With A Little Love In Your Heart

I think that if you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.
—     Ted Lasso
.
Click here (30 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Not Being Part Of A War Is Something To Be Grateful For

“Godzilla Minus One”  (2023)  —  movie review
Today’s film review is for “Godzilla Minus One” (2023), written and directed by Takashi Yamazaki and starring Ryunosuke Kamiki as Kōichi Shikishima, a failed kamikaze pilot carrying guilt he can’t shake;  Minami Hamabe as Noriko, the young woman who pulls him back toward ordinary life;  and Yuki Yamada as Shiro Mizushima, a dockworker who becomes part of Shikishima’s improvised crew.  Supporting roles include Munetaka Aoki as the level-headed engineer Tachibana;  Hidetaka Yoshioka as the earnest scientist Noda;  and Sakura Ando as Sumiko, whose blunt practicality keeps the household running.  Godzilla himself is presented not as a symbol or a metaphor but as a physical threat—an unstoppable force that hits a country already on its knees.
Background:  My brother recommended this to me and said it was a lot better than the “MonsterVerse” versions coming out of Hollywood.  (He was correct.)  I had forgotten about it until some recent YouTube Shorts reminded me of it.  Released in 2023, “Godzilla Minus One” is Toho’s first live-action Godzilla film since “Shin Godzilla” (2016).  It was made on a relatively modest budget by modern blockbuster standards, but the production leaned heavily on Yamazaki’s experience with visual effects and practical staging.  The film became a major critical and commercial success, earning the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects, the first time a Godzilla film has ever won an Oscar.  It has also been widely noted for returning the character to his postwar roots — less superhero, more nightmare — while grounding the story in the everyday struggles of civilians trying to rebuild their lives.
Plot:  Set in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the film follows Kōichi Shikishima, a kamikaze pilot who faked mechanical trouble to avoid his mission and landed on Odo Island, where he first encounters a smaller but still deadly Godzilla.  He survives, but the guilt follows him home to a devastated Tokyo.  There he meets Noriko and takes in an orphaned baby, forming a makeshift family while working as a minesweeper on a converted boat.  As Japan struggles to rebuild, Godzilla returns — larger, mutated, and far more destructive.  With no functioning military and little government support, civilians and veterans band together to mount a desperate plan to stop the creature.  Shikishima must decide whether he will keep running from his past or finally face it head-on.  The story builds toward a straightforward but effective showdown that ties the monster threat to Shikishima’s personal reckoning.
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 across the board;  excellent;  a few;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  This is (IMHO) one of the strongest Godzilla films in decades (ever), and it works because it keeps the focus on people rather than spectacle.  The story is simple but sturdy:  a damaged man trying to rebuild his life while the country does the same.  The film doesn’t over-complicate things.  It sticks to clear stakes, clear motivations, and a Godzilla that feels like a genuine threat.  It’s a character-driven disaster film that doesn’t lose track of either half.
Acting:  Ryunosuke Kamiki carries the film with a grounded performance — quiet, tense, and believable as someone who can’t forgive himself.  Minami Hamabe brings warmth without slipping into sentimentality, and their scenes together feel lived-in.  Munetaka Aoki and Hidetaka Yoshioka give the minesweeper crew a solid backbone, and the supporting cast fills out the postwar setting without showboating.  No one plays their role as “monster-movie filler.”  Everyone behaves like a person trying to survive a hard time, which makes the destruction hit harder.
Filming / FX:  The visual effects are excellent, especially considering the budget.  Godzilla has real weight — every step, every blast, every impact feels physical.  The destruction of Ginza is a standout sequence, mixing practical debris with digital work that blends cleanly.  The minesweeper scenes are shot with a good sense of scale, and the water effects are convincing.  The film uses its resources smartly:  fewer shots, but better ones.  The Oscar for Best Visual Effects was well earned.  The sound design also deserves credit;  Godzilla’s roar is sharp and unsettling, and the explosions don’t blur into generic noise.
Problems:  A few.  The film leans heavily on Shikishima’s guilt, and some viewers may find the repetition a bit much;  the government’s near-total absence is explained, but it still feels convenient for the plot;  a late-film twist involving Noriko stretches credibility, even within a monster-movie framework;  Godzilla’s “breath” has never resulted in nuclear explosions before and no attempt is made to explain either the blast or the breath itself;  and, finally, the minesweeper plan, while clever (okay… logically, impossible), depends on a lot of things going exactly right.  None of these break the film, but they stand out, even on a first viewing.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Absolutely!  The movie balances character drama and monster action better than most modern blockbusters.  It’s straight-forward, emotional without being sappy, and delivers a Godzilla that feels dangerous again.  The human story is strong enough that the quieter scenes work on their own, and the action scenes have real punch.  It’s a rare case where the smaller budget seems to have helped the filmmakers focus.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended – essential if you are a “Godzilla” fan!  “Godzilla Minus One” is THE best entry (I’ve seen) in the long history of the franchise — tight, emotional, and visually impressive.  Its Academy Award for Best Visual Effects marks a historic moment for the series, and the film earns that recognition through smart filmmaking rather than sheer scale.  If you like Godzilla, postwar dramas, or character-driven action, this is well worth your time.  It’s not just a good Godzilla movie;  it’s a good movie, period!
.
Click here (29 January) 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 »

