jlpicard1701E Reviews

Constellation (2024– )

A science fiction movie with a mystery? What a concept...

[8/10 · 21 March 2024]

And indeed it is a brilliant one at that. Some viewers defined also as a horror series, but I would tend to disagree.

It is more a psychological thriller rather than that.

I won't reveal its secrets behind the story, but suffice it to say that it hints to two different universes intersecting with each other.

Remember the series "Fringe"? Well, not quite but as I said something tells me that this is the case here.

Naturally, in that series everyone knew at some point of the the twin universe, while here it seems to be a well kept secret and not even the principal character (a Swedish cosmonaut working for ESA) knows what is happening to her.

She doesn't because she assumes that where she is, when she landed back, is her own familiar Earth, although some major differences appear to her and she is slowly getting confused and alarmed.

What ensues then, is her trying to recapture to her so far: from her mission aboard the I. S. S. To her actual landing, but the more she tries and the more things get entangled.

This is not a lightweight series, meaning that it is not your popcorn and beer series. This one at last, has been conceived as a thinking man story and only reveals its true nature drop by drop, in such a way as not to reveal too much, but enough to keep you guessing what happens next.

Of course there are twists in the story and they are all mastered with great efficiency.

As a mystery thriller I would compare it in quality to the former Swedish series "Millennium", in which Noomi Rapace had a prominent role indeed. The only difference is that instead of having to deal with criminals, here the dimension is much vaster and encompasses space missions gone wrong.

How wrong and why remains still to be revealed, and that's the true beauty of this series.

Many cover-ups to come. That's for sure...

Boudica: Queen of War (2023)

Always bad reviews, but I liked it as it is.

[7/10 · 26 February 2024]

Well, I certainly didn't expect to see Olga Kurylenko in the role of this very famous British heroin of ancient times, and in fact, at the beginning of the movie I was almost about to call it quits right there and then, since all I could think about were certain mellow and sugary sweet scenes in "Gladiator".

But while in "Gladiator" such scenes were justified by the background story of its hero, here they seemed completely out of order.

This said though, once the true action did finally set in, with the arrival of the Romans and the onslaught they brought with them, the movie started to become quite interesting and even Olga gave a decent interpretation of Boudica (or Boadicea).

Granted, if you came in to watch a factual historic drama then you may have chosen the wrong movie.

This is more a reworked "Legend of", rather than "History of" the famed Warrior Queen, and as such I might even concur with its detractors, since I too had high hopes to actually see a serious historic biopic of the lady, but it seems that every movie maker wants a fairy tale, rather than stick to historic fact. So be it.

So, why on heaven's sake did I give it seven out of ten?

Simple. I liked the two thirds that came after the disjointed first act, despite being once again more legend and dramatic license rather than truly a decent biopic.

But for that one may probably have to resort to a decent mini-series on a streaming media and producer, if ever there will be one. Let's cross our fingers.

But among all the many depictions of Boudica, both filmed for TV or in movie format, there was even one back in the 1960s which was not that bad.

Still, the battle scenes and the brutality on both sides stem from actual historic fact, and just for that, their depictions seem quite accurate indeed.

Besides, the length of the movie betrays the fact that it is not truly destined to become a box office blockbuster, since otherwise more investment should have been made to have a two and a half or three hour movie, which indeed would have been better, and would have enabled the writers and the director to go deeper into historic fact and do more accurate research, despite the opening that guarantees you that it is based on period writings, which it is indeed not. At least not as it should have been.

Still the cast in general manages to hold together in this re-imagined figure of Boudica and even help Olga Kurylenko to hold it all together.

In my view, this is not a bad movie, nor is it a good one. It is a mediocre attempt to bring back such a figure and imagining her as a superhero, which she probably indeed was, at least for the Britons.

It is one of those movies to watch with a grain of salt and not to make too much out of it, since as I said, a true biopic or history drama it is certainly not.

It is particularly good when nothing else seems to be around being of interest.

In other terms, it is good for simple entertainment and fill an afternoon or an evening with something different, and as such it works.

