One Generation At A Time

“McFarland USA”    (2015)    —    movie review
Today’s review is for the “underdog to hero” sports “feel good” drama “McFarland USA” starring Kevin Costner as Jim White (protagonist / running coach), Maria Bello as Cheryl White (coach’s wife), Ramiro Rodriguez as Danny Diaz (one of the runners), Carlos Pratts as Thomas Valles (one of the runners), Johnny Ortiz as Jose Cardenas (one of the runners), Rafael Martinez as David Diaz (one of the runners), Hector Duran as Johnny Sameniego (one of the runners), Sergio Avelar as Victor Puentes (one of the runners), Michael Aguero as Damacio Diaz (one of the runners), Diana Maria Riva as Señora Diaz (the mother of three of the runners), Omar Leyva as Señor Diaz (the father of three of the runners), and Valente Rodriguez as Principal Camillo (the school Principal).
Basic plot:  A “last chance coach” gets an opportunity to coach some poor Mexican-American high school kids to be State champions.  Basically, a “cross-country” version of “Hoosiers”. A football coach does something stupid and gets fired.  He is forced to take a job anywhere to feed his family.  He gets offered a job in a poor, mostly ethnic (Hispanic) high school in California’s central valley.  McFarland is a real place and this movie is loosely based on a real story.  Coach White decides the students at his school are too small to compete in football so he tries to get some of the students to tryout for the cross-country running team.  Since he doesn’t know what he’s doing and they’ve never run in a meet before, the team gets blown out and loses badly in their first competition.  Over time, the coach begins to understand the boys’ lives and their families.  The coach spends a day in the fields with the boys and they begin to respect him for (at least) trying to understand them and their lives.  The team gradually gets better and – like all good Disney heart-tuggers – wins the CA state championship.  The ending is a rolling montage of the school’s success (9 titles in the next 14 years) and the individual success of each team member.  The final message is that each of the team members still comeback to mentor and coach McFarland runners to this day.
So, is this movie any good?  The acting?  The representation of Mexican-American field workers in California’s Central Valley?  How accurate is the film?  And, finally, do I recommend the film?  In order:  YES;  okay;  YES;  so-so ; and, definitely.
Any good:  This movie plays with your emotions and makes you feel a whole range before you get to the happy ending.  Is it predictable?  Entirely!  Hey, it’s a Disney feel good movie…  You know what you’re going to get when you buy your ticket.  The film delivers for me!
The acting:  This is well trod ground for Costner, but there’s a reason he keeps getting these roles.  He’s good at them.  He is here, too.  Not great, but pretty good.  I was very pleasantly surprised by the young actors who played the team’s runners.  I thought they sold the movie.  They did not fit the “cross-country” runners physique / mold and they had (mostly) pretty bad running form, but they were getting paid to act, not to run.  I felt the acting more than made up for the athletics.  Bello was fine as the coach’s wife.  Riva and Leyva were particularly good as the parents of three of the runners.  I could see my own Tías y Tíos  (Aunts and Uncles) in their actions – especially in the meal scene, where Señora Diaz keeps refilling the coach’s plate.  I also liked the little prank Señor Diaz plays on the coach after the meal.
Representation:  The movie plays upon the fact that field laborers in America – in this instance, Mexican-American “pickers” have a hard life trying to support their families and gain a share of the American Dream.  In a way, using children / teens was a better way to demonstrate this than the strictly adult works in a similar movie (“Chavez”).  It is the bond of family and the hope that the next generation will have it better which keeps them going.  This is very well done in this movie.  I continue to find it amazing what has to happen to deliver food to our tables and how easily we take this for granted.
Accuracy:  Okay, this is PURE Disney.  There was a “Coach White”.  There is a town (and high school) named McFarland.  The school did win good number of championships.  The specific team / year in the movie did result in all of the members going on to college and most of them being successful in their lives.  However, most of the first half of the movie is fictional.  White began teaching in McFarland immediately after finishing college and was at the school over a decade before becoming the cross-country coach.  The team was not “new”.  The program was cancelled and White restarted it after a year’s break.  The school did win a number of State championships, but none at the top level of high school competition – they are a small school with a small student body size.  There were also other parts which were fictional.  Does any of this matter?  No.  The “real” Coach White was interviewed after the movie’s release and asked about the changes.  He said (paraphrased):  Hollywood has to do, what Hollywood has to do.  The point of the film was to honor the team from that first year, and the film does that well.
I think that says it better than anything I can add…
Final recommendation:  Strong to Highly.  I really enjoyed this film.  If you like “underdog” / sports / “based on a true story” dramas, I think you’ll like this film, too.
.
On This Day In:
2022	Enjoying Life
2021	A Spoonful Of Sugar
	A Matter Of Fact (Use Ta Be My Girl)
2020	Insensitive To Silence
	To All My Friends… (That’s What Friends Are For)
2019	Judging Success
2018	Something Else
	Day 21: 10% Loss
2017	Courage
2016	Don’t H8! — I’m With Her!!
2015	$20 Anyone?
2014	And Yet I Still Study
2013	Use Your Own
2012	Strengthen Freedom
2011	Attrition = A Lack Of Imagination
2010	Mind The Fire, Love
	Just Beyond My Reach…
	Even A Life Of Quiet Desperation!
	Acts Of Courage

Read Full Post »

