Classic Kane

Today’s movie review is for “Citizen Kane” (1941).  This is a long review of a classic movie which routinely rates as one of the best movies of all time.  There are spoilers in this review.  (You’ve been warned…)
Background:
I first saw this movie when I was in my mid-20’s and my roommate was trying to get me interested in classic movies (dramas, westerns and musicals).  He mostly succeeded in piquing my interest, but this was before video tapes, let alone DVDs, so a neophyte couldn’t re-watch a movie to their heart’s content.  We were pretty much limited to whatever was showing up on TV or as very limited re-releases at the local theater.  The bottom line is I saw this once and was under-whelmed.
I guess about five years ago, my daughter bought me a copy of the film for X-mas after we had a discussion about “must-see” classic films.  I don’t think I’ve ever watched that version.  She did.  Anyway, I recently picked up a copy on my VUDU account and decided to enjoy a classic.
Cast:
The movie stars Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane the owner of “The Inquirer” newspaper syndicate;  Joseph Cotten as Jedediah Leland, Kane’s best friend and a “society” reporter for Kane’s newspaper;  Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane, Kane’s mistress and second wife;  Agnes Moorehead as Mary Kane, Kane’s mother;  Ruth Warrick as Emily Monroe Norton Kane, Kane’s first wife;  Everett Sloane as Mr. Bernstein, Kane’s friend and employee at the paper;  and, George Coulouris as Walter Parks Thatcher, a banker who becomes Kane’s legal guardian.
Plot Summary:
The movie starts with an old man dying in what seems to be almost a castle.  He has a snow-globe in his hand and as he dies, his last word is:  “Rosebud”.  The movie then jumps to a several minute intro about how wealthy (and wasteful) the old guy was…
The basic plot is a reporter is told to find out who this guy really is and what was “Rosebud”.  The reporter then proceeds to recount a number of interviews with the old guy’s friends / family / colleagues…
A young boy becomes wealthy after the discovery of gold on his recently deceased father’s property and his mother ships him off East to be educated and looked after in a series of boarding schools.  The boy does badly and goes through a series of schools and colleges, but his wealth continues to grow until he is one of the five wealthiest men in the world at the age of twenty-five.  Kane returns from Europe with his long-time friend (Leland) and they set about running a “yellow-sheet” newspaper and turning it into a nation-wide paper and radio syndicate.  Although losing money, his other interests continue to grow his wealth under the supervision of Thatcher.  When the Great Depression hits, Kane is wiped out and his business interests are bought at pennies on the dollar by Thatcher.
Without any explanation, Kane is suddenly wealthy again and back in the publishing business.  Kane tries to leverage this into a Governorship of New York State, but loses the election when his opponent publicizes Kane’s “affair” with a clerk / part-time singer.  Kane’s first wife divorces him.  He marries the singer and proceeds to make her life miserable by trying to turn her into an opera singer – although she lacks the ability or desire.  She fails and attempts suicide to avoid further public humiliation.  Kane begins building a famed estate “Xanadu” where they retreat to.  Kane’s second wife leaves him (mostly for mental abuse).  Kane has a fit and then after some unspecified time fades and dies.  His last word is:  “Rosebud”.
The final scene of the movie is a pre-cursor to the ending of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” warehouse scene…  Kane’s possessions are being catalogued and those items deemed “worthless” are thrown into the Xanadu furnace.  One of the items is a sled with the manufacture’s name:  “Rosebud”.
Review:
So, is it any good?  How’s the acting?  Is it “really” a classic?  First off, please recall the film is now eighty(80) years old…  Within that specific constraint:  YES, GREAT and YES!!!
Is it good – the movie is no surprise.  We are told the ending up front and then the story evolves through the series of interlocking / overlapping flashbacks.  Little to nothing occurs in “real time” – our time as a viewer.  The only twist is the actual final furnace scene where WE learn the implied meaning of Rosebud as a profound effect on a young boy’s life.  But is it ANY good?  As stated, it is widely considered one of the greatest movies EVER.  It was up for multiple Oscars (but only won one).  There are multiple books written about the movie and Welles is considered to be one of the greatest directors in film history – although he “directed” only a dozen films in his lifetime.
How’s the acting – it’s actually pretty good.  Obviously the special effects used for aging characters back then is nowhere near what were used to seeing in modern cinema, it holds its own.  I personally am not enamored with Welles role, but I liked all of the other characters / actors – particularly Cotton and Comingore.  The former made a terrific jilted / disabused friend and the latter a terrific naive young lady.
Is it a classic – DUH!!  In preparation for this review, I read the Wikipedia article on the movie.  The initial criticism is there is little to nothing (film making technique) new here.  The response:  maybe, but it was the first movie to tie a whole bunch of things previously (rarely) done together and have the sum be much greater than any of the individual techniques in prior movies.  It’s effects have been both profound, pervasive and long lasting.
Final recommendation:  This IS a classic movie and a must see film if you are at all interested in film history.  ‘Nuff said…
.
On This Day In:
2021	Are You Rotating Crops?
	Wrong Block, Dummy
2020	I Choose Justice And Mercy
2019	Close, Sustained, Careful, Daily
2018	One Brick At A Time
2017	Order The Rope, #DumbDonald
2016	Chains Of Habit
2015	That You Shall Remain
	Did You See That?
2014	True, Vibrant And Open
2013	Remembering, Yet Again
2012	Something Of Value
2011	Sleep All Day

Read Full Post »