Far More Compelling And Exciting

I believe that even a smattering of such findings in modern science and mathematics is far more compelling and exciting than most of the doctrines of pseudoscience, whose practitioners were condemned as early as the fifth century B.C. by the Ionian philosopher Heraclitus as “nightwalkers, magicians, priests of Bacchus, priestesses of the wine-vat, mystery-mongers.”  But science is more intricate and subtle, reveals a much richer universe, and powerfully evokes our sense of wonder.  And it has the additional and important virtue — to whatever extent the word has any meaning — of being true.
—    Carl Sagan
.
Click here (29 January) 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 »

You Must Be Important… You Got The Whole Plane To Yourself

“Zero Dark Thirty” (2012) — movie review
Today’s review is for the modern-era manhunt thriller “Zero Dark Thirty” (2012), directed by Kathryn Bigelow and starring Jessica Chastain as Maya — a young CIA analyst whose entire professional life narrows down to one target;  Jason Clarke as Dan — an interrogator whose questionable methods (torture) define the film’s early tone;  Kyle Chandler as Joseph Bradley — the Islamabad station chief juggling politics and field pressure;  Jennifer Ehle as Jessica — a senior analyst whose confidence and experience shape Maya’s early years;  Mark Strong as George — the D.C. overseer pushing for results;  and Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt as members of SEAL Team Six, the boots on the ground for the final raid.  Supporting roles include Harold Perrineau, Edgar Ramirez, Reda Kateb, Fares Fares, and James Gandolfini (in a brief role as the CIA Director).  Together they form the backbone of a procedural story built around the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Background:  I never saw this film in theaters.  I caught it much later (2020-ish) on streaming after hearing it was “the” movie about the bin Laden raid.  The “delay” was mainly because I heard and took on board the political noise around it — torture debates, accuracy debates, and whether the film was too close to real events.  This was only my second viewing of this film.  Released in 2012, “Zero Dark Thirty” received five Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actress (Chastain).  It won one Oscar for Best Sound Editing (shared).  Historically, it stands out as the first major dramatization of the bin Laden operation and one of the few films to tackle the post-9/11 intelligence world with this level of procedural detail.
Plot:  The film follows Maya, a CIA analyst assigned to Pakistan who becomes convinced that a courier named Abu Ahmed is the key to finding bin Laden.  The story moves through years of interrogations, bombings, dead ends, bureaucratic stalls, and occasional breakthroughs.  Maya pushes her superiors, fights internal skepticism, and eventually identifies a suspicious compound in Abbottabad.  After months of surveillance and political hesitation, SEAL Team Six is cleared to conduct the raid.  The final act covers the nighttime assault, the identification of the body, and Maya’s quiet reaction once the mission is complete.
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 performances;  clean, grounded filming;  a few issues;  mostly no.
Any good?  Yes – with a notable qualification.  It’s a long, steady procedural that avoids big speeches and sticks to the grind of intelligence work.  It’s not an action movie except for the last half hour.  Most of the film is people arguing, waiting, and trying to connect dots.  If you like that kind of slow burn, it works. If you don’t, it may feel like homework.  But as a dramatization of a real-world manhunt, it’s compelling.
Acting:  Jessica Chastain carries the film.  Her Maya is driven, frustrated, and increasingly isolated.  She doesn’t play her as a superhero — more like someone who refuses to let go of a thread.  Jason Clarke is memorable in the early interrogation (torture) scenes, balancing confidence with burnout.  Kyle Chandler and Mark Strong both do well as the “management” layer.  The SEAL actors don’t get much character development, but they feel believable as professionals.  Jennifer Ehle adds some warmth and experience before her character’s arc ends abruptly.  Overall, the cast fits the material.
Filming / FX:  Bigelow keeps the camera work straightforward.  The film uses a lot of handheld shots, dim rooms, and dusty exteriors. Nothing feels glossy or overly Hollywood.  The raid sequence is the standout — shot mostly in darkness with night-vision effects that look practical rather than flashy.  The explosions and gunfire are realistic without being overdone.  The sound design is excellent, which makes sense given the Oscar win.  There’s no “incredible” CGI spectacle here;  it’s mostly grounded environments and real locations (or convincing stand-ins).
Problems:  A few minor;  one major.  The film compresses a decade of intelligence work into a single narrative, which means some events feel simplified or too convenient.  The torture scenes are uncomfortable, but the film doesn’t always make clear what was useful and what wasn’t — which is part of why it stirred controversy.  Maya’s character is also written as a near-mythic lone wolf at times, which doesn’t match how intelligence agencies actually function (IMHO).  The pacing drags in the middle third, especially during the long stretches of surveillance.  And while the raid is well done, the geography inside the compound can be confusing on a first viewing.  MY main problem with the film is the portrayal of the Americans ready acceptance of torture and the implication that it was a source of useful / timely information.  Historically, torture has rarely worked – for timely information or otherwise – and one of the big criticisms of this film was the idea that the torture produced useful / actionable intelligence.  I am not denying the Americans conducted torture.  I am saying I found (and find) the acceptance of it (torture) – individually and organizationally – to be HIGHLY objectionable to me as a U.S. citizen.  These people were breaking the law and should have been held accountable, not celebrated in film or let off in real life.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes and no – mostly no.  The depiction of interrogation / torture, ruined the film for me.  This is not a “fun” movie to start with, even if it is interesting and well-made.  The procedural approach kept me engaged, and the final raid is tense even though we know the outcome.  I appreciated that the film didn’t try to turn Maya into an action hero or force a big emotional payoff.  It’s a serious movie about a serious subject, and it mostly sticks to that lane.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate Recommendation (because of the torture scenes and lack of accountability – otherwise, strong to highly recommended).  “Zero Dark Thirty” is historically significant as the first major film to depict the bin Laden raid and one of the few to tackle the post-9/11 intelligence world in detail.  With its Oscar win for Sound Editing and multiple nominations, it stands as a notable film of the 2010s.  Watch it for Chastain’s performance, the grounded procedural style, and the well-executed final act.  It’s not perfect, but it’s a solid, serious film about a major moment in recent history.
.
Click here (28 January) 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 »