My dearest hope though would be to finally see someone a la Ridley Scott, coming up with finally a well researched and seriously adapted history of the woman called Boudica and her real presence in ancient times.

Besides, Boudica was never killed on the battlefield and instead either died of an illness or simply out of old age.

Again, and as always, it is up to you, the viewer, to decide whether this movie is worth your time.

I.S.S. (2023)

A possible what if in space...

[7/10 · 26 February 2024]

I don't see why so many are skeptical about this movie. I have seen much worse. And yes, in these times of paranoid new "Cold War" era wanted by some warmongers out there, it is perhaps refreshing our minds on what a nuclear war could unleash even in space.

It doesn't matter who pushes the button first, since when it happens it is the end of civilization as we know it altogether and therefore what happens aboard of the International Space Station in this movie could be one of the possible outcomes.

Still, considering that both astronauts and cosmonauts are usually well trained, probably also for such emergency events, and that unless you have some military officer onboard specifically charged to do what you will witness in this movie, it is highly improbable that the events unfolding on screen may ever happen.

This is also why this film is identified as being a science fiction thriller and not really a space drama, and as such it should be kept in mind. Being this Sci-Fi then, some license has been taken with the various behaviors of its cast members.

And by the way, the entire cast did an excellent job in recreating the claustrophobic ambience aboard the I. S. S., from which the movie takes the name. The tension is there and one can indeed feel it.

The entire movie has actually a very eery feeling to it from the very beginning and goes on to become more tense as it goes along with the story.

I also found that the visual and special effects were decent, if not indeed spectacular, but such a movie cannot indeed have Star Wars or Star Trek connotations, since what we get to see is actually very real to our everyday sights of the orbiting space station, and as such they do their job quite egregiously.

The only thing that actually irritated me while watching it was indeed the music commentary, which to me was a bit of a challenge, since I found it quite crude, but then again, it's a thriller after all, and not an adventure movie.

The photography was quite decent when considering that it had to deal with very cramped spaces as they indeed are onboard of the International Space Station.

And as I said in my title above, the story is a "what if" one, dealing with all possible negative results that come with it. There is violence as well, some subtle, and at times even brutal, but that's the nature of the beast.

I enjoyed it as it is. It is not perfect, but cannot be described as mediocre either, since this is indeed a ride that when taken won't let you loose for a moment, and this is indeed what one expects when watching any movie of this kind.

I therefore am satisfied to be able to recommend it despite some procedural and dramatic liberties this movie takes upon itself.

My seven out of ten is then well deserved, because in the end I would wish to see more, since the ending actually leaves to the audience's imagination what happens next.

Some may say that this is disappointing, but to me it just forces us to think harder on what those who will eventually make it home (wherever that may be), will actually find once returned to Earth.

But a bit of mystery is never too bad when dealing with a thriller, at least that's my very own and very personal opinion.

For you to judge, but I can guarantee you that it won't be a waste of your time.

Fade to Black (2006)

More comical than thrilling.

[5/10 · 17 February 2024]

I never read the novel from which this movie was transliterated, but by the looks of this film, it seems that no one really cared about the real Orson Welles, and took the character out of context from actual events that happened around 1947 in Italy and just played around with them in no particular relevant order.

First of all, Danny Huston, although an otherwise serious professional, doesn't seem extremely interested in depicting Orson as he really was, and his own voice more closely resembles (obviously) more that of his deceased father John, than that of Orson Welles.

May I remind you that Welles had a very incisive and commanding voice of a bass-baritone quality that Danny Huston simply cannot reproduce.

But this was royally ignored by the producers of this little movie when they decided who to cast for the role.

So be it.

Nevertheless, and despite being this just a fictionalized account of what really happened in those years to the real Orson Welles, which indeed would in itself, have made a much more interesting and fleshed out story than this, the entire film is actually more boring than interesting in any form or shape.

Even the supporting actors seem more bored than actually fascinated by the script they were handed out and some are even just acting by the numbers.

This entire exercise is just academic at best, but doesn't have any true quality to it except for its mysterious title, which actually doesn't really say much.