Escape From Planet Junkyard

“Soldier”  —  movie review
Today’s review is of the 1998 action movie, “Soldier“, starring Kurt Russell as “soldier” Sergeant Todd 3465.  We know this because he has “Todd 3465” tattooed on his face.  Whatever…
Okay.  Todd is the product of the selective training of soldiers from “orphaned” youth (i.e. babies).  The film progresses through their aging and training into dispassionate killer soldiers whose only sense of self is tied up in their profession of violence and following orders absolutely without question.  Selected trainees who cannot make the grade are summarily executed, so only the “best” survive.  Todd survives the training and multiple battles / wars to become a “seasoned” veteran.
Along comes the movie bad-guy in the form of West Point graduate Colonel Mekum (played by Jason Isaacs) who brings along a group of replacement soldiers which have been genetically altered to be superior to the previous batch who were “only” a selected, raised and trained batch (which is Todd’s group).
Mekum uses one of his new soldiers (Caine 607, played by Jason Scott Lee) to demonstrate the groups superiority and the new soldier defeats the old in three-on-one combat.  Two are killed and the third (Todd) is presumed dead and all three bodies are disposed of as a “training accident”.  Todd is dumped on a the garbage planet “Arcadia 234”.  Apparently, in the future, we have such a shortage of resources on Earth we have to explore other worlds to survive, but we have such an abundance of energy that we can transport naval aircraft carriers to other planets to dispose of them (along with a host of other laughable items).
Todd wakes up and finds himself injured on this junkyard planet with a bunch of settlers whose re-settlement ship crashed on this planet.  They’ve made due the best they can, but basically live like homeless folks somewhere in southern California – hot, dry with terrible sand storms.  And, of course, they nurse him back to health…
Blah, blah, blah…  Todd discovers his humanity and begins to make friends.
Now, the good Captain wants to give his men some combat experience, so he decides to land on a junk yard planet and kill anyone they may find there.  (Because that’s how all good officers train their new soldiers.)  Of course, the new guys stumble on Todd’s friends and Todd doesn’t take too kindly to his new family being slaughtered.  So, he goes all Rambo (v5, not v1) on the new guys, but he doesn’t have to show any mercy (v1), so he just kills them all (definitely v5).
Blah, blah, blah…  Lots of explosions, fights and killing goes on and Todd kills all of the new guys with the big final set piece / fight scene against – you guessed it – Caine 607 – the last remaining new soldier.  Todd wins, gathers up the settlers and they commandeer the dead soldiers’ space ship and continue to the original settlement location, with everyone lives happily every after.  Well, all except Mekum, who accidentally blows himself (and Arcadia 234) to smithereens.
So, is this movie any good?  Does it work within any of its genres:  Sci-Fi, action-hero, “Escape from New York / LA / Stargate / Arcadia 234”, family protecting killer soldier (I mean hero) versus genetically engineered killer soldiers?  Did I enjoy it and / or find it entertaining?  Well, despite the fact this movie was an absolute bomb at the box office, I would say:  Yes.  Sometimes.  And, yes!  Of course I enjoyed it.  I mean seriously.  Read through that list of genres, again.  Talk about a pitch being in the batter’s wheelhouse!
Seriously.  This is not a very good movie unless you are seeking a simple minded, summer-type, action movie with fights, explosions, special effects, and (“Oh, the humanity of it!“) one emotionally fulfilled killer wiping out a couple of dozen emotionally unfulfilled killers.  Did I mention there are fights, explosions and special effects?  In other words, you paid for “Snake” Plissken, so eat your popcorn ’cause you’re getting “Snake” Plissken.  The movie doesn’t make ANY sense on so many levels, you just have to hit the switch and say:  “Okay, blah, blah blah…  How long until the next fight and explosion”.  On that level, this is actually a pretty good movie and I found myself rooting for Todd and emotionally fulfilled (me, not Todd) when Mekum blows himself up.  Evil fails spectacularly and good is triumphant!!
Final recommendation:  moderate.  This movie never tries to be anything it isn’t and is successful at being what it is:  a pretty good pop-corn and soda / matinee / action-hero film.  Put it this way, I’ve owned this DVD for over 10 years and this is only the third time I’ve viewed it.  Good enough to keep on the shelf and watch again sometime, but not good enough to schedule another viewing in the immediate future.  A final note:  If you are a total film nerd, there are literally dozens of references to other movies (StarTrek, StarWars, Predator, Blade Runner) and many of Russell’s roles from other movies.  Now that you’ve been told this, you HAVE to view the movie just to see if you can find them.  You KNOW you do…  Then go check out the Wikipedia and IMDb pages to see how close you got to their lists.  Caution:  it’ll cost you another viewing or two to confirm who is right.
.
On This Day In:
2021	Happy Thanksgiving (2021)!
	When You Get Where You’re Going
2020	Still In School
	The First Deuce
	Escape From Planet Junkyard
2019	Will John Bolton Testify?
2018	Just Maybe
2017	Police In My Review Mirror
2016	Full And Rich
2015	Go Deeper
2014	Intentional Mapping
2013	The Sweet Path
2012	Living Free And Abolition
	Morning Wood
2011	I Resemble That Remark

Read Full Post »