Advancement Requires Tempered Openness

But our openness to the dazzling possibilities presented by modern science must be tempered by some hard-nosed skepticism.  Many interesting possibilities simply turn out to be wrong.  An openness to new possibilities and a willingness to ask hard questions are both required to advance our knowledge.  And the asking of tough questions has an ancillary benefit:  political and religious life in America, especially in the last decade and a half, has been marked by an excessive public credulity, an unwillingness to ask difficult questions, which has produced a demonstrable impairment in our national health.  Consumer skepticism makes quality products.  This may be why governments and churches and school systems do not exhibit unseemly zeal in encouraging critical thought.  They know they themselves are vulnerable.
—    Carl Sagan
.
Click here (28 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

No, It Wasn’t The Airplanes…

“King Kong”  (1933)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the legendary adventure-fantasy “King Kong” (1933), directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, and starring Fay Wray as Ann Darrow — the struggling actress whose scream and spirit become the emotional center of the film;  Robert Armstrong as Carl Denham — the bombastic, risk-hungry filmmaker whose ambition drives the entire expedition;  and Bruce Cabot as Jack Driscoll — the rugged first mate whose skepticism softens into loyalty and love.  Supporting roles include Frank Reicher as Captain Englehorn and Sam Hardy as Charles Weston.  With groundbreaking stop-motion animation by Willis O’Brien and a thunderous score by Max Steiner, the film stands as one of the most influential works in cinema history.
Background:  Released in 1933 during the depths of the Great Depression, “King Kong” was a commercial sensation and a technical marvel.  Produced by RKO Radio Pictures, the film combined live-action, stop-motion animation, matte paintings, miniatures, and rear projection in ways never before attempted.  Max Steiner’s score — often cited as the first major Hollywood “thematic” soundtrack — helped define the language of film music.  Although the Academy Awards did not yet have categories for visual effects or original score, “King Kong” is widely regarded as a foundational work that shaped the future of special-effects filmmaking and blockbuster storytelling.  Its cultural footprint is enormous:  countless remakes, sequels, homages, and references trace their lineage back to this film.
Plot:  Carl Denham, a daring filmmaker known for exotic adventure pictures, recruits Ann Darrow off the streets of New York to star in his latest project.  He refuses to reveal their destination, but the crew soon learns they are bound for the mysterious Skull Island, a place rumored to harbor strange creatures and an indigenous tribe with a fearsome ritual.  Upon arrival, Ann is kidnapped by the island’s inhabitants and offered as a sacrifice to Kong, a colossal ape who rules the island’s prehistoric wilderness.   Jack Driscoll and the crew mount a rescue mission, battling dinosaurs, giant insects, and treacherous terrain.  Kong, smitten with Ann, protects her fiercely until he is ultimately subdued and transported back to New York as Denham’s “Eighth Wonder of the World.”   The film culminates in the iconic sequence atop the Empire State Building, where Kong, besieged by biplanes, falls to his death — prompting Denham’s famous final line:   “It was beauty killed the beast.”
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 and era-appropriate;  revolutionary;  a few;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “King Kong” remains a thrilling, imaginative, and emotionally resonant film.  Its blend of adventure, romance, horror, and spectacle still works remarkably well.  While some elements feel dated, the film’s ambition and artistry continue to impress.
Acting:  Fay Wray delivers an iconic performance as Ann Darrow, balancing vulnerability, terror, and charm.  Her “scream queen” legacy is well-earned, but she also brings warmth and humanity to the role.  Robert Armstrong’s Carl Denham is charismatic, reckless, and larger-than-life — a perfect embodiment of early Hollywood showmanship.  Bruce Cabot, in one of his earliest roles, provides a solid heroic presence as Jack Driscoll.  The supporting cast is serviceable, though the film’s emotional weight rests squarely on Wray and the animated Kong, whose expressive movements give him surprising personality and pathos.
Filming / FX:  This is where the film truly shines.  Willis O’Brien’s stop-motion animation is astonishing for its time and remains impressive today.  The integration of miniatures, matte paintings, and live-action footage was groundbreaking, creating a vivid and dangerous world on Skull Island.  Max Steiner’s score elevates the film’s tension and emotion, pioneering the use of leitmotifs and orchestral intensity in Hollywood cinema.  The Empire State Building climax is still one of the most iconic sequences ever filmed.  While modern viewers may notice the seams — visible matte lines, variable frame rates, and occasional jerky motion — these artifacts are part of the film’s charm and historical significance.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing in the early New York scenes is slow by modern standards.  Some performances lean toward melodrama, reflecting the acting style of the era.  The portrayal of Skull Island’s indigenous people is dated and “problematic” (racist), rooted in colonial stereotypes common in 1930s adventure films.  The effects, while groundbreaking, frequently show their age.  Still, these issues do little to diminish the film’s overall impact.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Absolutely.  “King Kong” is a landmark of cinematic imagination — a film that helped define what movies could be.  Its blend of spectacle, emotion, and mythic storytelling remains compelling.  Even after ninety years, Kong’s final fall still evokes sympathy, awe, and a sense of tragic grandeur.  Long live the King!
Final Recommendation:  Very Highly Recommended.  “King Kong” (1933) is essential viewing for anyone interested in film history, special effects, or classic adventure storytelling.  Its influence on Hollywood blockbusters cannot be overstated, and its iconic imagery — from Skull Island’s monsters to the Empire State Building finale — remains embedded in popular culture.  Though some elements reflect the limitations and attitudes of its time, the film endures as a masterpiece of early cinema and a testament to the power of imagination.
.
Click here (27 January) 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 »

