watching “The Broadway Melody” is like stepping into cinema’s transitional moment, where silent-era theatricality meets the promise of synchronized sound and black and white has brief intersections with sepia-colorization.
Final Recommendation:   Strong recommendation — for historical significance;  Low recommendation otherwise.  “The Broadway Melody” may not dazzle modern audiences (to put it lightly) with its plot, pacing, dancing or musicality, but it remains a cornerstone of film history.  As the first sound film to win Best Picture, it represents both the excitement and limitations of early talkies.  If you are interested in the evolution of musicals, the Academy Awards, or Hollywood’s leap into sound, this film belongs on your list for reference viewing.  Watch it not for perfection, but for the moment when cinema found its continuous voice.
.
Click here (29 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 »

Too Loose, Too Capricious, Too Destructive Of Freedom

Any test that turns on what is offensive to the community’s standards is too loose, too capricious, too destructive of freedom of expression to be squared with the First Amendment.  Under that test, juries can censor, suppress, and punish what they don’t like, provided the matter relates to “sexual impurity” or has a tendency “to excite lustful thoughts.”  This is community censorship in one of its worst forms.  It creates a regime where, in the battle between the literati and the Philistines, the Philistines are certain to win.
—     William O. Douglas
“Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476“
.
Click here (29 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 »

Kings, Crowns, And Crumbling Dreams In Distant Lands

“The Man Who Would Be King” (1975) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sweeping adventure epic “The Man Who Would Be King” (1975), directed by John Huston and adapted from Rudyard Kipling’s novella.  The film stars Sean Connery as Daniel Dravot (a bold ex-soldier whose ambition drives him to claim divinity), Michael Caine as Peachy Carnehan (his loyal comrade, torn between friendship and conscience), Christopher Plummer as Rudyard Kipling (the journalist who frames the tale and bears witness to its tragic arc), and Saeed Jaffrey as Billy Fish (the interpreter who bridges cultures and loyalties).  Notably, Shakira Caine (Michael Caine’s wife) appears as Roxanne, the pivotal figure whose presence tests the illusion of Dravot’s godhood and catalyzes the story’s collapse.
Background:  I have seen this movie multiple times and each time it’s been associated in my mind with “Zulu” – probably because they both star Michael Caine, but also because of the British “Red Coats” worn in both.  LoL.  By coincidence, I bought both DVDs at roughly the same time – back around the mid-2000s – and I have tended to watch them in pairs ever since.  …Probably every five years or so.  Released in 1975, the film was a long-cherished Huston project and stands as a late-career triumph.  It earned four Academy Award nominations, including Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Art Direction, cementing its standing within the adventure canon and drawing comparisons to Huston’s earlier moral fable, “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (review here).
Plot:  Set in the late 19th century, Kipling encounters a ragged Peachy Carnehan, who recounts his journey with Dravot.  Restless in colonial India, the two ex-soldiers set out to conquer Kafiristan, a land untouched by outsiders since Alexander the Great.  Through cunning, courage, and audacity, they convince (conive) the locals of Dravot’s divinity and rule as kings — until human frailty intrudes.  Dravot’s desire to marry, the disastrous exposure of his human mortality, and the erosion of faith lead to betrayal and death, leaving Peachy as the lone survivor and witness to their hubris.
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;  majestic and immersive;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Man Who Would Be King” is classic adventure — thrilling and cautionary.  It balances spectacle with moral weight, reflecting on ambition, colonialism, and friendship without losing momentum or humanity.
Acting:  Connery delivers one of his finest performances, embodying Dravot’s charisma and tragic pride.  Caine grounds the film with wit, warmth, and loyalty;  their chemistry is electric, their banter sharp, and their parting devastating.  Plummer lends a quiet gravitas as Kipling, while Jaffrey adds texture and cultural fluency.  Shakira Caine’s Roxanne is crucial — both a test and a turning point — humanizing the stakes and exposing the fragility of manufactured divinity.
Filming / FX:  Oswald Morris’s photography renders mountain passes, temples, and deserts with muscular clarity and mythic sweep;  Maurice Jarre’s score amplifies the grandeur without attempting to dominate it.  The production design builds a tactile world of stone and ceremony, and the practical stunts — especially the bridge sequence — remain gripping and credible even by modern standards.
Problems:  Minor.  The pacing can linger, and the portrayal of native characters reflects the colonial vantage point of its source.  The imperialist framing feels dated (racist), yet it’s accurate and therefore inseparable from the tale’s critique of hubris and the ethics of conquest.  Unrelated to any readers of this review, the price of this film has not come down to my “price point” yet, so I watched it on DVD.  The interesting point is the film was in an older format and I had to flip the DVD over mid-film for part two.  LoL!!
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s exhilarating and sobering.  Huston delivers spectacle with consequence;  Connery and Caine make the myth intimate;  and the final image stays with you long after the credits.
Final recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “The Man Who Would Be King” endures as a landmark of adventure cinema — majestic, morally resonant, and historically significant for its awards recognition and Huston’s masterful late-career craftsmanship.  If you’re drawn to tales of empire, brotherhood, and downfall, this is essential viewing.
.
Click here (28 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 »