Dying Isn’t Much Of A Way To Make A Living Boy

“The Outlaw Josey Wales” — movie review
Today’s review is for the 1976 western “The Outlaw Josey Wales” starring (and directed by) Clint Eastwood in the title role.  Other main characters are:  Chief Dan George as Lone Watie (a friend / companion), Sondra Locke as Laura Lee (Wales’ love interest), Bill McKinney as Captain Terrill (the main bad guy), John Vernon as Captain Fletcher (a Confederate officer who turns traitor to his men), Paula Trueman as Grandma Sarah (a bigoted old lady who mellows by the end of the movie), Sam Bottoms as Jamie (a young Confederate who is saved by and then saves Wales), Will Sampson as Comanche Chief Ten Bears, and Geraldine Keams as Little Moonlight.
The basic plot is a farmer turned Confederate soldier’s revenge for a family slaughter by some pro-Union irregulars.  As usual, the bad guys neglect to kill the father (Wales), who learns how to shoot a gun, and then joins the Confederates to fight the Union.  When the war is lost, their leader (Fletcher) betrays the Confederates to the Union soldiers, who in turn, slaughter them – again, all except Wales and a youngster (Jamie) who escape to fight again.
Blah, blah, blah…  Wales saves the Indian girl (Little Moonlight), his new Indian friend (Lone Watie), and a Kansas family emigrating to Texas (the Grandma and Laura Lee).  One particularly interesting scene is a meeting / negotiation between Wales and Chief Ten Bears.  In exchange for each other’s lives, Ten Bears agrees to let Wales and his party live.  Wales agrees the Comanche’s can take any cattle they “need” during their annual migration from his herd.  Wales promises to brand his cattle with the “S” (snake sign) sign of the Comanche tribe, so they will know which cattle they can take in peace.  They exchange blood to finalize the agreement.
The final battle set piece is Terrill tracking Wales down at the new homestead and Wales team defeating Terrill’s.  Wales then chases Terrill down and kills him (Terrill) to finally avenge his family.  At the end, Fletcher is with two Texas Rangers, but fails to identify Wales to them, so they (Wales and Fletcher) can both start their lives over.
So, is this movie any good?  Is it entertaining?  Did I like it?  Yes.  Yes.  And, yes.  This movie is considered a “classic” in the genre (Western / Western revenge).  It’s listed as one of the 100 greatest Westerns of all time.  It’s dirty, grimy, bloody and has the laconic humor we’ve come to expect from “Dirty Harry” – I mean from Clint Eastwood.  As for entertainment, it’s not particularly realistic, but it’s Hollywood war and the good guy is supposed to overcome all odds to win out in the end – right?  (Hint:  he does.)  And, yes, I did like it.
A word of caution to family viewers…  This movie is rated “PG” for language, a bit of brief nudity, a couple of covered-up sex scenes and a couple of “almost” rape scenes which may be inappropriate for younger viewers.  The Wales character is supposed to be a loner, because his wife is raped and brutally murdered at the start of the film (aka:  character motivation), so Wales saves the two female companions (Moonlight and Laura Lee) when they are similarly endangered.  I felt the scenes (violence and sex) were appropriate for the movie and the period (1970’s), and pretty similar to Eastwood’s post-“Dollars” trilogy Westerns.
Final recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended.  If you are an Eastwood fan (or a wannabe), this is a must see movie.  If you are a Western genre fan, it is still a must see movie.  I found it better than Eastwood’s average in the “Man with no name / Dollars” trilogy, but maybe not quite as good as “Unforgiven“.  I saw some clips (the humor scenes) of this film on YouTube and I missed this film on original release, so I figured it was about time to get around to viewing it.  I’m glad I did and I’m sure I will view it again.  Although, I will probably re-watch “Unforgiven” first.
PS:  The title of this post is a misquote from the movie.  Wales (Eastwood) actually says:  “Dyin’ ain’t much of a living, boy.“
.
On This Day In:
2022	For Some… Not All
2021	Does Blogging Count?
	Another Notch (Hit Me With Your Best Shot)
2020	Even Being President For Almost Four Years
	#45: Crying About The American Voters (Going Out Of My Head)
	Dying Isn’t Much Of A Way To Make A Living Boy
2019	And Autumnal Foliage
2018	Up Hill, Both Ways
2017	Trump Carnivores – The Revolution So Far
2016	Election Results
2015	Speak Louder
2014	Why I Frequently Give In
2013	Am Remembering
2012	Sustained Fear
2011	Commitment

 

Read Full Post »

What’d I Miss?

“Hamilton” —  movie review
Today’s review is for the musical play-cum-film of the 2015 Broadway production “Hamilton“. The play / film was written by the starring actor:  Lin-Manuel Miranda and based on a biography by Ron Chernow titled:  “Alexander Hamilton“.  For those who are not particularly “up” on their U.S. Revolutionary War period history, Hamilton is the face on the ten dollar bills in your wallet.  He was the first Treasury Secretary of the United States and one of the few non-Presidents to appear on U.S. currency.  Anyway, this is a long production (in two parts with an intermission break), so you have to be ready with a comfortable chair.
Other actors / characters include:  Leslie Odom Jr. as Aaron Burr (the man who duels and kills Hamilton);  Phillipa Soo as Eliza (Shuyler) Hamilton (his wife);  Christopher Jackson as George Wahington, Daveed Diggs in a dual role of Marquis de Lafayette and (more importantly) as Thomas Jefferson;  Renée Elise Goldsberry as Angelica Schuyler (Hamilton’s sister-in-law);  and Anthony Ramos as Philip Hamilton (Alexander’s son), who also dies in a duel.
Before I get much into my direct comments about this film, I have a few disclaimers:
1)  I don’t really LIKE plays or live performances of musicals (in general).  I haven’t been to many in my lifetime and most of what I have been to, I’ve enjoyed enough to feel the money was well spent, but I don’t recall ever thinking:  “Wow!  I wish I could watch that again tomorrow or next week“.  Now, in fairness to these productions:  I DON’T like crowds!  I can tolerate them, but I don’t like them.
2)  I knew little to nothing about Alexander Hamilton prior to watching this film / musical.  I started to read a book about him and James Madison, but never made it past the first fifty pages or so.  It was enough to jump-start me into this production, but I don’t “really” know how much was fact and how much was tabloid history.
3)  I’m not real big on “interpreting” history in modern terms.  I’m not a fan of rap or hip-hop style “singing” in movies (or in general) let alone in plays relating historic events.
Having said all of that, what did I think?  Was it any good?  Was I entertained?  Did I learn anything?
First, I think Miranda is VERY talented, if not brilliant.  He has stage presence and was definitely able to carry the starring load with his singing.  To think he also wrote the music and lyrics is particularly noteworthy as I’ve always thought of music, lyrics and performance as three fairly different skill sets.  I felt, however, that most of his tunes were songs and not raps – which may be why I liked them.
Second, Leslie Odom Jr. (as Burr) practically steals the stage with every song.  The camera loved him and (IMHO) he was the best performer in the production.  Again, though, my impression was his tunes were songs and not raps.  I’m beginning to sense a theme here.
Third, Soo and Goldsberry were okay – again more singing than rap.  I was not impressed with Diggs in either of his roles or Ramos in either of his.  I do not believe Jefferson was a clownish buffoon, which was the impression I got from this production.  I found it equally interesting that Washington was portrayed with extreme dignity in the entire production.
Final recommendation:  strong to highly recommended!  I would like to see this made as a “real” movie without songs and with serious acting instead of as a musical.  If it gets remade as a musical (at some point), I would like it re-done with typical movie type sets instead of the single set stage with minor modifications.  I’m not sure why, but I found the use of the single set even more distracting than the rap / hip-hop.
This movie / production is well worth viewing as a history lesson in its own right.  To the extent it reaches a younger population with its trendier musical style, well, as someone who loves learning about history, that’s a trade-off I’d make any day.  My take-away (what I learned) was about Hamilton’s burning desire to make something of himself and to make a mark on history.  It was interesting to me that Burr was portrayed not as someone seeking to make history, but rather as someone who simply wanted to be present when history was made.  Burr passion was just to be “in the room”.  Again, without knowing more about both men, I don’t know if my impression is historically accurate.
One final note:  both of my daughters have seen the live productions and my oldest was anxious to get me to listen to the music in advance of the play / movie.  Both have also listened to the songs repeatedly – maybe not quite to the point of memorizing them, but pretty close.  I feel as if this (going back and listening to the lyrics) is something I need to spend some time doing as I don’t feel I got much from the lyrics as a first time viewer and listener.
.
On This Day In:
2022	Arming Teachers Will NOT Prevent Or Minimize School Shootings (IMHO)
2021	In A Way
	Solo In The Middle Of The Backroads (Gentle On My Mind)
2020	What’d I Miss?
	A Little Closer
	But I Grew Up A Niner Fan… (Should’ve Been A Cowboy)
2019	Tragedy
2018	The Beam In Your Eye Adds Up
	Day 18: My Body Mass Index (BMI)
2017	Open Your Eyes (And Your Heart)
2016	Privilege Too…
2015	Otherwise Obscured
2014	Fundamentals
2013	Proof – ing
2012	Deluge, n.
2011	Hail, Caesar!
	Why Were You Sent?