What Counts

Success is not final, failure is not fatal.  It is the courage to continue that counts.
—    Winston Churchill
.
Click here (27 January) 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 »

Get Himself Checked Before Parts Start Falling Off

“Beverly Hills Cop” (1984) — movie review
Today’s review is for the action-comedy classic “Beverly Hills Cop” (1984), starring Eddie Murphy as Axel Foley — a fast-talking, street-smart Detroit detective whose improvisational chaos masks real investigative instincts;  Judge Reinhold and John Ashton co-star as Billy Rosewood and Sgt. Taggart, the mismatched Beverly Hills officers reluctantly dragged into Foley’s orbit;  Ronny Cox plays Lt. Bogomil, the by-the-book commander forced to balance protocol with pragmatism;  Lisa Eilbacher appears as Jenny Summers, Axel’s childhood friend whose connection to the central crime pulls her into danger;  Jonathan Banks, playing Zack who is Victor Maitland’s primary enforcer;   and Steven Berkoff embodies Victor Maitland, the icy, cultured villain whose veneer of respectability hides a criminal empire.  Together, the ensemble creates a tonal blend of comedy, action, and procedural tension that defined the film’s enduring appeal.
Background:  I first saw “Beverly Hills Cop” sometime in the mid-1980s, when Eddie Murphy was already a rising star but had not yet become the global box-office force he would be for the next decade.  The film was released in 1984 by Paramount Pictures and directed by Martin Brest.  It became the highest-grossing film of 1984 domestically and one of the most successful R-rated comedies of all time.  It received one Academy Award nomination — Best Original Screenplay — and its soundtrack (particularly Harold Faltermeyer’s “Axel F”) became a cultural phenomenon.  Historically, the film is significant for cementing Murphy as a leading man and for blending action and comedy in a way that shaped the genre for years afterward.
Plot:  After a botched sting operation in Detroit, Axel Foley returns home to find his childhood friend murdered after visiting him with suspicious bearer bonds.  When his superiors forbid him from investigating, Axel takes vacation time and heads to Beverly Hills, where the contrast between his rough-edged Detroit style and the pristine, rule-bound Beverly Hills Police Department becomes the film’s comedic backbone.  Axel reconnects with Jenny Summers, whose employer — art dealer Victor Maitland — quickly becomes the prime suspect.  As Axel digs deeper, he ropes in Rosewood and Taggart, who slowly shift from reluctant babysitters to genuine allies.  The investigation escalates into shootouts, break-ins, and confrontations, culminating in a raid on Maitland’s mansion and the unraveling of his smuggling operation.
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 comedic timing;  solid 1980s action;  minor tonal whiplash;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “Beverly Hills Cop” remains a sharp, funny, and surprisingly well-constructed action-comedy.  Its pacing, humor, and character dynamics still hold up, and Murphy’s performance is the engine that drives everything.  The film’s blend of procedural investigation, fish-out-of-water comedy, and 1980s action spectacle feels both nostalgic and foundational.
Acting:  Eddie Murphy is magnetic — effortlessly charismatic, quick-witted, and capable of shifting from comedic riffing to genuine emotional beats.  Reinhold and Ashton provide strong support, with their evolving camaraderie becoming one of the film’s most memorable elements.  Ronny Cox brings gravitas as Bogomil, grounding the film’s more absurd moments.  Berkoff’s Maitland is understated but menacing, a villain whose calm demeanor contrasts effectively with Axel’s chaotic energy.  The ensemble works because each character plays their role straight, allowing Murphy’s improvisational style to shine without tipping the film into parody.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography captures both the grit of Detroit and the polished surfaces of Beverly Hills, creating a visual contrast that reinforces the film’s thematic divide.  The action sequences — particularly the truck chase in the opening and the mansion shootout — are well-staged for their era, mostly relying on practical effects and stunt work rather than spectacle.  Harold Faltermeyer’s synthesizer-driven score is iconic, instantly recognizable, and inseparable from the film’s identity.  The editing keeps the comedic timing tight and the action coherent, a balance many later imitators struggled to achieve.
Problems:  A few.  The tonal shifts between comedy and violence can feel abrupt, especially by modern standards.  Some supporting characters are thinly sketched, serving more as comedic foils than fully realized personalities.  The plot, while functional, is predictable (by today’s standards) and leans heavily on (what have become) genre conventions.  The mansion used in this film is the same mansion used in multiple films, and yes, the hedges / bushes are still bullet proof for all heroes / good-guys.  LoL.  And, like many 1980s films, some humor and characterizations feel dated.  Still, these issues are minor compared to the film’s overall charm and influence.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  “Beverly Hills Cop” is fast, funny, and (almost) endlessly re-watchable.  Murphy’s performance alone makes it worthwhile, but the chemistry among the cast and the film’s confident blend of action and comedy elevate it beyond its genre peers.  It’s a film that encourages nostalgia without demanding it.
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended.  “Beverly Hills Cop” is a landmark of 1980s cinema — historically significant for its box-office success, its Academy Award nomination, and its role in shaping the action-comedy genre.  Watch it for Eddie Murphy’s star-making performance, the memorable supporting cast, the iconic soundtrack, and the film’s seamless blend of humor and action.  It remains a defining entry in Murphy’s career and a marker for the era’s cinematic style.
.
Click here (26 January) 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 Exquisite Opportunity Of Life