A Unit Of Life

The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes – fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life.  The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it.
—     William O. Douglas
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727
.
Click here (28 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 »

Because We’re Here, Lad. Nobody else. Just Us…

“Zulu” (1964) — movie review
Today’s review is for the British historical war drama “Zulu” (1964), directed by Cy Endfield and starring Stanley Baker as Lt. John Chard (the engineer officer unexpectedly thrust into command), Michael Caine in his breakout role as Lt. Gonville Bromhead (an aristocratic officer whose privilege collides with responsibility), Jack Hawkins as missionary Otto Witt (a man of faith caught between cultures), Ulla Jacobsson as Margareta Witt (his daughter, embodying compassion amid chaos), James Booth as Pvt. Henry Hook (a reluctant soldier who becomes an unlikely hero), and Nigel Green as Colour Sergeant Bourne (the embodiment of discipline and resolve).  There is also a brief start and end narration by Richard Burton.  The film dramatizes the legendary Battle of Rorke’s Drift in 1879, where a small garrison of roughly 150 British soldiers held off an assault by over 4,000 Zulu warriors.
Background:  I don’t recall ever seeing this film on the big screen, which I regret.  I think seeing the vistas of Africa would have really added “something” even back in the day (before I was sophisticated enough to even think about vistas).  I have probably seen this movie a half dozen times and the “by-the-ranks” final battle scene dozens of times on YouTube.  Militarily, it is intellectually devastating to see this type of continuous fire and the bravery of the Zulu warriors who made a frontal charge into it.  Released in 1964, “Zulu” quickly became a landmark of British cinema.  It was produced by Stanley Baker himself, who sought to bring this extraordinary episode of the Anglo-Zulu War to screen.  The film was nominated for a BAFTA Award and is historically significant as Michael Caine’s first major role, launching his career.  Though it did not win Academy Awards, “Zulu” remains culturally important for its depiction of colonial conflict, its large-scale battle sequences, and its enduring place in the war film canon.
Plot:  The film opens with the aftermath of the British defeat at Isandlwana, setting the stage for the defense of Rorke’s Drift.  Lt. Chard and Lt. Bromhead, commanding a small detachment of Welsh soldiers, must fortify a mission station against overwhelming odds.  Missionary Witt warns of impending disaster, while the soldiers prepare barricades from mealie bags and wagons.  Over two days, wave after wave of Zulu warriors attack, testing the defenders’ courage, discipline, and unity.  The climax is both brutal and awe-inspiring, as the vastly outnumbered garrison survives through sheer determination, tactical ingenuity and FAR superior fire power.
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;  sweeping and visceral;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “Zulu” is both a war spectacle and a meditation on endurance.  It dramatizes colonial history with intensity, balancing heroism with unease about empire.  The film’s scale and tension remain gripping six decades later.
Acting:  Stanley Baker anchors the film with gravitas, portraying Chard as reluctant but resolute.  Michael Caine, in his debut, is striking — his aristocratic Bromhead evolves from dismissive to deeply engaged, a transformation that foreshadows his later career versatility.  Jack Hawkins lends moral weight as Witt, while James Booth provides earthy humanity as Hook.  The ensemble performances create a tapestry of fear, courage, and heroism.
Filming / FX:  Cy Endfield’s direction emphasizes both spectacle and intimacy.  The cinematography by Stephen Dade captures the South African landscape in sweeping vistas, while the battle sequences are choreographed with precision.  John Barry’s score adds grandeur and tension.  The film’s use of extras — hundreds of Zulu participants — lends authenticity and scale rarely matched in war cinema of its era.
Problems:  The film simplifies cultural context, presenting the Zulu largely as a faceless force rather than individuals with agency.  While visually impressive, it reinforces colonial perspectives.  Some dialogue feels dated, and the pacing occasionally lingers.  Still, these issues do not diminish its cinematic impact.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  “Zulu” is thrilling, sobering, and historically resonant.  Watching ordinary soldiers withstand extraordinary odds is both inspiring and unsettling.  The film’s layered performances and sweeping battle sequences make it a classic of the war genre.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “Zulu” is a historically significant war film that combines spectacle with character-driven drama.  It is remembered for Michael Caine’s debut, Stanley Baker’s commanding presence, and its enduring portrayal of courage under fire.  If you are drawn to epic historical dramas, military history, or films that explore resilience against overwhelming odds, “Zulu” deserves a place on your viewing list.
.
Click here (27 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 »