Just compare this so called mystery thriller to the real works of Orson Welles, such as "Mr. Arkadin" (a.k.a. Confidential Report) or "The Lady from Shanghai" and you shall see the obvious majesty and real genius of one of the masters of film making, from which alas, Oliver Parker, indeed hasn't inherited much, nor has learned to reproduce the magic that Orson's movies all had.

This movie, if ever, shows you most clearly the huge chasm and divide that separates classic movie making, from today's money grabbing but empty efforts being made.

I don't know if this has anything to do with a kind of laziness, lack of imagination, lack of true creativity or simply a deep tiredness of newer movie directors and producers, but it clearly reveals an absolute inability to create something of true value.

And finally, I would also criticize some screen writers for their lack of true luster in creating a true original script with a witty, involving and well refined dialogue as they were so very often produced during the so called "Studio System".

Nor do the various excuses of "everything having already been explored" validate the fact that many of such writers just slam words on paper at random, instead of really making an effort to write something that can be indeed savored by well educated audiences.

But we are living in a "populist" world, where mass production seems to be more important than to actually uplift and actually somehow educate audiences to aim to higher levels of quality, both in writing as indeed in filmed entertainment.

Today, movie theaters more resemble a kind of "McDonald's Fast Food Spectacle" rather than a refined Restaurant where one might enjoy a real and carefully prepared meal.

This equals to cultural degradation in its lowest form, and "Fade to Black" is indeed one of these representatives and indeed it won't be the last such products dished up either in Europe or from greedy Hollywood Studios.

In short, this is a pedestrian movie, with no special value whatsoever, except maybe for that kind of audience only going to the movies to munch popcorn and sip on a soft drink while passing the time just watching flickering images passing them by, not quite particularly interested in the subject handled there, as long as they seem colorful enough.

The Great Escaper (2023)

In memory of Glenda and with gratitude to Michael.

[10/10 · 5 February 2024]

I am writing this being one of those lucky enough having been born a decade later of the tragic events that took place in WWII.

Lucky indeed, since although not having had members of my family directly involved into the conflict, although son and nephew of apolitical refugees fleeing both the National-Socialist and Fascist fury in Europe, I felt compelled to take a trip to Normandy myself to honor all those poor young men who sacrificed their lives in order for me and others like me to have a better future and one in freedom.

I even honored the Canadian and British resting places.

I also stopped by the German burial site at La Cambe, to honor the German fallen soldiers, since many were drafted into a conflict that was not of their making and because in death we are all primarily humans, and the guilt and crimes of others cannot be thrown upon them.

And wherever I saw crosses or other kind of headstones lined up by the hundreds, if not by the thousands I couldn't help to refrain my tears from drenching my entire face and sob uncontrollably, imagining how many young men could have had a constructive live ahead of them, had it not been for some misguided and criminally insane would be rulers of the world.

So yes, I did feel every second of this movie, despite not having been involved in the D-Day landings in 1944, and I could indeed feel the pain that like Bernie and many others must have felt witnessing good friends, comrades and companions die right in front of their eyes and having such memories sticking with you, the survivor, for the rest of your life.

It is only human to feel like that. And despite not being the same as having actually experienced such tragic events at first hand, doesn't change the fact that one can indeed get them to touch our hearts and our minds, since after all, we are all made of flesh and blood.

Even more important and touching is the fact that for once, someone took the time to take a true event and turned it into a movie with true human emotions, without over dramatizing too much, which is often the case in other such films, but rather sticking to the essential biopic it wants to depict.

I found Glenda's and Michael's performances simply admirable and truly touching, but one does not have to forget all the rest of the cast who did too infuse a sense of human concern for an elderly couple in their last moments in life.

I would say that when the movie ended, despite not being such a tragic ending after all, since the principal characters in it find each other again in the end, it did make me sob anyway, like in those days in Normandy, simply because by then I knew that I had to part from two extremely talented and faithful friends and performers who did accompany me throughout my adult life.