The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence.  Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.
—    Carl Sagan
.
Click here (26 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

One Summer’s Day

“Dead End” (1937) — movie review
Today’s review is for the gritty social-crime drama “Dead End” (1937), directed by William Wyler and starring Sylvia Sidney as Drina Gordon (a young woman fighting to keep her kid brother from sliding into crime);  Joel McCrea as Dave Connell (an idealistic but disillusioned architect trapped by poverty and circumstance);  Humphrey Bogart as “Baby Face” Martin (a hardened gangster returning to his childhood slum in search of validation and escape);  Wendy Barrie as Kay, Dave’s conflicted love interest;  Claire Trevor as Francey, Martin’s tragic former girlfriend;  and the original “Dead End Kids” — Billy Halop, Huntz Hall, Leo Gorcey, Bobby Jordan, Gabriel Dell, and Bernard Punsly — whose raw, streetwise energy gives the film its pulse.  Together, they populate a single New York City block where wealth, poverty, hope, and despair collide in the shadow of the East River.
Background:  I purchased this film a while back as part of a “Classics” pack of 10 films for $15.  I noted that nine of the ten films in the package were on my list of Best Picture Nominees, so I figured if nothing else, the buy would be good value for money.  Released in 1937 by Samuel Goldwyn Productions and distributed by United Artists, “Dead End” was both a critical and commercial success.  It received four Academy Award nominations — Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress (Claire Trevor), Best Art Direction, and Best Cinematography — though it did not win.  Historically, the film is significant for launching the “Dead End Kids” into Hollywood stardom and for its early depiction of urban inequality as a structural, not moral, failing.  It also marks one of Bogart’s key pre-stardom performances, foreshadowing the noir persona he would soon perfect.
Plot:  Set entirely on a single East River block dead-ending at the riverfront, the story unfolds over the course of one sweltering summer day.  Drina struggles to keep her younger brother Tommy away from the neighborhood gang, whose petty mischief is slowly escalating.  Dave, once full of promise, now works odd jobs and wrestles with the bitterness of unrealized dreams.  Into this fragile ecosystem walks “Baby Face” Martin, returning to his childhood slum expecting adoration and finding only ghosts — his mother rejects him, and Francey, once beautiful, is now a prostitute ravaged by disease and desperation.  As tensions rise between the rich residents of the new luxury apartments and the impoverished families of the old tenements, the film builds toward a violent confrontation involving Martin, Dave, and the kids.  The day ends with death, disillusionment, and the faintest glimmer of hope — though the alley remains a trap for most who live there.
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;  atmospheric and stage-bound but effective;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Dead End” is a compelling blend of social commentary, character drama, and crime tension.  Wyler’s direction elevates what could have been a static stage adaptation into a textured, emotionally resonant film.  The themes of poverty, class division, lost potential, and the cyclical nature of crime, remain surprisingly modern.  While occasionally melodramatic, the film’s sincerity and ethical clarity give it enduring power.
Acting:  The acting is uniformly strong.  Sylvia Sidney brings quiet strength and emotional depth to Drina, grounding the film’s main character.  Joel McCrea gives one of his better early performances, capturing Dave’s frustration without slipping too much into self-pity.  Bogart is riveting — his “Baby Face” Martin is both menacing and heart-breakingly hollow, a man who discovers too late that success built on violence leaves nothing to return to.  Claire Trevor’s brief appearance earned her an Oscar nomination, and deservedly so;  her single scene is devastating to Bogart / Martin as she tells him to step back, stop dreaming about the past and take a good look at her.  The “Dead End Kids” are raw but too frequently chaotic.  Their authenticity is central to film’s story-line, but just failed to ring true for me (IMHO).
Filming / FX:  The production design by Richard Day (Oscar-nominated) is impressive:  a massive, meticulously detailed recreation of a New York slum built entirely on a Hollywood sound-stage.  The contrast between the gleaming apartment tower and the decaying tenements is visually striking and thematically essential.  Gregg Toland’s cinematography — years before “Citizen Kane” — already shows his mastery of depth, shadow, and layered composition.  There are no “FX” in the modern sense, but the film’s controlled environment, atmospheric lighting, and riverfront staging create a sense of location that feels staged (as in on a single stage), but still real.
Problems:  A few.  The moralizing tone, while typical of the era, may feel heavy-handed to modern viewers.  The “Dead End Kids“, though (I guess) iconic in this film, frequently veers into overacting.  And the film’s resolution, while tidy, doesn’t grapple with the systemic issues it raises.  Still, these are minor quibbles in a film that remains compelling nearly ninety years later.  Barrie / Kay’s lines about having been poor and not wanting to go back to being poor felt “lifted” right out of “The Bishop’s Wife“, but as this film pre-dates “Wife” by a decade, the latter is probably more accurate.  LoL.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  “Dead End” is a fascinating blend of social realism and Hollywood drama, anchored by strong performances and a vivid sense of place.  It’s not a “feel-good” film, but it is a watchable and thought-provoking one.  Watching Bogart and Trevor in early, formative roles adds historical interest, while the “Dead End Kids” provide a window into the era’s anxieties about youth, poverty, and crime.  (True in the 1930s;  true today…)
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “Dead End” stands as an important early entry in socially conscious American cinema, notable for its Oscar-nominated performances, its influential production design, and its introduction of the “Dead End Kids” to film audiences.  Watch it for Bogart’s chilling turn, Trevor’s unforgettable cameo, Sidney’s quiet resilience, and Wyler’s ability to turn a single city block into a microcosm of class struggle, lost dreams, and fragile hope.
.
Click here (25 January) 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 He Died Almost 30 Years Ago…