Dream Of Change

Dream no small dreams for they have no power to move the hearts of men.
―     Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
.
Click here (27 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 »

A Not So Nice Kitty

“The Killers”  (1946) — movie review
Today’s review is for the seminal film noir “The Killers” (1946), directed by Robert Siodmak and starring Burt Lancaster in his film debut as Ole “Swede” Anderson (a washed-up boxer whose fatalistic choices lead him to passively await his own murder), Ava Gardner as Kitty Collins (the quintessential femme fatale whose allure masks betrayal), Edmond O’Brien as Jim Reardon (the insurance investigator piecing together the Swede’s past), Sam Levene as Lt. Lubinsky (a weary cop with ties to the Swede’s former life), Albert Dekker as Big Jim Colfax (the calculating crime boss pulling the strings), and — importantly — Charles McGraw as Al and William Conrad (in his own film debut) as Max, the two hitmen whose chilling, matter-of-fact execution of the Swede sets the tone for the entire film.  Based loosely on Ernest Hemingway’s 1927 short story, the film expands a brief tale of resignation into a labyrinthine narrative of crime, passion, and doom.
Background:  This film was recommended to me by a friend from high school.  I have lunch with a few of the guys a couple of times a year and this latest time, I polled them for their favorite films and those they felt were social significant in their lives.  One of them said he was really into “film noir” and asked me if I like the genre, too.  I said I’d heard the term before but really couldn’t name any for reference.  He suggested this film as among his favorites.  I told him I’d look out for it and I found it (with multiple commercials) for free on YouTube.  I’ve added it to my “wishlist” if I ever see it at my price point.  LoL.
Released in 1946, “The Killers” quickly established itself as a cornerstone of the film noir genre.  Produced by Mark Hellinger and scored by Miklós Rózsa (whose music earned an Academy Award nomination), the film was nominated for four Oscars, including Best Director and Best Editing.  Its fragmented, investigative structure — often compared to “Citizen Kane” — was groundbreaking, and it remains historically significant as Burt Lancaster’s screen debut and one of the most influential noir films of the era.
Plot:  The film opens with two hitmen, Al and Max, arriving in a small New Jersey town to kill the “Swede”.  He offers no resistance, accepting his fate.  Insurance investigator Jim Reardon, puzzled by the Swede’s life insurance payout, begins to unravel the mystery.  Through interviews and flashbacks, the Swede’s tragic descent emerges:  a promising boxer seduced by Kitty Collins, entangled in a payroll heist, and ultimately betrayed by those closest to him.  The narrative unfolds as a mosaic of perspectives, each fragment revealing the inevitability of his downfall.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  superb;  shadow-drenched and innovative;  minor;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Killers” is a masterclass in noir storytelling — fatalistic, stylish, and emotionally resonant.  It balances Hemingway’s existential resignation with Hollywood’s appetite for intrigue, creating a film that is both accessible and haunting.
Acting:  Lancaster’s debut is interesting:  his Swede embodies both physical strength and emotional vulnerability, a man undone by his own choices.  Gardner’s Kitty is iconic — her beauty conceals treachery, and (in this role) she defines the archetype of the femme fatale.  O’Brien’s investigator provides a pragmatic counterpoint, while Dekker and Levene add gravitas.  The ensemble works seamlessly, each performance reinforcing the film’s atmosphere of inevitability.
Filming / FX:  Siodmak’s direction is taut and atmospheric.  Cinematographer Woody Bredell drenches the film in “chiaroscuro shadows” (sharply contrasting light and darkness, usually directional and meant to convey depth), crafting a visual language that became synonymous with noir.  The fragmented narrative structure — flashbacks within interviews — was innovative for its time.  Rózsa’s score, later reused in countless noir and suspense films, heightens tension with its brooding motifs.
Problems:  Mostly minor.  The narrative complexity, while groundbreaking, can feel disjointed to modern viewers accustomed to linear storytelling.  Some supporting characters are sketched broadly, serving function more than depth.  Yet these issues are outweighed by the film’s stylistic and thematic achievements.  There are some continuity issues:  like cigarettes with get bigger when the camera changes back and forth, but the “big” one involves the opening murder scene.  Lancaster’s “Swede” character is lying in bed (accepting his fate) when he is shot multiple times.  Later in the film, when the crime scene is being reviewed there a multiple holes in the wall beside the bed which would only be there if Swede were standing and moving.  LoL!  The bullet holes were practically the length of the bed and two to three feet above the bed!  It doesn’t effect the story at all.  I just found it to be a chuckle…  Those “professional killers” must have been some terrible shots!
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  “The Killers”  is gripping, atmospheric, and satisfying as both a crime drama and a meditation on fate.  Watching Lancaster’s Swede resign himself to death while Gardner’s Kitty manipulates every turn is both tragic and mesmerizing.
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended. “The Killers”  is a landmark of film noir — historically significant for its Oscar nominations, Lancaster’s debut (and Conrad’s debut), and its influence on the genre.  If you are drawn to noir’s fatalism, femme fatales, and shadow-drenched style, this film is essential viewing.  It is a crime story, but also a story of resignation to inevitable destiny.
.
Click here (26 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 »