Read Full Post »

Lessons Are Extra And Blondell

“The Cincinnati Kid”  —   movie review
Today’s movie review is for the 1930’s / Depression era, stud poker drama “The Cincinnati Kid” (1965) starring Steve McQueen as Eric “The Kid” Stoner, Edward G. Robinson as Lancey “The Man” Howard, Karl Malden as Shooter (the main card dealer), Ann-Margret as Melba (Shooter’s wife), Tuesday Weld as Christian Rudd (the “Kid’s” girlfriend), Joan Blondell as Lady Fingers (the secondary card dealer, and Rip Torn as Slade (a wealthy rich southerner).
Set in Depression era New Orleans, the movie revolves around “The Kid’s” attempt to become “The Man” (the champion) in stud poker.  This is the position / title currently held by Robinson’s character Howard.  Basically, Shooter deals a game between Howard and Slade where Slade looses badly.   (Famous quote:  “Son, all you paid was the looking price.  Lessons are extra.“)  While dealing the game, Shooter engages Howard to play the Kid.  Howard agrees.  Slade, who wants to get even with Howard, extorts Shooter to fix the game.  The game is played and Howard ultimately wins with a devastating hand (inside straight-flush) over a full house.  (Wikipedia says the odds of this happening are in the hundreds of billions to one.)
There are side story lines about the personal relationships between Shooter and his wife Melba, the Kid and his girlfriend, and the Kid and Melba.  Howard cautions the Kid during a break in the game to avoid relationships because they distract from this career they have chosen.  He recommends just having flings on the side / in-between games which will naturally peter out when the gambler moves on to the next venue.
This movie is widely considered as among the best of all the poker playing genre, but not necessarily the best of all the gambling genre.  It is widely compared (unfavorably) to “The Hustler” as a distant second / reminiscent / poor remake.  I have seen “The Hustler” (1961), but not in fifty odd years, so I can’t honestly say this is true, but I generally prefer Paul Newman to McQueen, so it probably is accurate.  They are both gambling movies with the young handsome up-and-comer trying to upset the old-lion, so I can see the comparison.
Is this any good?  Was it entertaining?  The answer to the first is that I found it more “interesting” than good.  Too much drama and not enough action for my tastes.  But, yes, it is an entertaining drama – in the classic old Hollywood sense (acting, character and plot development).
I enjoyed seeing the setting of New Orleans in the 1930’s.  I enjoyed the funeral band and the jazz club scene.  Right up until the very end, McQueen is consummate “cool”.  But throughout the movie – and particularly at the end – Eddie G. just smokes him in every scene!!  Robinson is the epitome of the alpha-male.  This movie is worth seeing just to gain an appreciation of him and his acting ability – without the hammy gangster-ism of some of his earlier / younger roles.
Final recommendation:  strong to highly recommended.  I am not a poker player, so the game scenes did not have much appeal to me.  I have personally only played (for money) once in my entire life – although I have watched it on TV a few times.  I “really” didn’t find that interesting either.  Anyway, as an old-style drama with character acting / development and two stars bringing their “A”-game, this is a movie worth viewing.
Two other points worth mentioning…  The first point is there is a cock-fight scene in the movie which doesn’t show “much”, but would simply not be allowed in today’s cinema.  While not showing the death blows, it shows enough to make the movie problematic for young viewers.  The second point is the five main supporting characters (in no particular order).  I am not a fan of Karl Malden, but I must admit to being surprised by his acting in this role.  He is very good.  I am even less a fan of Rip Torn, but he made a surprisingly effective “bad southern guy”.  I was very disappointed by Ann-Margret in this role.  Considering she was not yet 25 years old during the filming, she looked too old to play the young tramp wife married to the older unsuccessful gambler (Malden).  Obviously, she’s attractive, but she just didn’t have “it” in this role (for me).  Weld made for an appealing (but extremely forgettable) ingénue in this movie.  Although a very familiar name who has appeared in a number of films and TV series, I struggle to remember her in any role (and most of the films / series).  And, finally, Joan Blondell!!  She hits it out of the park!  Considering she is in her mid-50’s during this film, she is FAR more sassy / attractive / interesting than Ann-Margret or Weld who are both 30 years her junior.  She steals EVERY scene she appears in – including when matched up head-to-head with Robinson.  She was nominated for a Golden Globe for this role and she is worth the price of admission herself.
.
On This Day In:
2023	Feathers
2022	Aim High
	In Bloom
2021	Thrive
	Are You Still Here? (Monday, Monday)
2020	Perceived Wisdom
	Lessons Are Extra And Blondell
2019	Live It
2018	Mostly Unconsciously For Most People
	Desperately Ginger Lass
2017	Explaining My Equally Meager Results
2016	Every Tool And Every Chance
2015	Something That You Love
2014	Not Really At All
2013	Listening And Deserving
2012	I’m Still Not Certain
2011	True, False And Useful

Read Full Post »