Glenda Jackson, died shortly afterwards the filming was completed and Sir Michael Caine decided to retire from the movie world altogether, deeming this, to be one of his best parting roles ever.

I will certainly miss them both for the rest of my remaining aging years, but with a difference: they both left us, but especially me, with hours and hours of fine recorded entertainment, such as TV Mini-Series and masterpieces in movie making.

This is just their last milestone of a filmed legacy that spanned over six decades and for this I can only be grateful.

And for you, the viewer, if you should ask me "is it really worth watching?", I can only say, start watching it. If the names Michael Caine, Glenda Jackson or John Standing mean anything to you, or if you finally want something of value to watch, then yes, this is an absolute must watch.

And please, don't forget. If you've got the chance and the means, please visit the burial grounds in Normandy, since they bear witness of an entire lost generation to whom we owe so very much of our freedom and our happiness.

The Out-Laws (2023)

A three year old would find it fascinating...

[2/10 · 5 February 2024]

... and a demented twelve year pubescent idiot wrote this.

At least that's what came to mind when I started watching this poor, flat and very stupid movie.

If this is what can be expected from comedy movies these days, then forget them altogether and revert to better stuff of the past.

Indeed, they even had to stuff in some true talented actors and actresses to make up for a disjointed and at times, highly weak story line in hope to make it all better.

Sorry, but even Pierce Brosnan and Ellen Barkin could not save this piece of lurid crap probably more meant for demented kids than for adults.

But said that, nothing these days surprises me anymore. And unless one refers to a good independent or foreign movie - a rarity these days, since even some of them are into it just for the money.

So it has become a true search for the lost gem to find something really worth watching, and those gems are getting rarer and more valuable, if one is so fortunate as to find one across his path.

If you were out to seek a redeeming review of this "whatever" of a movie, you just wasted your time, and recommend it?

Oh yes, I would recommend it to anyone who has left his brain in a freezing storage for later use, or perhaps to a baboon, because it is that kind of IQ one would need to appreciate the viewing of this waste of money.

The Tudors (2007–2010)

I don't care about who's in it, I care about accuracy...

[4/10 · 28 November 2023]

Much has been said about many such series in recent years, such as "The Borgias" and indeed "The Tudors", but in both cases, the titles are where it starts with crumbling the monument of real history telling.

Of course, writers, directors and producers may say what they will, and audiences may applaud and cheer on them as much as they want, but history is made by much sterner stuff than this.

And by history I mean thoroughly researched and seriously absorbed history, not this comic book / soap opera style crap of trash that keeps on appearing on our screens these days.

Some people are fighting against revisionism of recent history, but hey should also fight against the same when it comes to more remote history telling.

And indeed, if one would only bother to put his nose into real history and biographic books, he would soon discover the true facts of the reign of Henry VIII.

But seemingly and in this particular case, no one really cared so much about reading (of course, and as usual, too much effort).

Instead, what you get here is a smorgasbrod of nonsense played out well by all concerned, in a modernized and falsely fascinating fantasy world of its own.

Younger generations may indeed prefer this version, rather than other more significant and better told tales of the same, and this is why illiteracy today is so rampant and so shamelessly popular.

Why bother with history if you can rewrite it to suit your own fancies and tastes? Well, at least that's what Hollywood and even some British and Irish production companies may think.

But who is the real winner and who is the real loser here?

Winners are those who make money out of these idiotic retelling of history and real losers are those who absorb such products as if they truly represented something of value, when in reality, they are just being taken for a ride.

It is so very disappointing to see how shallow and empty this world has become, with people only being interested in being "entertained" instead of being "informed" and perhaps also why not, "educated".

Ah, that ever lasting self gratification some people have craving for. But is it really so satisfying to know that what you are watching is indeed worthless, when in reality it could have been done in a much more serious way, and perhaps, only perhaps, in the correct and well researched way?

What? We don't have actors anymore interested in playing real historic figures? Are you kidding me?

Of course we have them! And any serious and well committed and trained actor or even actress would actually prefer to play a true biopic of a historic figure, rather then one based on various speculations in time.