I can find in my undergraduate classes, bright students who do not know that the stars rise and set at night, or even that the Sun is a star.
—    Carl Sagan
[I wonder how Professor Sagan would feel about the students entering university in our current days…    Would he frown or shake his head and offer his knowing smile?    —    kmab]
.
Click here (25 January) 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 Education Of An American

“Dodsworth” (1936) — movie review
Today’s review is for the mature, quietly devastating drama “Dodsworth” (1936), directed by William Wyler and starring Walter Huston as Sam Dodsworth (a self-made automobile magnate confronting the limits of success and the fragility of marriage);  Ruth Chatterton as Fran Dodsworth (his socially ambitious wife, desperate to outrun aging); Mary Astor as Edith Cortright (the warm, grounded expatriate who becomes Sam’s romantic interest);  Paul Lukas as Arnold Iselin (one of Fran’s – several – affairs in Europe); John Payne in his first role playing Harry McKee (Dodsworth’s son-in-law);  Maria Ouspenskaya as the elderly mother of one of Fran’s “suitors”;  and David Niven in an early role as Captain Lockert (the first of Fran’s fleeting romantic diversions).  Adapted from Sinclair Lewis’s novel and Sidney Howard’s play, the film examines pride, vanity, aging, and the search for meaning with a restraint that still feels modern.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film and I did so with no prior knowledge except that it had been a Best Picture Oscar nomination.  Released in 1936, “Dodsworth” arrived during a period when studios were experimenting with more mature themes, and Wyler’s direction helped elevate it beyond the typical melodrama of the era.  The film received seven Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Walter Huston), Best Supporting Actress (Maria Ouspenskaya), and Best Director.  It won the Oscar for Best Art Direction.  Historically, it stands as one of the earliest Hollywood films to treat marital dissolution with emotional realism rather than moralizing or melodramatic excess.
Plot:  Sam Dodsworth, having sold his successful automobile company, retires “early” (mid-50’s) and takes his wife Fran on a long promised grand European tour.  Sam is resistant, but hopes for shared adventure;  Fran hopes for reinvention.  Actually, she hoping it will somehow stop her from aging.  As they travel from London to Paris to Vienna, Fran becomes increasingly infatuated with the attention of younger, more cosmopolitan men.  Sam, bewildered but patient, tries to accommodate her restless vanity.  Their marriage fractures as Fran pursues flirtations and then outright affairs, insisting she needs “life” and “youth” more than the stability Sam offers.  Sam, wounded but dignified, eventually meets Edith Cortright, an American expatriate living quietly in Italy.  Her warmth and grounding contrast sharply with Fran’s insecurity and pretension.  When Fran’s final attempt at remarriage collapses under the weight of her own deceptions, she begs Sam to return.  The film’s climax hinges on whether Sam will resume the life he knows or embrace the possibility of a new one.  In fact, he appears to choose both.
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;  elegant and restrained;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “Dodsworth” is a surprisingly modern-feeling drama about aging, ego, and emotional honesty.  Its power lies in understatement:  the film trusts its audience to understand the quiet devastation of a failing marriage without resorting to theatrics.  It’s a mature film for mature viewers — and that’s meant as a compliment.
Acting:  I have no prior viewing experience with most of this cast.  In receiving a Best Actor nomination for this role, Walter Huston delivers what might be a career-defining performance as Sam Dodsworth.  His portrayal is layered:  proud yet vulnerable, bewildered yet dignified.  Ruth Chatterton’s Fran is almost equally compelling — infuriating and painfully recognizable as someone terrified of becoming “considered” old.  Mary Astor brings warmth and intelligence to Edith, grounding the film’s emotional arc.  Even the smaller roles (including a young David Niven) add texture.  The ensemble is uniformly strong, but Huston’s quiet heartbreak is what you remember.
Filming / FX:  Wyler’s direction is clean and unobtrusive, letting the performances carry the emotional weight.  The cinematography by Rudolph Maté uses framing and shadow to emphasize emotional distance, particularly between Sam and Fran.  The production design — which won the film its Oscar — convincingly evokes European sophistication without overwhelming the story.  There are no “effects” in the modern sense, but the film’s visual restraint is part of its strength:  it feels intimate, lived-in, and emotionally believable.
Problems:  A few.  Fran’s character, while psychologically rich, frequently / repeatedly veers into shrillness.  It’s difficult to say if this may be more a reflection of the era’s acting conventions or a flaw in the writing.  Some supporting characters appear briefly and vanish just as quickly, leaving their arcs feeling underdeveloped.  For me, the main issue was the sound of music occasionally overpowered the sound of dialogue making it difficult to hear what was being said.  The second big issue was it was just hard for me to believe the couple had been married for 20 years and this was the “out-of-the-blue” indication Fran Dodsworth has shown that she is insufferably insecure about her age.  I went along with it for the movie, but it was too much to believe and in the end, I was just waiting for her to get her comeuppance.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  “Dodsworth” is a grown-up film about grown-up problems — a rarity in any era.  I found it emotionally honest, beautifully acted, and surprisingly moving.  It’s the kind of film you’ll think about after the credits roll.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “Dodsworth” is a landmark of mature Hollywood storytelling — historically significant for its Oscar recognition, its literary pedigree, and its nuanced treatment of marital disintegration.  Watch it for Walter Huston’s extraordinary performance, Wyler’s restrained direction, and the film’s timeless exploration of pride, aging, and second chances.  It’s not a flashy film, but it is a deeply human one — and well worth your time.
.
Click here (24 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