Heroes Die Too

“Fury” (2014) — movie review
Today’s review is for the World War II action / drama “Fury” starring Brad Pitt as Staff Sergeant Don “Wardaddy” Collier, Shia LaBeouf as Boyd “Bible” Swan, Logan Lerman as Norman “Machine” Swan, Michael Peña as Trini “Gordo” Garcia and Jon Bernthal as Grady “Coon-Ass” Travis.  The movie gives the impression that it is all happening in a single day, but that seems improbable (if not impossible), but whatever.  It is late in the war, the Germans are on the verge of defeat, and four of the five main characters have been together for three years fighting and surviving.  The exception is Lerman’s character Norman / “Machine” who is a raw recruit brought up as a last minute replacement.  He was supposed to be a clerk / typist and knows nothing about fighting a war or manning a tank.
“Fury” refers to the nick-name the crew has painted on the barrel of the the tank’s main gun.
The movie follows the tank through a day of “war-is-hell”.  There are several battles, multiple random deaths, lots of gore, violence, and cursing and two implied sexual relations.  And then we have the main battle, where the tank doesn’t actually fight against another tank.  The tank is disabled at a critical road intersection and the men have an option to abandon the vehicle or stay and risk their lives in defeat in an upcoming battle against a several companies of SS-troops.  Pitt’s character chooses to stay and fight, but he gives his permission to the others to leave.  They also choose to stay / fight / die.
So, a movie which starts out as a morality play about the horrors of war and its debasing of the human spirit then reverts into a heroic / mythic journey with the “hero” leader (Pitt) staying behind to struggle against impossible odds to make a difference in the war (and to defend his emotional home).
Is this movie any good?  Is it an accurate depiction of combat?  Is it at least entertaining?  I found this movie to be very good as an action / war movie.  Yes, it is gory and some of the violence is random, but both of these things are by design / intent.  Real war IS hell and it can be heart-breakingly random.  If you thought the opening beach scene from “Saving Private Ryan” was “good” movie making, then you’ll almost certainly enjoy most (if not all) of this movie, because that’s pretty much what you get for almost two hours.
Final recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended movie.  If you can get past the gore and the profanity – it’s “R” rated and obviously not for folks with a weak stomach – I think you’ll find a lot of pretty good to very good acting.  And, by that I mean ALL five of the main actors do a great job in these roles.  There are telling glances, flinches and all out emotional confrontations.  Heroes don’t always have a happy ending to their story, but that doesn’t detract from their effort to do their duty.  I would add one qualification:  the movie stands on its own, but to “really” understand it you will need to watch the deleted scenes.  They provide a lot of character background info which I hope will someday in the future be integrated into a “Director’s Cut”.
.
On This Day In:
2023	Tread Softly, It Works…
2022	Whatever One Can
2021	Horticulture Anyone?
	Take To The Sky (Natural High)
2020	Heroes Die Too
	Front Update
	Still More Hope Than Fact
2019	The Ones Worth Remembering, Anyway
	Boot Edge Edge (My New T)
2018	To Reach The Next Threshold
2017	Streaking Tales
2016	Singular Reality
2015	He Says It’s Hard To Get There From Here
2014	Question From A Founding Father
2013	Make Heroes
2012	See And Hold
2011	Am Not, Are So

Read Full Post »

Basic Training (In Films)

Caution: this is a relatively long post reviewing two movies…  You’ve been warned.
Today’s reviews are re-watches from my childhood:  “Tribes” (1970) and “The D.I.” (1957).  Both are movies about being in Marine Corps Boot Camp.  “The D.I.” was released when I was two years old, so I obviously never saw it on original release, but I remember seeing it in my early teens.  “Tribes” I saw on its original TV broadcast.  I recently discovered / watched both movies on YouTube.
“The D.I.” — movie review
If you’ve ever wondered what “Dragnet” would look like if it were turned into Marine Corps Boot Camp, this is the movie for you.  The movie stars Jack Webb (who also produced and directed the film) as Sergeant Jim Moore who is a Drill Instructor (“D.I.”) at Paris Island.  His job is to turn civilians into Marines and he has a problem in the person of Private Owens (played by Don Dubbins).  Whenever Owens feels he’s under pressure, he quits / gives up.  The company Captain (Lin McCarthy) feels Moore is getting soft and orders Moore to bring Owens around or get rid of him.
There are (of course) side issues:  one – Moore is falling for a shop clerk (Jackie Loughery) named “Annie”, which is wrecking his “tough-guy” Marine self-image;  and, two – Owens’ mother (Monica Lewis) appeals to Moore that she coddled Owens and she lost her husband (in WWII) and her two older sons (in Korea).  She wants Moore to make her son into a Marine or he won’t be able to live with himself.
This movie is shot in black and white and it is fairly dark.  I guess as a nod to realism, the movie has a scene with Moore and Annie which (shockingly) edges very close to date rape.  It doesn’t happen, but I was surprised it was even implied in a movie from that period.  Incidentally, in real life, Loughery married Webb the following year (1958).  Despite this being a “Webb” movie (“Just the facts, Ma’am…”), from the 50’s, it is also a happily ever after ending movie – for the Private / mom and the Sergeant / clerk.  Who woulda guessed?
Final recommendation:  moderate to strong.  Viewed as a “Webb” production, this is a classic.  As a period piece, I would say it’s still pretty much a classic.  This movie was my first introduction to the concept of “Basic Training / Boot Camp”, and I remember it had a fairly strong effect on my impressionable mind.  Don’t get me wrong, this movie is not a cinematic “classic” and it’s really only a fair movie, but, in watching it, it reminded me of the simpler times of my childhood when things did seem more “black-and-white”.
“Tribes” — movie review
“Tribes” is not strictly speaking a “real” movie.  Back in the 1970’s, one of the main TV networks (ABC) used to run what it called the: “ABC Movie of the Week“.  Some of the ninety minute movies were pretty good and some even became TV series in their own right.
“Tribes” is a movie about a free-spirited (that’s “hippie”) individual who joins the Marine Corps and who has to go to (and survive) Boot Camp.  It stars Jan-Michael Vincent as the free-spirited Private Adrian, Darren McGavin as Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Drake, and Earl Holliman as Chief Drill Instructor (and Drake’s boss) Master Sergeant Frank DePayster.
The movie always seemed to me to be a message about the changing times of the 1960’s / 1970’s in America.  You’ve got two straight-arrow Marine lifers, but one has a streak of decency and the other does not.  Ultimately, the leadership abilities of the young recruit pushes not only his platoon to excel, but also to win over the D.I. nominally there to break his individuality and “turn him into” a Marine who will follow orders.
Final recommendation:  strong to highly recommended.  I was very surprised how much of this movie I could recall after nearly 50 years from my first (and only) viewing.  LoL – this movie also introduced me to meditation / alternative states of consciousness and boxers vs briefs.
I am very biased towards this movie as it had a personal effect on me when I was in Basic Training for the Army four years later.  When I was learning to fire the M16, I asked my Drill Sergeant why we used “human” silhouettes instead of “bulls-eye” targets, he replied, “because we want you to learn to shoot at people.”  He went on to explain Fort Ord (where I had my Basic Training) had the highest casualty and injury statistics of any of the training facilities which sent soldiers to Vietnam.  It was determined this was because “West Coast” city boys didn’t shoot at other humans instinctively.  Using silhouettes, trained them to shoot as a reaction instead of pausing to take aim.  Fortunately, I never had to put this to the test…
.
On This Day In:
2022	Ever Feel Like You’re Spitting Into The Wind?
	The Valley Of Death
2021	On Learning To Play Guitar
	When You’re Feeling Small (Bridge Over Troubled Water)
2020	Remember Your Obligation
	Smile And Shuffle (I Wanna Dance With Somebody)
2019	If One Is Lucky Enough
	Basic Training (In Films)
2018	Being President Doesn’t Make You Presidential
	Day 27: 4 Weeks / 55lbs
2017	I’m Seeing It, Too
2016	Personal Decisions
2015	Verbal Fluency
2014	Familiar
2013	Unbending
2012	Simple Sayings
2011	Wupped Again?
2010	3 and 1…
	Musical Notes…
	Doubt Tries…
	Northwest Passages – Evening Two
	The Beierly’s Web Site