My 2 Cents

Like almost all Marvel movie fans, I sadly read about the recent death of Chadwick Boseman, the actor who played T’Challa (the Black Panther) in the Avenger movies and in the recent (2018) stand-alone movie.  I have read that as a measure of respect for Boseman, the role should be abandoned and / or perhaps taken up by the character of his in-film sibling:  Shuri.  While I am confident Letitia Wright, the actress playing Shuri, could step into this type of role and do a great job, there is the “little” matter of ascension to the role is performed via challenge and ritual combat.  Does anyone seriously think Shuri could defeat M’Baku in hand-to-hand combat – particularly without the Panther “power” from the orchid?
I would like to suggest a different path.  I would like to see Aldis Hodge take up the mantle of T’Challa / Panther and just “pretend” he’s the same actor.  Just as we’ve been substituting actors for “James Bond” and “Peter Parker / Spiderman”, we just use a different actor.  To be clear, I mean no disrespect to Boseman’s portrayal of T’Challa – I thought he was brilliant – I just don’t want something from real life to take away from us a character we’re already invested in and who has so much more room for cinematic growth.
My reasons for suggesting Hodge are simple and practical:  1)  we already know he can act;  2)  he has the strong, athletic build for the role (he’s 6ft 1in and has already played roles of multiple athletes);  and, 3)  he’s a good age (currently 33 years old), so he could be in the role for at least 10 years (three movies:  two Panthers and one Avengers).  Many of the other actors are already beginning to age out of their roles and will also need to be “replaced”.   Of course, this is just my two cents worth…
If the decision is made not to replace the Black Panther or to modify the role for a female (Shuri), then I would like to see at least one prequel / backstory of one or more of the Panthers who preceded T’Challa or his father (T’Chaka).
.
On This Day In:
2021	First Ask For Courage
	Shadows And Darkness
2020	My 2 Cents
	You Do It
	Must Be Why I Like Dreamin’
2019	The Opening Step
	Day 17/18: That Didn’t Take Long
2018	I’ll Trade You…
2017	Luv Me Some Meat Loaf
2016	Unless Your Name Is #AmnestyDon
2015	A Tentative First Step
2014	Making People
2013	On Reading Books
2012	On America
2011	Shiver, Me Timbers!
2010	Fiduciary Breakdown

Read Full Post »

Find An Antidote

The artist’s job is not to succumb to despair but to find an antidote for the emptiness of existence.
—    Gertrude Stein
Actually, this is a quote from the “character” Gertrude Stein, played by Kathy Bates, in the movie:  “Midnight In Paris“
.
On This Day In:
2022	Vision Test
2021	Or These Days, On The Internet
	There Goes My Heart
2020	Find An Antidote
2019	Take A Few Minutes To Remember
	Start By Doubting
2018	You Cannot Pretend
2017	A Long Shadow
2016	Learning, Experience, Chances or Money
2015	The Critical State
2014	Dawn, n.
2013	Ouch!
2012	Just Lookin’ Around
	Still Growing
2011	But Do You Want To?

Read Full Post »

A State With No Business

If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.
—    Thurgood Marshall
.
On This Day In:
2022	Relegated To Study Hall
	5 – 40hrs
2021	And Initiative Gets You Started
	Here’s My Story
2020	#IncometentDonald Says The Economy Will Rebound Quickly
	A Family Horror Story
2019	A State With No Business
2018	Reflections
2017	Opposites Attract
2016	Completely Unreasonable
	Starting To Be A Reacher
2015	Avengers Assemble II
	But If I Had To Perish Twice…
2014	Turning Pages
2013	We Are All Accountable
2012	American Sign Language
2011	Happy Disproof
2010	Book Review – Managing Your Government Career

Read Full Post »

A Little Magic

“Matilda”  (1996)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for a children’s fantasy movie about a young girl growing up in a dysfunctional family, attending a dysfunctional school.  Ah, but the young girl is a self-taught math wiz with telekinesis power.  Basically, she is a genius and can move things with her mind.
The movies stars Mara Wilson as Matilda Wormwood, Danny DeVito plays her father (a crooked used-car salesman), Rhea Perlman plays Matilda’s mother (who spends all day off gambling), Embeth Davidtz plays Miss Jennifer Honey (the only decent grown-up), and Pam Ferris plays the wicked school headmaster / principal.
The movie traces Matilda’s life from birth through (ultimately) getting adopted by Miss Honey and them both living happily ever after.
As a kid’s movie, is it any good?  Does it work as a fantasy?  Is it funny?  Yes; definitely; and, mostly, but not ha-ha funny (for me).  This is not a “Disney” live-action movie, but it feels like one.  There are lots (and I mean LOTS) of amusing lines for adults and enough sight-gags to keep the kiddies engaged.
Final recommendation:  highly recommended!  I have seen “Matilda” numerous times over the last 20+ years and it remains an amusing little gem of a film.  A couple of the scenes with the horrible principal may be too intense for children under six years old, but I think any kids, nieces and nephews older than that will enjoy the movie.  Teens may find it a bit too childish, until they are old enough to know how to listen to dialogue.
Two shout-outs:  Danny DeVito is excellent in this role (even if a “little” type-cast) — pun intended;  and, the movie has a great song in it:  “Send Me On My Way” performed by Rusted Root.
.
On This Day In:
2022	True Measures
2021	Moments With You
	I Remember I Told My Sorrow
2020	A Post-Valentine Thought
2019	A Little Magic
	‘Cause It Makes Me Feel Happy
	The Mark Against Your Name
2018	Nice To Meet You
2017	All Nations & Religions
2016	Given The Choice
	Why Is He Wearing Red?
2015	Within The System
2014	None But…
2013	Obviously Longer
2012	A Childhood Poem
	Who Are You Callin’ Leather-Faced?
2011	In No Particular Order
	The Need For Proof

Read Full Post »