There Is Supply AND Demand

The benefits – fiscal and social – of national service programs far outweigh their cost.  Programs like Teach for America, YouthBuild, and the National Guard Youth Challenge give young adults an opportunity to serve their fellow Americans alongside their peers.  The latter two especially focus on offering vocational opportunities for non-college-bound youth, an area in which we lag far behind other developed countries.  We should invest in and expand these offerings and explore a mandatory service obligation.
Public service generates the empathy so deeply needed in our hyperpartisan climate.  And there is demand – the Peace Corps receives three times as many applications as it has spots.
—     Scott Galloway
From his book:  “Adrift – America in 100 charts“
.
Click here (24 January) 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 »

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: A Criminal In The Oval Office

Statement of
Jack Smith
Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
before the
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
January 22, 2026
Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss my work as Special Counsel in the investigation and prosecution of President Trump for his alleged unlawful retention of classified documents and obstruction of justice, and role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election and interfere with the lawful transfer of power.
I love my country and believe deeply in the core principles on which it was founded.  For nearly three decades, I served as a career prosecutor, spanning both Republican and Democratic administrations.  I have handled cases ranging from domestic assault, rape, armed robbery and murder, to gang violence, narcotics trafficking, and civil rights violations.  I have prosecuted public corruption and election crimes across the United States, and I have prosecuted war crimes abroad.  I am not a politician, and I have no partisan loyalties.  My career has been dedicated to serving our country by upholding the rule of law.
Throughout my public service, my approach has always been the same:  follow the facts and the law, without fear or favor.  Experienced prosecutors understand that specific case outcomes are beyond our control;  our responsibility is to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons.  These principles have guided me in every role I have held — as an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan;  a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn;  Chief of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice;  Acting U.S. Attorney in Tennessee during President Trump’s first term;  an international war crimes prosecutor;  and as Special Counsel.
During my tenure as Special Counsel, we followed Justice Department policies, observed legal requirements, and took actions based on the facts and the law.  I made my decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.  President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the very laws that he took an oath to uphold.  Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions, as alleged in the indictments they returned.
Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power. President Trump attempted to induce state officials to ignore true vote counts;  to manufacture fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he had lost;  to force his own Vice President to act in contravention of his oath and to instead advance President Trump’s personal interests;  and, on January 6, 2021, to direct an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then exploit the rioters’ violence to further delay it.  Over 140 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted that day, a fact we should never forget.
And, as set forth in the original and superseding indictments issued in the Southern District of Florida, President Trump stored classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago social club after he left office in January 2021 and he repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents.  Highly sensitive information was held in non-secure locations, including a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place.  Tens of thousands of people came to the social club during the time period when those classified documents were stored there.
As I testify before the Committee today, I want to be clear:  I stand by my decisions as Special Counsel, including my decision to bring charges against President Trump.  Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity.  If asked whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that President was a Republican or a Democrat.  No one should be above the law in our country and the law required that he be held to account.  So that is what I did. To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and a public servant, which I had no intention of doing.  This is why I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and to correct the false and misleading narratives advanced about our work.  I am prepared to do so while adhering to the Justice Department’s authorization governing the scope of my testimony and while constrained by Judge Cannon’s order restricting the discussion of Volume II of my report regarding the classified documents case.  To that end, and as a result of Judge Cannon’s order and the Justice Department’s interpretation of that order, I will not be able to discuss the contents of Volume II of my report, and can only discuss matters with respect to that case that are set forth in the indictment or other public filings.  Similarly, I cannot discuss the contents of the documents at issue in the case due to their sensitive nature.
I remain grateful for the counsel, judgment, and advice of the career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff with whom I worked as I executed my responsibilities.  My team exercised independent judgment and acted in the highest traditions of the Justice Department in the face of threats to our safety and unfounded attacks on our character and integrity.  I am saddened and angered that President Trump has sought revenge against them, and others who worked on cases related to the attack on this Capitol, for simply having worked on these cases, for simply having done their jobs.  In my opinion, these people are the best of public servants, our country owes them a debt of gratitude, and we are all less safe because many of these experienced and dedicated law enforcement officials have been fired.
Adherence to the rule of law is not a partisan concept or endeavor.  The Justice Department’s core values, and the traditions and norms I was raised on as a prosecutor, are not meant to change from one administration to the next.  After nearly 30 years of public service, including in international settings, I have seen how the rule of law can erode.  My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in this country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted.  But, the rule of law is not self-executing — it depends on our collective commitment to apply it.  It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs.  Our willingness to pay those costs is what tests and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.  I look forward to your questions.
[I have reformatted this text (added emphasis, italics, underlining and removed page breaks) to improve the readability on my blog site.
The original PDF file can be downloaded from:  https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20260122/118881/HHRG-119-JU00-Wstate-SmithJ-20260122-U2.pdf
—    kmab]
.
Click here (23 January) 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 Head, The Tail, The Whole Damn Thing…