Read Full Post »

No One Can Imagine

Sometimes it is the people no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine.
—    Alan Turing
“Codebreaker” (2011)  —  movie review
Codebreaker is a “docu-drama” about the life of Alan Turing, the famous mathematician who lead the team which developed the computer which broke the “Enigma” German code machine back in World War II.  Turing is played by Ed Stoppard.  The “drama” portion of this film is mostly from the journals of Dr. Franz Greenbaum, who was the psychiatrist Turing was forced to see for counseling.  Dr. Greenbaum is played by Henry Goodman.
This film was made for TV and was aired in 2011 in the UK under the title:  “Britian’s Greatest Codebreaker“.  The title was changed and the film had a limited theatrical release in the US in 2012, so you may find it noted with either year of release.
The documentary portion of the film is interspersed into the drama and features a series of interviews with relatives of both Turing and Greenbaum, a few of Turing’s colleagues / contemporaries and some otherwise famous folks from mathematics and the computer industry.
Of course the “psych” interviews delve into Turing’s childhood, schooling and his homosexuality.  The documentary interviews try to give a lay-person’s explanation of some of Turing’s main computer breakthroughs.  For those who don’t know, Turing is considered one of the creators of both digital computers / computing, and of artificial intelligence (AI).
Turing is reputed to have died from suicide by poisoning.  This film does nothing to explicitly contradict that conclusion, but it offers slim insights into the conspiracy theory that Turing might have been killed off by the British government in the interest of state secrecy.  In any case, some 50 years after the fact, Turing was given a full pardon for his “crime” (indecent acts) as well as a formal apology from the British government.
Final recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended.  Although no where near the “movie” which followed in 2014 (see below) for production value or drama, this made for television movie was just as interesting and probably more informative.  If you are interested in computers, AI or the history surrounding WWII, I think you’ll enjoy this film.
“The Imitation Game”  (2014)  —  movie review
This is my third or fourth time viewing this movie and my initial review can be found here.
This movie is based on the book / biography:  “Alan Turing: The Enigma” written by Andrew Hodges.  The movie is a dramatized version of “basically” historical events with liberties taken for “drama”.  Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Alan Turing, (Alex Lawther plays a young Alan Turing), Keira Knightley plays Joan Clarke (the female / “love” interest), Allen Leech plays John Cairncross (a Russian agent / collegue of Turing on the project), Rory Kinnear plays Detective Robert Nock, Mark Strong plays Stewart Menzies (the MI6 super-spy), Matthew Goode plays Hugh Alexander (one of the brilliant collegues), Charles Dance plays Commander Denniston (Turing’s commanding officer at Bletchley Park ).  The basic premise is that a brilliant Turing invents a general purpose computer to defeat the Nazi coding machine “Enigma”, thus saving lives by helping to end the war faster.  Their work is performed at Bletchley Park.  Turing (and the team) are successful, but because it is all TopSecret, there is no record of his achievements until much later (several decades) and Turing has committed suicide in the meantime.
The movie (and presumably the book) is based on fact.  Turing was a real person;  he was brilliant, he did come up with this codebreaking machine.  Also, he was homosexual;  he was subject to hormonal “treatment” to “cure” his desires;  he did die in 1954.  Beyond that, there are a number of points which are probably better handled in the “Codebreaker” TV movie reviewed above.  To begin with, I don’t believe he was autistic (as is implied in this movie).  I gather he had a mild stutter, but nothing like what is implied in the movie.  He was homosexual, but he was not as closeted as the movie implies.  My understanding is while he was open about it with his friends and colleagues, he was not what would be described as “flaming”.  He was “in love” with Joan Clarke and did propose to her and later break off the engagement.  By “in love” I mean he cared for her deeply, although it appears the relationship was more than Platonic but less than physical.  At any rate, as portrayed in the film, Turing does tell her he is gay and she did appear to not care (in real life) about his sexual preferences.
There are also a number of other factual inconsistencies:  the character Hugh Alexander did handle most of the supervisory / administrative duties for the team.  He was not “really” Turing’s supervisor and Turing was uninterested in those duties and most office (and real) politics.  The character John Cairncross may or may not have been a Russian agent.  In either case, he and Turing did not work together and I’ve read it’s unlikely they even met or knew each other.  Finally, Turing was not add odds with Commander Denniston, but it seems there was some issue with funding, a letter was sent to Churchill by the team and Turing’s name was on the letter, but it was from the whole of the team, not just from Turing.
Okay.  So after all that, was the movie any good and did I enjoy it?  Yes and very much so.  I admit I am a fan of both Cumberbatch and Knightley.  I also quite like Mark Strong as I see him in more things (the “Kingsman” series is top of this list).  Because I spent a career in computing, I already knew of Turing and some of his accomplishments, so it was nice to see it dramatized and put up on a big screen film.  Final recommendation:  (still) highly recommended.  I am a fan of the two leads, the specific (codebreaking / history) and general (computing / WWII) topics are also of personal interest, so I had a natural predisposition to enjoy this film.  But, beyond my personal interests (biases), I do think this was a good film / drama and worth the time of anyone who happens to view it.
For those wondering about the movie’s title…  Turing wrote a paper about computing and artificial intelligence which proposed that if a person sat in front of a typing instrument (what we today would call a terminal or workstation) and could type in a series of sentences and questions to “someone” at another workstation using normal language and could not tell the responses came from a machine, then the machine, was in fact, intelligent.  This is the simplified version.  The more complete version had three participants:  the human testing / judging, a human responding, and a computer responding.  In this case, the judge had to decide which responder was human and which was the machine.  In some variations, the judge isn’t advised one responder is a machine until after completing several question / response cycles.  Basically, the test was evolving to add a blind control situation:  the judge didn’t know there was a test or what was being tested until after the cycles.  I found it interesting that the producers of the movie would try to educate the audience about this aspect of computing and AI even though it had little to do with the premise of the movie, that is, a long-suffering individual genius breaking the German code machine.
As an aside (and final note), the movie shows Turing out running cross-country several times.  What isn’t specified is that he was a world class distance runner who nearly qualified for the British Olympic team in the marathon.  Again, nothing earth shaking, but I found the detail interesting.
.
On This Day In:
2022	Appearances Can Be Deceiving…
2021	Here’s To…
	Tweet, Tweet
2020	Why My Dentist Loves Me
	Live, Learn And Teach Goodness
	The Lesson Of Trump’s Life
2019	You Really Don’t
	No One Can Imagine
2018	Until Integrity, Decency, Wisdom, And Humility Return
	Just Tell (And Re-tell) The Big Lie Often Enough On Fox News
2017	To Laws, Not Office Or Individuals
	Beast / General / Civil
2016	Patronage
2015	For Blogs, Too!
2014	Righteous Anger
2013	An Irish Blessing
2012	But Is It Worth It?
2011	Let Us Start