Grow Into Who You Are Meant To Be

Everybody wants to be somebody, but nobody wants to grow…
―     Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
.
Click here (26 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 Luckiest Man On The Face Of The Earth

“The Pride of the Yankees” (1942) – movie review
Today’s review is for the baseball based biopic-drama “The Pride of the Yankees” (1942), starring Gary Cooper as Lou Gehrig, the legendary New York Yankees first baseman whose career and life became a symbol of perseverance and grace.  Teresa Wright plays Eleanor Gehrig, his devoted wife whose strength anchors the story, while Walter Brennan portrays sportswriter Sam Blake, the friend and narrator who guides us through Gehrig’s rise to fame, career and death.  Babe Ruth appears as himself, lending authenticity to the baseball sequences, and the supporting cast includes Dan Duryea, Elsa Janssen, and Ludwig Stössel as Gehrig’s parents.  Directed by Sam Wood and produced by Samuel Goldwyn, this film blends sports biography with romantic drama, culminating in one of cinema’s most iconic farewell speeches.
Background:  This film was THE baseball film of my generation well before “Field of Dreams“, “Major League“, “For The Love Of The Game“, or “The Natural“.  I don’t know if it’s accurate to say it was shown EVERY year (like “The Wizard of Oz“), but that sure is the way I remember it.  The San Francisco Giants had just recently migrated from New York City and Major League Baseball was FAR more popular than professional football or professional basketball put together.  LoL.  Released in 1942, “The Pride of the Yankees” was both a tribute to Lou Gehrig, who died of ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis) in 1941, and a wartime morale booster.  The film was a commercial success, earning over $4 million at the box office.  It received 11 Academy Award nominations, winning for Best Film Editing (Daniel Mandell).  Teresa Wright was nominated for Best Actress, Gary Cooper for Best Actor, and Sam Wood for Best Director.  The film’s cultural significance lies in its preservation of Gehrig’s “Luckiest Man” speech, which remains one of the most memorable moments in American sports and cinema history.
Plot:  The story traces Gehrig’s journey from a shy Columbia University student pressured to pursue engineering, to his rise as a Yankees star.  His romance with Eleanor provides emotional depth, while his friendship with Sam Blake frames his career in human terms.  The climax comes with Gehrig’s diagnosis of ALS, leading to his farewell at Yankee Stadium.  The film closes on his immortal words:  “Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.”
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes; excellent;  restrained but effective;  minor;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Pride of the Yankees” is both a sports drama and a love story, balancing baseball spectacle with intimate character study.  It is overly sentimental, but its sincerity makes it enduring.
Acting:  Gary Cooper delivers a dignified, understated performance as Gehrig, capturing his humility and quiet strength.  Teresa Wright shines as Eleanor, bringing warmth and resilience.  Walter Brennan adds humor and humanity, while Babe Ruth’s cameo provides authenticity.  Cooper’s lack of baseball skill was noted, but his emotional portrayal transcends technical shortcomings.
Filming / FX:  Cinematography by Rudolph Maté emphasizes realism, with Yankee Stadium sequences staged to evoke grandeur.  The editing, which won the Oscar, keeps the pacing tight.  The film’s effects are emotional rather than technical:  Gehrig’s farewell speech, Eleanor’s tears, and the crowd’s silence resonate more than any visual flourish.
Problems:  Minor.  Cooper’s baseball scenes reveal his unfamiliarity with the sport, and the film occasionally leans into wartime sentimentality.  Some supporting characters are broadly drawn.  These issues do not detract from the film’s emotional power.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  The film is moving, inspirational, and historically significant in American society and in cinema.  Watching Cooper deliver Gehrig’s farewell speech is unforgettable, a cinematic moment that transcends sports.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “The Pride of the Yankees” is not just a baseball movie;  it is an American cultural touchstone.  With 11 Academy Award nominations, an Oscar win, and its preservation of Gehrig’s legacy, it stands as among Hollywood’s definitive sports dramas.  Watch it for Cooper’s quiet dignity, Wright’s luminous support, and the film’s reminder that courage and humility can make even tragedy resonate with grace.  And, for those so inclined:  Opening Day is under 100 days away.  LoL!
.
Click here (25 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 »