Bourne Wicked Blonde

Atomic Blonde (2017)  —  movie review
Today’s movie examines what happens when marry the weak storyline of a James Bond spy movie with the visuals / fights of a Jason Bourne movie and throw in the violence / violence of a John Wick movie – all of which is based on a “graphic novel” (aka:  comic book).  And, of course, the “twist” is the main character is a female.  Charlize Theron is Lorraine Broughton (the lead British spy); James McAvoy (the young Professor X in the X-men movies) is David Percival (the Berlin station head / British agent), Eddie Marsan is Spyglass (the East German agent with information), John Goodman is Emmett Kurzfeld (the CIA agent), Toby Jones (the Hydra guy in the Avengers movies) is Eric Gray (Broughton’s boss), and Sofia Boutella (the bodyguard with killer legs from the Kingsman movie) is Delphine Lasalle a French agent.
So, it’s 1979 and the Berlin Wall is about to fall.  A list of all agents (French, British, German, etc.) is about to be sold to the highest bidder.  MI6 sends their best agent (Broughton / Theron) to get the job done – whatever the job needs to be.  Blah, blah, blah, lots of violence, blah, blah, blah, more fights / violence, blah, blah, a hint of lesbian sex, blah, blah, blah, more violence and a spy twist at the end.
Is it any good?  If you like the Daniel Craig / Bond’s or the Damon / Bourne or the Reeves / Wick movies, you will almost certainly enjoy this movie.  I do / have and I did.  Is it serious cinema?  It’s a comic book adaptation and suffers from all of the excessive survival issues of this action / spy / drama genre.  No one, male or female could survive all of this over the top fighting and still function.  Given that, the movie works.  It is entertaining for its “kick-some-butt” target demographic / audience.  And Theron surprised me as being able to carry off the role.  She is great and she definitely makes the movie in the same way Craig-Damon-Reeves carry their respective franchises.
Final recommendation:  strong.  This will not be a movie to everyone’s taste.  There is little to no humor, it is dark and violent, but it is consistent within the universe of its genre (graphic novel).  Although Theron’s character does her fair share of butt-kicking, if male on female violence bothers you, you will not enjoy this movie.  The movie is rated “R” for violence, language and brief nudity.
.
On This Day In:
2022	Sowing The Future
2021	Unmistakable Progress
	Dom-De-Doo-Be Dom
	Reviewing Austen
2020	A Better Synthesis
2019	It’s Only Funny If You’re Old Enough To Know What “Film” Was
2018	Bourne Wicked Blonde
	First Things First
2017	This Explains A Lot
2016	Me Too
2015	A Proper Price
2014	Well Hard
2013	Because I Can
	Eloquence, n.
2012	Why Bother?
2011	Peculiar Notions

Read Full Post »

Four Documentaries

The following are my brief reviews of four documentaries I watched on Netflix…
Requiem for the American Dream  (2016)   —  movie / documentary review
This documentary is (more or less) a seminar about the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few (1%) and the subsequent use of wealth to control the government and thereby use the government to increase their wealth.  The documentary presents the views of Noam Chomsky, an MIT emeritus professor who made his fame in the study of linguistics and philosophy.  Chomsky is a long-time “leftist”, but not in the traditional sense of Communist or Socialist, and more in terms of being pro-democracy, that is supporting the rule of the governed as opposed to the rule of the elite.  More specifically, the people should control the governmental (government and regulations) business environment, not the business’s (or the mega-wealthy).  I didn’t find much which was really new in this documentary, but then I have considered Chomsky’s positions previously and have long agreed with him.  If I have any problems with this film it’s that it is presented in a “relatively” dry (“academic”) format.  So, while I agree with Chomsky, the American public doesn’t seem to mind government of the elite, by the elite and for the elite – hence, the election of Donald Trump.  Final recommendation:  highly recommended, particularly if you are angry about the state of the country and / or worried about your job / career and place in our economic class system.
Sneakerheadz  (2015)   —  movie / documentary review
A short (just over an hour long documentary) summary / description of people who obsessively purchase sports shoes.  I agree with one of the commentators – a young lady – who says (in effect):  “If you grow up poor and wanting things, like name-brand shoes and clothes, when you grow up and have enough money to buy them, you do.  To excess…“)   As I watched, I recognized myself and realize that except constrained by money, I could / would otherwise fall into this “addition”.  Beyond the simple ego-boost of being able to get something you previously could not afford, there is an underlying message of people seeking a place in society by creating an image of themselves which they can project out to others.  Interestingly, it seems this message is learned at an early age and then becomes the goal of their (the Sneakerheadz) life.  There is also a strong message about societal values and the ability of marketing to influence those values.  Not an original idea, but I still found it interesting to hear it stated so openly in documentary about shoe collectors.  Final recommendation:  highly recommended.
A Drummer’s Dream  (2010)  —  movie / documentary review
What happens when you take some of the greatest drummers in the world, put them in an isolated Canadian farmland with a bunch of kids and all the drum kits and money the drummers can bring together?  It seems you get smiles, effervescent passion and irresistible personality. Starring drummers:  Nasyr Abdul Al-Khabyyr, Dennis Chambers, Kenwood Dennard, Horacio “El-Negro” Hernadez, Giovanni Hidalgo, Mike Mangini and Raul Rekow, the documentary captures you with Rock, jazz, Latin fusion, and soul, but mostly it is about the drummers and their joy in playing…  And, did I mention smiles!  These musicians are driven by the beats of their hearts – full of love and joy of life.  Final recommendation:  Highly recommended!  I found myself tapping my hands and feet for days after watching this.  Fortunately, my attention deficit disorder prevents me from becoming obsessive (in this way) or I’d still be drumming and trying to find / share their joy.  Come for the percussion, stay for the smiles…!
The Real Miyagi  (2015)    —  movie / documentary review
Back in the 1960’s, a young Japanese man came to America with little but an expertise in Martial Arts.  He subsequently went on to become an internationally recognized Martial Arts instructor and stunt back-up actor.  That man is Fumio Demura.  If you have seen any of the first four “Karate Kid” movies, you’ve seen sensei Demura in action (probably without realizing it). Pat Morita’s iconic sensei (Mr. Miyagi) in ‘The Karate Kid’ was based on sensei Fumio Demura and Demura was Morita’s stunt double in the action sequences.  I don’t mean based on Demura’s actual life, as Mr. Miyagi was a fictional Japanese-American character who fought in World War II.  Rather, Mr. Miyagi is based on the idea of a man perfecting (improving) himself using art – in Miyagi’s case it is Karate and Bonsai trees.  The documentary traces sensei Demura’s life and offers multiple tributes from his students which offer insight into the man behind the title “sensei”.  Final recommendation:  strong if you have only a casual interest in Martial Arts, highly if you have a personal interest in Martial Arts or in historic Martial Artists.
.
On This Day In:
2021	Still Building
	Golden
2020	Books And Blogs
	You Don’t Know What I Got
2019	#45 Is The Inverse
2018	A Message To The White House Press Corps
2017	Eeny Meeny Miny Moe
	Binge, Binge, Binge
2016	Feeling Warm Yet?
	Four Documentaries
2015	Just Like All The Others
2014	In My Own Vanity
2013	Filled With Words
2012	Lectio Auget Existentiae Meae
2011	Lied Lately?
2010	Born To Work At Faux News
	Lost Again (Uh, Make That Still)
	Qui Genus Humanum Ingenio Superavit
	They’re Back… (Part 1)