Read Full Post »

Indian Myth

Today’s movie(s) review is for the Baahubali series:  “Baahubali: The Beginning” (2015) and “Baahubali 2 – The Conclusion” (2017).
Now, before I get into my review, a few comments.  I have a few Indian friends from my time in Saudi Arabia, but I have practically no experience with their culture: historic or mythological.  I have only seen a handful of Indian movies and those, recently viewed (mostly in the last five years), on NetFlix.  What I’m taking so long to say is I have little to no background to understand Indian history or its cinema.  I watched the first movie because it was recommended by NetFlix and the second, because I enjoyed the first.
“Baahubali: The Beginning” (2015)
This movie stars Prabhas as Shivudu / Baahubali (the hero / good king), Rana Daggubati plays Bhallaladeva (the bad guy / evil king), Ramya Krishnan plays Shivagami (the Queen designate), Sathyaraj plays Kattappa (the loyal / royal bodyguard), Anushka Shetty plays Devasena (the good king’s mother), Tamannaah Bhatia plays Avanthika (the good king’s girlfriend), Nassar plays Bijjaladeva (the bad king’s father and husband of the Queen designate).
Although a “foreign” film, the film’s speaking portions have been dubbed into English, but the movies’ songs remain in the original tongue, so to understand them you have to have your closed captions turned on.  I highly suggest you do this, as the songs add meaning to the movie.  They are not just background filler or for mood setting.
Basically, the plot is a mythic tale of heroism and courage in the face of evil.  The good king’s father is betrayed and the baby king is saved by the courage of a court handmaiden.  The infant (now named Shivudu) is adopted and raised by “regular” folk, but he quickly demonstrates strength and intelligence beyond his villager status.
Shivudu struggles against a cliff / waterfall, meets his future wife, saves his mother from imprisonment by the evil king and then leads a revolt against the evil king.  The royal bodyguard realizes at the end who the real king is (now called by Baahubali) and the movie ends.
“Indian” movies, to me, means bright colors, a cast of thousands, and (at some point) dancing.  By this strict definition, this is an INDIAN movie.  But, is it any good?  Particularly to a “Western” viewer?  Yes and YES!!  This is an action movie, a love story, a drama and a special effects extravaganza.  Much like any comic book adaptation (DC or Marvel) or any Chinese martial arts (fly by wire) movie, you have to suspend your understanding of physics, gravity, biology and human anatomy and then just settle in and enjoy the show.
Final recommendation:  if you like action movies with drama, romance (but no sex), color and terrific scale – you will enjoy this movie – strong to highly recommended.
“Baahubali 2: The Conclusion” (2017)
This movie (with essentially the same cast) stars Prabhas as Shivudu / Baahubali (the hero / good king – father and son), Rana Daggubati plays Bhallaladeva (the bad guy / evil king – young and old), Ramya Krishnan plays Shivagami (the Queen designate), Sathyaraj plays Kattappa (the loyal / royal bodyguard), Anushka Shetty plays Devasena (the good king’s mother), Tamannaah Bhatia plays Avanthika (the good king’s girlfriend), Nassar plays Bijjaladeva (the bad king’s father and husband of the Queen designate).
This movie relates the palace intrigue which resulted in Kattappa killing the first good king (Amarendra Baahubali), who is the father of Mahendra Baahubali (the second good king).  Kattappa assists the son in reclaiming the throne and everyone lives happily ever after.  (Not so happily for the bad king and his father, of course.)
Is this sequel better than or equal to the original?  Better?  No.  Equal to?  Well, okay.  I enjoyed the first movie more and the sequel really just seems like more of the same.  Does that make it bad?  No.  It just makes it the same.  It should be noted, the Indian people voted with their wallets.  The original was the second most sales (in crore) of all time in their internal market.  What movie did it replace?  You guessed it.  The original / first movie.
Final recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended. You can definitely watch this movie without viewing the first and enjoy it on its on merit. Again, good acting, drama, romance and vast scale special effects.  One more comment:  this movie is not currently dubbed into English, so you are committed to sub-titles.  This was tolerable, but I definitely would have rated it higher if I could have enjoyed the visuals more and not had to bother with the distraction of reading.
Series recommendation:  Strong.  It isn’t often you can watch a series in or out of order and still enjoy both movies.  I think this is one of those rare series.  One caution for non-Indian viewers:  my understanding is this a story about a “possibly” historic / mythological hero and kingdom – much like King Arthur in English lore.   You shouldn’t come away feeling you have any real knowledge of Indian history or geography, anymore than watching Marvel’s “The Avengers” teaches you anything about American politics or history.  Oh, yeah…  You’ll need lots of popcorn because each film is over two hours long.
.
On This Day In:
2023	Squeeze Your Opportunity
2022	Completely Reasonable To Worry
2021	Seeking Happiness
	Check Your Watch (Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is)
2020	Expectation For The Near Future
2019	Indian Myth
	Did He Even Have The Courage To Ask?
2018	Nothing
2017	Approval First
2016	In Search Of Words
	Day 2 – Blending
2015	At What Price?
2014	Intricate And Subtle Order
2013	Attention To Detail
2012	Aequanimitas!
2011	Consider This

Read Full Post »