Christmas Wishes For 2025

Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil.  It is a battle fought by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness.  But if what is human in human beings has not been destroyed even now, then evil will never conquer.
—    Vasily Grossman
From his book:  “Life And Fate“
Merry Christmas to all… !!
Once again, I wish I could say the world is a more peaceful and loving planet since last Christmas, but that would (still) just be the optimist in me speaking.  I continue to pray for the lives and freedom of the people of Ukraine and Gaza…
I do hope it (peace and personal safety) is true for anyone reading this and your family / friends (close and extended).
Please reach out to your family and friends.  Share with them the gift which really matters:  your time!  Make memories…
Peace and Namaste to all!!!
[A big shout-out to  http://pacificparatrooper.wordpress.com/  for providing today’s image.  Please visit the site if you have a chance.    —    kmab]
.
Click here (25 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 »

And Stop Screaming!

“War of the Worlds” (2005) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sci-fi disaster re-make thriller “War of the Worlds” (2005), directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier (a divorced dockworker whose neglect collides with sudden catastrophe), Dakota Fanning as Rachel Ferrier (his young daughter, whose terror and resilience become the film’s heartbeat), Justin Chatwin as Robbie Ferrier (a rebellious teenager desperate to prove himself in the face of annihilation), Miranda Otto as Mary Ann (Ray’s ex‑wife, the absent stability he cannot provide), and Tim Robbins as Harlan Ogilvy (a survivalist whose paranoia threatens to eclipse the alien menace).  Supporting turns include Rick Gonzalez and Yul Vazquez, with Ann Robinson and Gene Barry appearing in cameo roles as Mary Ann’s parents — a deliberate nod to their iconic leads in the 1953 adaptation (Sylvia Van Buren and Dr. Clayton Forrester).  Spielberg reframes H.G. Wells’ invasion tale as a post-9/11 allegory, grounding cosmic destruction in the intimate panic of one fractured family.
Background:  Steven Spielberg’s adaptation translates H.G. Wells’s 1898 novel into a contemporary disaster language — street-level, eyewitness, and relentlessly subjective.  Released in 2005 at summer-blockbuster scale, it channels mass fear through a single family’s flight, turning spectacle into experienced horror rather than war-room strategy.  The film reorients the alien-invasion genre toward vulnerability and survival, treating modern infrastructure, crowds, and rumor as fragile systems rather than reliable shields.
Plot:  Ray Ferrier, a disengaged father with a borrowed weekend and a busted engine block, is blindsided by a lightning storm that drills into asphalt and stirs something under the surface.  Tripod craft rise, vaporizing crowds with a heat-ray while harvesting some bodies (for an unknown reason) as the streets turn to ash.  Ray flees with Rachel and Robbie across highways, ferries, and fields, losing the illusion that motion and distance equals safety.  A cellar refuge with Harlan Ogilvy becomes a pressure cooker — human panic against inhuman intent — until survival demands choices Ray never imagined making.  The journey ends in Boston, where the family line (father to children relationships) are restored, and the invasion collapses not by human will but by biology:  microbes as ancient guardians of life on Earth.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong (for its genre) across the board;  top-tier;  multiple;  absolutely.
Any good?  This is a survival film with a sci-fi skin covering:  intimate stakes, catastrophic scale.  Spielberg strips away heroism and leaves reaction — run, hide, protect — so the tension comes from what you can’t control and what you can barely hold together.  It’s good because it refuses comfort;  the film’s moral center is endurance and survival, not conquest.