Read Full Post »

And 4

Today’s post is reviewing four movies – one re-review and three new reviews.  The movies are:  (old) “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (2016);  (new) Immortals (2011);  (new) Jason Bourne (2016);  and, (new) Moneyball (2011).  Because this post is for four movies, it will be longer than normal.  If you’re not interested in my movie reviews, move along…  So, in alphabetical order…
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (2016)  —  movie review
My original review can be found here from back in April.  Back then I gave it a “strong” recommendation as “entertaining”.  That review stands.  If anything, I might raise it to high.  I think I actually liked it more.  The plot still doesn’t make a lot of sense, but as previously stated:  it’s a marketing gimmick to get three super-heroes together so DC can start a franchise.  Even given that, I still liked the movie a lot – more so than the first viewing.  I particularly liked Ben Affleck (Batman) and Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman).  And, while Superman is never going to be my favorite super-hero, Henry Cavill owns the role like no one since Chris Reeves in the original “Superman – the Movie”.  The movie worked for me.  Bring on the Justice League of America!
Immortals (2011)  —  movie review
Okay, so in ancient Greece, some beefcake named Theseus (Henry Cavill aka Superman) is blessed / cursed by Zeus (Luke Evans) to protect humanity (well, at least the Greeks) from a mad tyrant – King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke).  Phaedra (Freida Pinto) plays the love interest, an Oracle of Delphi.  Anyway, blah, blah, blah, Theseus finds a magic bow (“The Epirus Bow”) and saves the world from the Titans.
Since I’d never heard of this “legend” tale, I looked it up on Wikipedia and it is completely made up.  The names of the characters appear in Greek history or mythology, but this myth / story does not.  Still, it’s a good tale.  The movie is from the same producers as “300“, so if you like that kind of bloody action, fights and special effects (and I do), you should find this movie to your visual taste.  Final recommendation: strong.  I picked this movie to see if Cavill can act in any other role beside Superman.  That didn’t work out so well as he plays a “minor” superman / hero here, too.
Jason Bourne (2016)  —  movie review
This is a movie I really wanted to see at the theater, but never got around to.  It’s the fifth in the series and the fourth with Matt Damon in the title role.  Matt skipped number four which starred Jeremy Renner.  (Wow.  Now I’ve got to go back and see that one again.)  While it was nice to see Matt back in the saddle, this movie makes absolutely no sense.  The plot is the same as the others (the first three), the CIA wants Jason Bourne dead and he fights back.  The special effects technology is upgraded, but it’s used badly and adds to the “huh?” factor.
I never thought I’d say this, since I much prefer Matt to Tom Cruise, but Ethan Hunt is now better in the Mission Impossible series than Jason Bourne is in this series.  And it’s not Matt’s acting.  It’s the story telling.  This movie is what it is:  Matt / Jason fighting and running around and being super clever.  Other than that, it’s an extremely average action movie.  I’m sure Hollywood will try to string this out for another couple of sequels, but it’s running out of air and there’s a DNR on the patient’s chart.  Time for a better re-boot than we got with Jeremy.
Moneyball (2011)  —  movie review
What can I tell you?  It’s only been a couple of weeks since the Cubs won the World Series and I’m missing baseball…
This is one of those movies “based on a true story”.  Basically, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) has to make a small market (ie “poor”) baseball team competitive.  He does it by introducing “Sabermetrics” to baseball.  Here, Sabermetrics is renamed as “moneyball”.  The baseball team is the Oakland Athletics (better known as the “A’s”).  The A’s lose three of their best players to teams with more money and in the struggle to replace them, Beane tries to redefine how you evaluate players using statistics instead of experienced baseball “eye-balls” (veteran scouts).  What happens is he turns the “rebuilding” team into one which not only makes the playoffs, but sets an American league single season consecutive winning streak.
The movie gives a fascinating look into the “business” of modern baseball, and, yes, I did get caught up in both the streak and the “romance of baseball”.  I liked Brad Pitt in Troy, but most of his stuff is just kind of “so-so” for me.  He is excellent in this role!  Final recommendation:  High!!
.
On This Day In:
2022	Still Looking
2021	Misunderestimated
	The Sincerest Form Of Flattery
	Four Fifths Of Music
2020	Doctor’s Orders
	Make That Seven Orders…
2019	Innocent
2018	Ripost
2017	Just Asking…
2016	And 4
	How Tall Do You Stand?
2015	More Prejudice
2014	Say What?
2013	Daring Errors
2012	Are You Comfortable?
	I Just Have To
	In Flux
2011	True New
2010	A Job Well Started Is A Job Half Done
	I See With My One Good Eye