Seven Minutes. Not Six, Not Eight

Collateral  (2004)  —  movie review
Last night I took an evening off of Christmas movies to watch and action movie.  My choice was the 2004 thriller “Collateral“, starring Tom Cruise as Vincent (a contract hitman) and Jamie Foxx as Max (a taxi driver).  Basically, Vincent is in Los Angeles with a night to kill (as in five targets to murder).  Max is the lucky taxi driver who gets a cash bonus to drive Vincent around as he does his dirty deeds.  Max awkwardly discovers Vincent is up to no good, but Max is convinced (by Vincent) to assist.  Action and hilarity ensue…
Okay, maybe NOT hilarity, but this is a pretty entertaining movie.  To start off, Tom Cruise is a bad guy.  Yeah, I know Tom has done a few bad guy or against-typecast roles in the past, but (for me anyway) I have to think about when was the last time I saw Tom as a “bad” guy.  If I have to think, that means I’m open for surprise.  I was both, open and surprised.  Tom was Tom (“run Tom, run”), but Tom was also pretty good.  Strike that,  VERY good.  Jamie Foxx is also mildly “against-type” cast in the role of ne’er-do-well taxi driver who dreams of owning a luxury limousine service.  It’s only in the last few minutes of the movie where Foxx reverts to super-hero and saves the day.
I particularly like Vincent repeatedly telling Max: “We’re in this together” and “We’ll both get through this”.  Max wants to believe he still has a chance to live through the night.  We, of course, have been told by the police of a similar case in Oakland, where a rampaging taxi driver killed several people and then committed suicide.  So, we pretty much know how it will “really” end up for Max at the end of the ride.
So, final recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended!  I really enjoyed this movie.  (Maybe I’ve been over-dosing on too many Christmas movies and I need to clean out my system?)  The type reversals for the two main actors was a big part of the enjoyment, but still, it (the enjoyment / entertainment) was there.  This is not a movie for kids.  The body count alone is enough to restrict access (rated “R” for violence and language), but for mature viewers, I didn’t find it to be gratuitous, over the top or offensive.  It was part of the story.  Are these “defining” roles for either of the main actors?  No.  But they are both against-type (mostly) and they both carry it off.
The question is:  “A man dies while riding on the MTA.  How long until somebody notices?“
.
On This Day In:
2022	Good And Plenty
2021	Climate Change Is Already Raising Sea Levels
	Running From You (Nowhere To Run)
2020	Speaking For Us
	Tears Don’t Wash Away (Come See About Me)
2019	Foundational Pillar Of Civilized Discourse
2018	Seven Minutes. Not Six, Not Eight
2017	Falling Forward One Step At A Time
2016	And Without Expectation
2015	Just Do It
	I Am A Runner
2014	Some Things I Learned (Mostly) In The Army:
2013	Who You Are
2012	Mine Stands
2011	Aversions

Read Full Post »

He Was All Of Us…

The Fifth of November
Remember, remember!
The fifth of November,
The Gunpowder treason and plot;
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot!
“V For Vendetta” (2006)  —  movie review
“V For Vendetta” is a political / action / thriller / drama set in a future United Kingdom / England, dystopian / fascist state.  The movie stars Hugo Weaving as V (the hero of the movie), Natalie Portman as “Evey” Hammond (the naive initiate), Stephen Rea as Eric Finch (the good cop just trying to do his job), John Hurt as High Chancellor Adam Sutler (the evil ruler), Tim Pigott-Smith as Peter Creedy (the head of the state police / the muscle).  The basic plot is a secret governmental agency is trying to find a disease (and cure) they can use as a weapon and gain control of the country / world.  They get the disease, but end up creating “V” as the cure (by accident).  “V” escapes, as does the disease and it becomes a world-wide pandemic.  To “protect” the U.K., the governmental agency seizes power and the state becomes a means of keeping a few (Sutler and Creedy) in more or less absolute power.  Except “V” comes back to exact his revenge.
So, damsel in danger.  Saved by hero.  Hero tries to convince damsel he is hero.  She doesn’t believe him and almost gets them both killed.  Hero goes to “extraordinary” lengths to convince her he is “good” and she finally believes.  Meanwhile, hero is playing all kinds of heck with the government.  The good cop is trying to capture the hero.  All the bad guys get their due.  Hero dies.  Damsel promises to remember him.
This movie is somewhat of a classic at this point – in the dystopian and anti-fascist movie genre.  Shockingly, this is the first time I have seen it all the way through!  I had previously seen lots of parts and a couple of times almost all of it, but I bought the DVD on sale for a $1, so what the heck.  It’s also on TV and NetFlix a lot, but I don’t enjoy watching movies with commercials (most of the time) and I just never got to it on Netflix before this.
Is this a “great” movie?  No.  But I do think it is a “classic”.  How’s the  acting?   Pretty good…  In a BBC / Masterpiece Theater kind of way.  Plot?  Action?  Special effects?  I found the plot a little confusing.  There are some “memory” scenes and I was a bit confused by the beginning / intro.  The action is mostly good to very good.  The crescendo death battle is definitely “classic” at this point and you can find multiple versions of it on YouTube.  That, and the two buildings which get blown up (the “Old Bailey” and Parliament) are both also done well as special effects.
Final recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended!  It is a movie which left me thinking it about it, so it’s difficult to describe it as an “action” movie, but it is also that, too.  I enjoyed it and now that I’ve watched it all the way through, I definitely want to watch it again in the not too distant future.  If nothing else, to make me think about it a little more deeply.  On its own, that’s a pretty good recommendation for any movie – genre classic or not.  Oh, yeah.  The verse above (which is recited in the movie) is from the poem referring to “Guy Fawkes Day”, which is 5 November each year in England.  Back in 1606, Fawkes and a group of co-conspirators wanted to blow up King James and Parliament.  They failed and were all executed.  “V” had better luck…
.
On This Day In:
2022	A Way Of Thinking, An Essential Tool
2021	Experience A Simple Whatever
	A Thousand Kisses (Never Too Much)
2020	Talking Politics With Trump Republicans
	In Another Lifetime (Shelter From The Storm)
2019	People Will Come
	Change Is Here…
2018	Be My Hero – Vote Tomorrow! (Hero)
	He Was All Of Us…
2017	Black And White
	Advice For #DumbDonald
2016	Mirror, Mirror
2015	Speaking With Forked Tongue
2014	The Code
2013	Eventually Formed
2012	Remember To Vote Tomorrow
2011	It Sounds Like Chaos Theory To Me

Read Full Post »