Acting:  Cruise plays Ray as reactive rather than commanding, a man improvising love and courage under pressure — sweat, fear, and sudden competence feel earned.  Fanning’s Rachel is a masterclass in lived terror – for a child screamer;  her acuity and fragility anchor the film’s humanity.  Chatwin brings combustible energy to Robbie, though the character’s impulse to “join the fight” feels like (at best) teenage machismo;  Robbins is dangerously compelling, personifying the threat of humanity’s collapse inside a larger catastrophe.
Filming / FX:  Janusz Kamiński’s cinematography favors dirty light and hand-held proximity, trapping us at ground level while tripods loom like mechanical gods.  The VFX give the machines weight, velocity, and a predatory logic;  John Williams’s score trades triumph for dread, threading low brass and percussive pulses into the film’s panic.  Sound design is the secret engine — heat-ray thrum, metallic horn, distant screaming — earning the film’s Oscar nominations and turning set-pieces into sensory assaults rather than spectacle for spectacle’s sake.
Problems:  Multiple and some doozies.  Robbie’s enlistment arc is engineered to produce conflict and adolescent separation more than organically coming from circumstance.  Ultimately, there is no explanation for the son’s ending up in Boston, let alone how he survived the military’s battle with the aliens.  The ending — microbial defeat — lands as abrupt, though it is historically faithful to the book and original movie.  A few crowd shots tip into chaos-of-convenience (“Aaaah, run away! Run away!“), but the film quickly resets to its tighter, character-first (Tom Cruise) vantage.  One logical problem with the film (and the original film and the book) is the faulty biology.  If we have bacteria and viruses which can wipe out the aliens in days, then they almost certainly have their own versions which would kill humanity and probably all life on earth.  The second big logical problem is the ships / vessels are pre-planted (distributed) on earth hundreds of years before activation.  Also, the aliens are “beamed” down into the ships via lightening.  They are contained in “pods” which ride the lightening to the planted weapons.  Okay, we built cities over all of these planted metallic objects, but no one detected them when we surveyed or built our cities.  And, how did the Martians know humanity was going to build important cities in those locations before we even built the cities.  Yeah.  I don’t think so…  In the original, the pods appear to be asteroids crashing together near cities.  Here, the original film made a lot more sense.  (Review of original film here.)
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  The movie reflects on fear, on responsibility, on the fragile cohesion of families under stress.  Its refusal to moralize or militarize the solution makes it cleaner and more haunting:  survival is provisional and the enemy is scale itself.  …As is humanity’s savior.
Final Recommendation:  Low strong recommendation.  If you want invasion cinema stripped of swagger and rebuilt as witness, “War of the Worlds” delivers — technically assured, emotionally focused, and historically conscious.  Watch it for Fanning’s screaming, Spielberg’s familiar staging, and the soundscape that turns flight into memory.  LoL:  A lesson in humility – sometimes the smallest life form carries the largest mercy.  This film is a solid summer action movie, but my personal feeling is that while viewable / enjoyable, it’s also forgettable.  It feels more like a Spielberg “hat-tip” to a classic, than a classic Spielberg itself.
.
Click here (24 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 »