Read Full Post »

Camping Out In Camden

“The Lady In The Van”  (2015)  —  movie review
Well, last night the wife and I thought we’d enjoy a little British comedy starring Dame Margaret (“Maggie”) Smith starring in “The Lady In The Van“.  The movie tells the (mostly) true story of Miss Mary Shepherd, an eccentric homeless woman whom playwright Alan Bennett befriended in the 1970s.  He allows her temporarily to park her Bedford van in the driveway of his Camden home.  She ends up staying there for 15 years.  As the movie progresses, Bennett learns Miss Shepherd is really Margaret Fairchild, a former gifted pupil of a famous pianist.  She played classic music (piano) in a famous concert, tried to become a nun, was committed to a mental institution by her brother, escaped, then had an accident when her van was hit by a motorcyclist (who dies).  She believed herself to blame, and there after lived in fear of arrest.  At the very least, she was guilty of fleeing the scene of fatal auto accident.
Alex Jennings plays Alan Bennett and he does it in a kind of split personality role where he frequently appears as two parts of himself at the same time.  One seems to be “the writer” and the other seems to be “the normal person”.  At least, that is what I assume as this duality is never clearly explained in the film.  In the end, it is (not) clear this movie is, in fact, about him, and not about the lady, at all.  This is in spite of the title.  (My wife, disagrees.  She felt the movie was clearly about the lady.)
The movie is one of those “classically” unfunny comedies the British are famous for.  There was no laughter at our house – an occasional smile – mostly smirks.  That’s not to say Smith and Jennings aren’t very good in their respective roles.  It’s just that, except for a few one-liners and ripostes, the movie is entertaining, but not funny.
Final recommendation:  moderate.  The acting is very good, but the movie is confusing.  Maybe it needs a second or third viewing.  The problem is I’m not sure I feel it is worth that much trouble or effort.  Somewhat amusing, in a British kind of way…
.
On This Day In:
2015	Quality Government
	A Handful Of Flics
2014	Just Another Brick From The Wall
2013	Artistic Demands
2012	Foundations
2011	Are We Devouring Yet?

Read Full Post »

The Best Of Disinfectants

“Spotlight”  (2015)  —  movie review
“Spotlight” won the Academy Award as best picture of the year for 2015, so it’s a given this is a good / great movie and my final recommendation is: highly recommended!
Okay.  Now that that’s out of the way, what’s the movie about and why do I recommend it?
The movie is about the lead up to the Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles published by the “Spotlight” investigative journalism team of the Boston Globe back in 2002, which dealt with child molestation (rape) and the systematic (and systemic) decades long cover-up orchestrated by the Catholic Church under the direction of senior religious authority (in this case, by Cardinal Bernard Law, the Archbishop of the Boston).
I am unable to separate my feelings about this movie’s subject matter and my own faith.  I make no claims of religious (or moral) superiority or distinction.  I was baptized Catholic as a baby and attended both Catholic grammar and high schools in San Francisco.  I left the practice of my faith for a number of years and returned to “The Church” over a decade ago in my late 40’s.  As a practicing Catholic, this scandal has been extremely troubling for me.  As humans, we are all weak and have failings.  To understand there will be some in the religious orders who take advantage of their position is one thing.  To have the institution of the Church systematically cover-up unlawful activity propagated against its weakest and most vulnerable (we are, after all, talking about the sexual abuse of children and teenagers) members is quite another.  To say I was and still am furious is quite the understatement!
At the end of the film, there is a list of cities where there has been shown to have been similar abuse and cover-up.  The list is over two full screens!  Moving forward, I only hope that every priest or nun who is proven guilty of these crimes is punished to the full extent of the law.  I further believe that going forward, any other priest, nun, Bishop or Cardinal who fails to report these activities to civil / criminal authorities should be prosecuted for conspiracy to aid and abet in the same crimes and all should be defrocked and excommunicated.
I liked the “film” (not the topic) very much.  The story was interesting and well paced.  The acting was also very good.  I think it very clearly showed this was a failure of persons and of institutions.  The movie was not particularly hard on the Church (as some have objected) and it fairly accurately related the outrage the common Catholic felt (and still feels) about these crimes and sins.  I have no pity for any of the individuals who were brought out from the shadows by the original articles or by this movie.  I continue to hope God has a special place in Hell for all of those in positions of authority who allowed this to continue and who did nothing or who actively attempted to hide these abusers from criminal prosecution.
This movie is about what happens when we let individuals and institutions stand above the law.  Ultimately, though, it is also a cautionary tale about what might happen if we continue to let our “fourth estate” (the written press) get eaten up by corporate consolidation and the lure of speed / cost savings / increased productivity promised by the internet.  Who will be there to inform us in 30 to 50 years when there are no investigative teams?  Did anyone else just feel a shiver run down their back?
“Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants;  electric light the most efficient policeman.”
—    Louis D. Brandeis
Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
.
On This Day In:
2015	Thousands
2014	What We Can
2013	Mostly Unsound
2012	Malcontent
2011	What Have You Seen Lately?
	Just Perspire!