There Is No God But God

The Message (1976 / 1977) — movie review
Today’s review is for “The Message” (originally titled:  “Mohammad, Messenger of God“), which was released in Arabic in 1976 and in English in 1977.  The English version of the movie stars Anthony Quinn as Hamza (the Prophet’s uncle), Michael Ansara as Abu Sufyan ibn Harb (the leader of Mecca), Irene Papas as Hind (Abu Sufyan’s wife), Johnny Sekka as Bilal, and Michael Forest as Khalid.  Although the movie is “about” Mohammad, the movie follows the Muslim tradition of not portraying the Prophet or his voice.  Therefore, the movie has a few awkward scenes where the camera appears as the Prophet’s view and his lines are said (or rather repeated) by one of the actors on screen.  The movie depicts the historical drama (biopic) of the Prophet from his conversion until his death, and the birth / growth of Islam as a religion.
I first saw this movie almost twenty years ago when I was working as a contractor in Saudi Arabia for their national steel company:  Hadeed.  A co-worker of mine, who became a friend, was trying to convert me from being Catholic into a Muslim (Sunni).  This may sound a bit strange, but I found almost all Muslims felt it their duty to Allah to try to convert all non-believers.  This was never a pressure-sale kind of thing, it was simply an attempt to share the joy of his / their faith.  In any case, my first viewing had the benefit of having an English speaking Saudi there with me to elaborate on parts of the movie.  Obviously, I didn’t have this luxury for this second viewing.
To start off with, the movie is just under three hours long.  I think this is partly an effort to stay true to the story and partly for the production value of making the film into an “epic” like “Lawrence of Arabia” or any of the Cecil B. DeMille Hollywood Jewish / Christian epics.  Due to life getting in the way, I had to break up the viewing this week into chunks of 30 minutes, 60 minutes and 90 minutes.  I don’t believe the viewing (or this review) suffered from this as I now do this quite often.  The nice thing is the movie is free on YouTube, so you only have to write down where you stopped and you can go right back to that spot or a couple of minutes earlier with no problems at all.  I must admit to finding viewing of older movies (particularly made for TV movies) on YouTube to be a lucky fortune for me.
So, is the film any good?  Is it accurate?  Did I learn anything about Islam which I didn’t already know?  Yes, yes and yes (well, kind of).  This is not a “great” movie in the sense of great cinema.  It is a great movie in the sense of relating God’s will for mankind.  I don’t mean God / Allah seeking to turn everyone into a Muslim as much as God’s will to have men live in peace, respect women, help the poor and those less fortunate, and most of the doctrines of the other two religions of the book (“the Bible”).  Given the length, the movie has slow parts, but it also has some fairly well done battle scenes (for its time and special effects).
Is the movie accurate?  Not being an expert on Islam, I can’t definitively speak to this.  I can only say my friend felt it accurate enough to recommend to me (and view with me) and to relate that Wikipedia says the historian advisors worked on the entire filming while the religious experts did not.  The religious experts quit before the movie was completed.  It should be pointed out the film took over half a decade to get completed and was shot with two different casts (one for Arabic and one for English).  Part of this delay was due to the difficulty of keeping funding and part was due to location issues – some of the countries involved in shooting pulled their permissions over religious grounds.
Did I learn anything?  Yes, but not really anything “major-new”.  I was reminded of things and certain parts were emphasized in this second viewing (and background reading), and I think that was a good thing.  My Saudi friend either wasn’t aware of the political issues, the funding / duration issues or the multiple version issues, or if he did know about them, didn’t feel they were important enough to mention them to me.
I would say, that if you are coming into Islam blindly by stumbling onto this film, you will certainly learn a lot about the faith.  However, it should be recognized the similarities between Islam and Christianity are cherry-picked to hi-light the beliefs most closely aligned, and the differences are virtually ignored (unstated).  I don’t have any problem with this because I am aware of some of the differences.  They might be more problematic for someone less informed.
Final recommendation:  strong to highly recommended movie.  It is an older movie and it shows in the production values.  A historically based epic, I think the movie faithfully relates the story-line of the beginnings of the Islamic faith.  As such it is recommended viewing for anyone interested in comparative religious studies, Middle-Eastern history or, more specifically, the Islamic faith and its origin in Saudi Arabia.
.
On This Day In:
2022	Get Up
2021	Get Vaccinated AND Wear A Mask
	Since She Left (Donna)
2020	Didn’t I Just Post Yesterday?
2019	A Long Slog
2018	There Is No God But God
	To The Uncommitted Reader
2017	Not Yet That Well-Organized
2016	Probably Whatever Was Sought Yesterday
2015	What We Choose To Divide Us
2014	Peace With Honor
2013	Dangerous Systems
2012	Useful Science
2011	Say It, But Please Don’t Make Me Listen

Read Full Post »

Desperately Ginger Lass

“Leap Year”  (2010)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the 2010 rom / com, “Leap Year“, starring Amy Adams and Matthew Goode.  Adams plays a real estate stager (someone who “cons” buyers by making property look nicer than it is) and Goode plays a bitter / sarcastic pub owner / innkeeper.  The third main role is played by Adam Scott.  He plays Adams’ cardiologist boyfriend, Jeremy.
Anna (Adams) goes to Ireland to propose to her boyfriend (Jeremy / Scott) on February 29th (duh, “Leap Year”), on the way, she meets Declan (Goode).  A series of comedic incidents ensue.  Blah, blah, blah.  They fall in love, but try to deny it to themselves.  Blah, blah, blah.  Anna returns to Boston with her boyfriend – now fiance, Jeremy.  Blah, blah, blah.  Anna returns to Ireland and her true love.  Happy ending, kissing at sunset.
Is this any good?  Does it work as a rom / com?  Yes, and yes.  There are only two issues:  1) getting soaked in the rain (repeatedly) and pelted by hail, is miserable, not romantic;  and, 2) people seem to walk incredible distances extremely quickly.  Aside from these two minor breaks with reality, I enjoyed the movie thoroughly.  I particularly enjoyed the old men’s banter in Declan’s pub.  A perfect stereotype of an Irish pub.
A couple of other points:  I’m not sure if I’ve type-casted Scott or not, but he was completely unbelievable as Adam’s boyfriend.  I didn’t think I was an Adams’ fan, but I’ve seen her in multiple roles (“Doubt“, “Man of Steel“, “Julie & Julia“, and “Arrival“), and, okay, I’m sold.  She’s pretty good.  In those other movies, I don’t think the camera “loves” her.  In this role, it does.  And, then there’s Goode…  Watching the movie, I thought:  “This guy is great!  I wonder what else he’s done?”  So, of course, I looked him up and he was in “Watchman“, “The Imitation Game” and “Downton Abbey“.  All of which surprised me because (suddenly) I said:  “Wow!  He was good in all of those, too!”
Final recommendation:  strong to highly recommended.  As a fairy-tale rom / com this is a better than average movie.  I thoroughly enjoyed the two leads and the various predicaments they got into and out of.  It’s not a believable story / movie (see above), but it’s got beautiful Irish scenery and I found myself wanting them to have the happy ending.  That, in itself, is a pretty high recommendation for any rom / com.
.
On This Day In:
2023	Feathers
2022	Aim High
	In Bloom
2021	Thrive
	Are You Still Here? (Monday, Monday)
2020	Perceived Wisdom
	Lessons Are Extra And Blondell
2019	Live It
2018	Mostly Unconsciously For Most People
	Desperately Ginger Lass
2017	Explaining My Equally Meager Results
2016	Every Tool And Every Chance
2015	Something That You Love
2014	Not Really At All
2013	Listening And Deserving
2012	I’m Still Not Certain
2011	True, False And Useful

Read Full Post »