Any such actor would jump at the chance to get into the skin of a King, a Duke, a Master or any important figure in history, if the script reflected true events and true history.

But some actors these days only accept roles if well paid and do not care about whether it is the fruit of an absent minded writer or deranged producer, as long as it appears "original", and of course as said, well compensated.

And, oh by the way, and by all means, yes of course, having also a fair exposure on the publicity and fashion market, why not? That brings even more money into the coffers of wastefulness.

And there it goes, history being splattered to the wall like a modern piece of cheap painting art, without intrinsic meaning, nor value and not even solid ground, just thrown to the four winds of movie making.

And they dare call it art...

I have seen better forms of art in paintings of David or Velasquez, or even in the writings of William Shakespeare than this.

But this is the post-Andy Warhol world, where everything can be considered art as long as it is in a serial format.

And there you have it, your modern piece of... well, let me not go into the depths of vulgarity here, but just say wasteful time and escapist wishful thinking.

If you want real history being told, then go and browse for "Henry VIII and His Six Wives" (movie) or better still "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" (The original mini series) dated back in 1972 and 1970 respectively.

First Signal (2021)

Interesting but wasted

[2/10 · 28 November 2023]

This little attempt to transliterate a possibility that had been theoretically exposed by Carl Sagan himself falls completely short in this very low budget independent movie.

"Contact" it is absolutely not. If someone expects that quality and thrills in this iteration he might be heavily disappointed.

This movie walks and talks just like a staged play, rather than a true movie, and as such it should have been produced.

What is the saying of a well produced and conceived film? Show us, don't just talk about it.

The word "motion picture" is just reserved for films which have a swiftly moving and developing story and should only be applied when actual visuals are shown.

The beauty of it all is that in the opening titles there is the mention of visual effects, but.as far as I could see, these seem to be reduced to a very minimum and are indeed nothing special at all.

It is a very talky movie, but so badly delivered by all actors involved that it slowly becomes an academic exercise, rather than an interesting exchange of dialogues between true living people.

The taste of it is highly resembling a lecture, rather than an attempt to inform us through an entertaining time.

It is simply flat and boring.

And returning to the actors, having been myself a stage director, I must say that I have witnessed better actors under my own direction, who at times were indeed amateurs.

I don't know how or who the casting was done, nor do I wish to know, since the choice seems to have been done at random.

All actors and actresses are uninteresting and lifeless, just like stale puppets or statuettes delivering flatly lines which clearly mean nothing to them.

They just act by the numbers, but there is no true attempt at exploring who is who and where they all come from.

They are just presented to us as what and who they are and no attempt was made to flesh them out, either by the director of this flick, or by the actors involved in it.

It almost seems to me, that someone picked some random walking by people from the street and slammed them into this movie as actors. That's how bad they look.

I don't know how well trained the cast is, nor do I need to know it, since when we talk about movies, the least one could at least expect is a bit of charisma, some form of magnetism and chemistry among the players, but if you seek that you might be hugely disappointed.

I am really sorry to say this, but a wooden marionette could better come to life in the hands of a trained puppeteer, than the cast of "First Signal".

And believe me, I have watched many more independent low budget science fiction movies who could easily outmatch this poor attempt.

All it needed was a bit more imagination and a whole lot more of better acting by all.

And better acting is not as difficult as one may think, especially not in movies. One just has to better feel and understand the role he or she is put in and act upon it in a very natural way. And if the text is too difficult, then discuss it with the writer and the director and let them explain it to you, and allow them to express their intentions with it.

If the cast and the director/writer, Mark Lund, had sat down together and fleshed it out a little bit more and perhaps thoroughly rehearsed it before filming this empty and shallow film, it might probably have saved the day and allowed all of them to enjoy it a little bit more.

And pity for the musical commentary, which in itself reflects the intentions for a good movie, filled with true moving parts, but alas, falls short as well, since a good score rarely compensates for a stale action all around.

So, why did I give it 2 stars instead of just 1? Simply due to the effort put in it nevertheless. I know how difficult making a movie can be and how much work goes into it, no matter for the end result, and this is why I wanted to compensate at least the crew for it.