Read Full Post »

Accepted Fraud

“The Big Short”  (2015)  —  movie review
Last night I watched “The Big Short“, which is a movie about how the banking, finance, credit bureaus  and real estate industries defrauded the American public (actually the entire world) and got away with it.  The movie stars Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Brad Pitt and Ryan Gosling and is rated “R” for language and frontal nudity (brief scenes with strippers).  The movie uses cut-aways to random famous people to provide “definitions / explanations” and (I guess) a bit of levity.  This act of having the person on camera “speak” to the audience is known as “breaking the fourth wall”.
For some time now, about forty years ago, the banking industry moved away from traditional “banking” and started trying to make money off of making money.  This began as an attempt to monetize risk into products which could be sold.  This was done via derivatives, which is a fancy way of saying “money for nothing”.  It is not really “nothing”, it’s position, options, leverage, coverage, insurance, or any number of other names for financial security – or rather, the illusion of financial security.  Some people think of it as shared risk.  I think it’s more traditional name is gambling.
Okay.  I’ll get off my soap-box and get back to the movie.  Four groups of financial players discover the housing market is being fraudulently (and criminally) propped up and, in fact, is in a giant bubble.  A “bubble” happens when greed takes over common sense in a market and prices for the items in the market are far higher than the actual value of the item and / or the ability of the buyer in the market to purchase the item.  Theoretically, when you lose the ability to pay for something, you should stop buying it.  However, in a true bubble, because “everyone” expects the price to continue to increase, the buyers continue to buy under the assumption the price will continue to go up and just before you lose the item (foreclosure for realty), you sell the item and take whatever profit you can.  IF you can time your exit correctly and get out with a profit, you win.  However, this is not true investing.  It is merely speculating.  This speculation is what is at the heart of the movie.
That is the “before” side of the movie.  The four groups know there is a bubble and one of them creates a derivative to profit (vastly) if the housing market bubble bursts.  The other three parties  get wind of the derivative and essentially go “all-in” to bet on the crash.  This is all happening in roughly 2005.  The expectation is the crash will happen in early 2007 when a percentage of mortgage loans which are variable rates with short-term fixed rate teasers have the teaser expire.
When 2007 rolls around and the housing market does crash, the derivatives don’t initially pay out because the banks / credit agencies / insurance companies  and government don’t want the national economy to collapse.  Essentially, the U.S. Taxpayer (via the government) foots the bill for the losses of the restructuring financial market.  Inevitably, a few of the large financial players “go away” (get bought up at severe discount) and the global economy is saved.   Here, the key point of the movie is that the little guy in America loses their home, but none of the fraudulent bankers and financiers goes to jail.  The irony is they (the banks and financiers) have prevented legislation which might stop this from happening again in the future, and we are back on the same roller coaster again.
Final recommendation:  highly.  This is a complicated movie about a complex subject.  The average person seeing the movie will probably not understand the financial portions of the movie.  They will (probably) understand the effects of the bubble burst because most of us have been living through the results (recession) over the last ten years (and still going).  This is not a great movie, but it is an honorable attempt to educate the working people of America.
.
On This Day In:
2015	Even The Little Ones
2014	Who’s On First?
2013	No Equal Measure
2012	A Single Host
2011	No Exemptions
2010	Memories Of KSA – Inside The Fire

Read Full Post »

Free Experience

The Intern (2015)  —  movie review
Last night I watched a very entertaining little comedy from last year – “The Intern”.  The movie stars Robert DeNiro in the title role and Anne Hathaway as the young, entrepreneurial business founder who learns:  “Experience never gets old”.  Yeah, that’s the movie’s tag line.  But, believe it or not, for what seems like a over-produced “Hallmark” movie, it works.
DeNiro plays a 70-something, retired widower who is just trying to stay active and feel like he is contributing something with his life.  He applies for and gets a senior (citizen) intern position at an internet company so he can find out what this technology stuff is all about.  Hathaway is youthfully offensive, but like everyone else in the company, warms to “the old guy” who just wants to help any way he can.  In the end, they (of course) become best friends.
The movie is very cleanly shot with a light comedic touch and there is actually a great deal of adult – if uncle / niece – ish  – chemistry between the two actors.  In a moment which almost breaks the fourth wall, Jules (Hathaway’s character) says to Ben (DeNiro’s character) that it was nice spending a few minutes with a male having an adult conversation which wasn’t about her business.  The movie could have very easily gone in a different direction, which would have been predictable (but creepy-ish), but instead adds Rene Russo as the age-appropriate romantic interest for DeNiro.  (One question:  When did Russo become an attractive older woman?)  I am obviously dating myself, but my mind’s eye still sees her in “Tin Cup” and “Lethal Weapon” —  and, ok, maybe “Thor“, too.  LOL.  Their “relationship” is the basis for the two best sight gags in the movie.  Hint – suggested sexuality.
Is the movie believable?  As a business movie, no, not really, but really, who cares?  It is what it is…  a light comedy about relationships which mildly pokes fun at the young and hip as well as at the elderly (without being mean-spirited to either).  I thoroughly enjoyed it and my final recommendation is:  highly recommended!
On a side note, back in 2000, I interviewed for a senior manager position at a dot-com and I showed up on-time, dressed in a dark blue, three-piece, pin-striped suit, white buttoned-down shirt with a striped tie and wearing black wing-tips.  I was interviewed by five or six different managers and executives over a two-day process / series of meetings.  Everyone was in jeans or shorts.  It was in July and warm.  I could soooo relate to this similar scene in the movie!  LOL.  Talk about producing flashbacks…  And, yes, I too got the job.  Unfortunately, the company was short-lived;  and my job, even shorter.
.
On This Day In:
2022	Spring Colors
	Decisions, Decisions
2021	In Pursuit
	The Music Of Her Laughter
2020	Close, Sustained And Careful
2019	#45: Spread The Fear
	Fear The Beards
2018	Slice, Nick, Cut, Bled
2017	Like Most Blogs
2016	The Window Left Open
	Free Experience
2015	Reality == Perception / (Times Reported * 10)
2014	Tear Da Roof Off Da Sucka
2013	Exposed Spirits
2012	Ow-ow
2011	Focused Relatives