“Jaws” (1975) — movie review
Today’s review is for the landmark thriller “Jaws” (1975), directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Roy Scheider as Chief Martin Brody (the water-fearing police chief forced to confront both a killer shark and his own fears);  Robert Shaw as Quint (the grizzled, monomaniacal shark hunter whose bravado masks old scars);  Richard Dreyfuss as Matt Hooper (the energetic, privileged oceanographer whose scientific expertise collides with small-town politics);  Lorraine Gary as Ellen Brody (the emotional anchor of the Brody household);  and Murray Hamilton as Mayor Larry Vaughn (the embodiment of civic denial in the face of danger).  The film blends character drama, suspense, and primal fear into a cinematic experience that reshaped Hollywood itself.
Background:  Between the theater (original and re-release), TV, VHS, DVD and streaming, I have seen this film well over a dozen times.  LoL.  I may not know every line word for word, but I’m pretty close…  Released in the summer of 1975, “Jaws” became a cultural phenomenon and is widely credited with creating the modern summer blockbuster.  Adapted from Peter Benchley’s novel, the film faced notorious production challenges — mechanical shark failures, weather delays, and a young director pushing the limits of what was possible.  Despite these hurdles, “Jaws” became the highest-grossing film of all time until “Star Wars” arrived two years later.  It won three Academy Awards:  Best Film Editing, Best Original Dramatic Score (John Williams), and Best Sound.  Historically, “Jaws” stands as a watershed moment in American cinema — a film that redefined suspense, marketing, and the economics of wide release.
Plot:  Amity Island, a quiet New England beach town, is shaken when a young swimmer is killed by a great white shark.  Chief Brody wants to close the beaches, but political pressure keeps them open.  As attacks continue, Brody teams up with oceanographer Matt Hooper and shark hunter Quint to track and kill the predator.  The second half of the film shifts to the open sea aboard the Quint’s fishing boat (the “Orca”), where the three men confront the shark — and each other — in a battle of wills, wits, and survival.  The story culminates in a desperate final confrontation, blending terror, ingenuity, and 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;  iconic and groundbreaking;  a few;  absolutely!
Any good?  Yes.  “Jaws” is a true / historic masterclass in suspense and character-driven storytelling.  It balances terror with humor, spectacle with restraint, and mythic fear with grounded human drama.  The film’s pacing, tension, and thematic depth — fear of the unknown, civic responsibility, masculine rivalry — elevate it far beyond creature-feature territory.
Acting:  Scheider anchors the film with understated strength, portraying Brody as an every man caught between duty and dread.  Dreyfuss brings energy and intelligence to Hooper, creating a memorable contrast with Shaw’s Quint.  Shaw’s performance is legendary — theatrical, intimidating, and unexpectedly vulnerable.  His USS Indianapolis monologue remains one of the most haunting scenes in cinema.  The supporting cast, including Lorraine Gary and Murray Hamilton, adds texture and realism to the town’s political and emotional landscape.
Filming / FX:  Spielberg’s direction is both inventive and disciplined.  The mechanical shark’s unreliability forced him to rely on suggestion rather than revelation — a creative limitation that became the film’s greatest strength.  John Williams’ score is iconic, transforming two alternating notes into a cultural shorthand for impending danger.  The cinematography captures both the idyllic charm of Amity Island and the vast, isolating menace of the open sea.  The editing, which won an Oscar, is razor-sharp, building tension through rhythm, silence, and sudden violence.  While some mechanical effects show their age, the film’s overall craftsmanship remains remarkably effective.
Problems:  A few.  The parents of the child who dies in the day-light beach attack are FAR to old to have had the child.  If they claimed to be the grand-parents, I’d have believed it more.  Some of the shark shots, particularly in the final act, reveal the limitations of 1970s practical effects.  The pacing in the first half may feel slow to modern viewers accustomed to rapid-fire editing, but after the historic opening beach / swim scene, the slow buildup is what creates the building tension / fear.  Still, these minor issues are overshadowed by the film’s enduring power and influence.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  “Jaws” remains gripping, atmospheric, and surprisingly character-rich.  Its blend of suspense, humor, and human drama makes it endlessly re-watchable.  The film’s ability to evoke primal fear — of deep water, of unseen threats — is as potent today as it was in 1975.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended to MUST see.  “Jaws” is a foundational work of modern cinema — a film that won three Academy Awards, launched Steven Spielberg’s career, and redefined the blockbuster era.  Its suspense, performances, and iconic score make it essential viewing for anyone interested in film history or simply in a masterfully crafted thriller.  Watch it to remember that sometimes what you don’t see is far more terrifying than what you do.
Final Note:  “Jaws” had a number of sequels.  I have seen a couple back in the day and they are (were) uniformly terrible.  I won’t be buying them or spending time re-watching or reviewing any of them…  Apologies if I’m disappointing anyone.  LoL  And, yes – I am still terrified of sharks!
.
Click here (23 January) 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 »