Read Full Post »

Dueling Heroes

Batman v Superman (2016) –  movie review
Last Saturday I took my daughter Sarah to see the latest comic book movie:  “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“.  The movie stars Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne / Batman, Henry Cavill as Clark Kent / Superman and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman.  Wonder Woman is really only in a small role (screen time wise), but it is significant to the movie as the start of the Justice League.  Affleck is new to the role of Wayne / Batman, but was surprisingly much better than I anticipated given all of the negative reviews.  Cavill is reprising his role as Kent / Superman, and is still great in the role.
Is this a “good” movie?  Yes.  It is.  It’s not going to win anyone a best actor trophy and there are large parts of the movie which don’t make any sense, but it’s a movie about comic-book superheroes, so give me a break!  I enjoyed it.  It’s not a great “film”, but most (almost all) comic-book adaptations are not great films.  Who cares?  We don’t go to them for great acting or great dialog or great plot.  We buy our tickets for action, adventure, fantasy and special effects to match our imagination.  By this standard, BvS is entertaining and that is enough.
So, what is the movie about?  Basically, the movie is a marketing attempt to throw three super-heroes together to create a “team” so the industry can have a competing franchise to the Marvel Comic Universe.  The “team”, in this case, the Justice League, will then be able to spin out both League and individual heroes sequels.  If the medium proves as artistically deep as the comic book medium, movie studios will have created a money making machine which can span decades without ever having to come up with a “new” idea.  They just follow the bread crumb trail of the comics.
There is only one problem:  actors age and comic book characters don’t.  Well, they do, but on a factor of about one year for every 8 to 10 years (“real” years) of the reader’s life.  In the movies, this is handled by substituting a new (younger) actor in the next sequel or re-booting the movie series (again with a new – younger – actor) usually about ten years after the latest origin story.
The other way to deal with the age issue is to age the hero along with the actor.  This can work (see the “Die Hard“, “Rambo” and “Rocky” films), but more often, not really (see Christian Bale in “The Dark Knight Rises“).  The point I’m getting at is that Affleck’s older Batman, and more specifically Bruce Wayne, is better portrayed than Bale’s.  And, one step farther, I think this will bode well for future League sequels.
Now, some of you might ask:  what does any of this “really” have to do with this movie.  Probably nothing.  Just the meandering thoughts of an old comic-book reader…
So, final recommendation:  strong.  Standing on its own, it is entertaining.  And, if you don’t go see it, you won’t know what’s going on in the sequel.
.
On This Day In:
2022	When Your World Seems Dark
2021	Keep Looking
	It’s Feeling Good
2020	Why Are So Many Of My Posts Simply Quotes?
2019	Two Books
2018	Prime Example = #45
2017	Building On
2016	Dueling Heroes
2015	Remarkable Creations
2014	Measured Faith
2013	April Fool, n.
2012	Faith, Ego And Patriotism
	As It Happens
2011	What Counts

Read Full Post »

A Kids Movie Rip-Off

Earth To Echo (2014)  –  movie review
As all my regular readers know, I am a sucker for an endearing movie – particularly if it involves Science Fiction.  This one does, but it ain’t.  This movie is an almost good attempt to rip-off almost every kid based SciFi movie you’ve ever seen.  The poster is almost a legally actionable rip-off of E.T.   And it just starts there….
Basically, three socially awkward friends are about to be separated by their families moving to various parts of the country.  Their cell phones go wonky and they spend the evening / night trying to assist an alien rebuild himself and his spacecraft so he can go home  (“E.T. phone home…”).  In the spirit of other movies it’s also trying to rip-off, the movie is shot using selfie-style phone and Go-Pro footage to make it look first person.  It kind of works, but not really.  Just like most of the rest of the movie…
Without giving too much away, the cute little owl-lie alien gets to go home and the boys get to remain friends even though they are separated.  Oh, and there’s a girl thrown into the mix to add a bit of pubescent rom-com for good measure.
Acting?  It’s a kids movie.  Plot?  It’s a kids movie.  Special effects and action?  Okay.  Here it rises above mediocrity and actually has two halfway decent scenes:  one, a truck disintegrates and then is re-formed, and two, the alien ship gets built.  Other than that, it’s a kids movie….
Final recommendation:  moderate recommendation.  If you need a pleasant movie to watch with your niece or nephew – and they are between six and ten – this is a pretty good option.  It will entertain them and it won’t bore you to tears.
.
On This Day In:
2021	At Least Not Until Sunset
	Rain On The Leaves
2020	At Least A Little Less
	Two For The Post
2019	Promises, Promises
2018	You Mean There IS Something Else?
2017	Be Good
2016	Raise Yourself
2015	A Kids Movie Rip-Off
2014	Ready, Action!
2013	Responding To Challenges
2012	Abnormal, adj.
2011	Large Families
	On The Brink

Read Full Post »