And therefore and in conclusion, would I recommend it to anyone? No, absolutely not.

And if you are interested in the work of Carl Sagan, you will have a much better time reading his writings and his excellent books, but stay away from this lecture movie, which means absolutely nothing and is going nowhere with the subject at hand.

The King's Favorite (2022– )

Diane de Poitiers aka The King's Favorite (TV French mini-series 2022)

[3/10 · 6 August 2023]

Well, well, well... We want to update history eh? And this with an actress like Isabelle Adjani, and an appearance of Gerard Depardieu as Nostradamus of all things.

And indeed of all things sinks like the Titanic.

Despite the "eternal" beauty(?) of Adjani and the "grumpy old man" style that is familiar with Depardieu, this has nothing to add or detract from the real Diane de Poitiers, except maybe the constant stillness that lingers in every corner of this mini-series.

Adjani may be highly considered in France, but let's face it, an actress of the likes of Jeanne Moreau she is not.

She constantly looks stunned in every scene she is in. Emotions, real emotions that is, seem to be far away from her. Even in the most heart rendering scenes, she seems made out of ice.

All the rest of the cast is mediocre to say the least, and I would also say, rather acting by the numbers, as if they were involved in a kind of docudrama, or worse, still being rehearsing for the great day...

I remember the 1956 version of this. Shorter and much more to the point, although more set as a romantic story between "Diane", played by Lana Turner (alas as a blonde, rather than a natural brunette as Diane was), and "Henry II", played by the late Roger Moore, as well as having the great Pedro Armendariz as King Francis of France.

That movie was well worth watching.

Indeed, if only for the photography, settings and costumes alone, even this new rehash could be fascinating, but all this does not compensate for the slow paced acting.

Let's face it, there is little action in it, and when there is, it's either a constant riding event, or a joust in slow motion.

Other than that, highly boring.

Those who know the story of the real Diane de Poitiers and her relations with both Catherine de' Medici and Henry II are better served reading a good biography about her, rather than watching this poorly concocted historic pastiche.

Granted, some attempts at historic accuracy are being made in this one, but still, for those not familiar with France's story during the Renaissance may get easily confused because there are only very scarce references on where a particular event is actually taking place.

The main setting is usually set at Castle of Chambord, in the Loire Valley, which is actually correct, since François Ier loved the location and preferred it to the overcrowded and smelly City of Paris, but all the rest remains a guess work.

As I said, in my view it is an overstretched account of the period, and although the author went into the Holy Inquisition regarding Diane, supposing that she was either a witch (due to her striking and constant beauty) or simply a supporter of the Huguenots (at that, considered a major threat to the Catholic church and a heretic), it doesn't add anything to the actual life of this lady.

And again, Isabelle, being Isabelle remains the Iron Lady, but don't confuse her with Margaret Thatcher. By Iron lady, I mean stale faced and emotionless, as if all this were not indeed a matter of life and death.

If this is what Adjani thought of Diane, in portraying her, she probably didn't understand who the Countess was, or for that matter didn't seem to even care.

It is amazing that such an actress(?), who actually managed to show deep emotions in another historic movie like "Queen Margot" back in the '90s, was not able to at least mimic the same here.

True, Diane de Poitiers was indeed a strong woman, but not to the point of being lacking emotions, especially not in her private life.

So, why, oh why, did they have to film this shallow effort of a biopic mini-series?

Well, it appears that French Television is about to launch an entire new series in this format, depicting the strong women in history.

If that's the case, they should have chosen more wisely and hired a much better actress to portray Diane.

I only hope they did not build this around the "glamour" that Isabelle Adjani represents, since that's all she is - a glamour woman, and by now, a dolled up aging one.

She might be very suitable in fashion magazines, and in various ads about beauty products and perfumes, but let's face it, beauty alone doesn't make a Queen.

I was rather disappointed, since I expected something by far more enticing and indeed, emotionally moving, but the only thing I could perhaps appreciate was the tension among some characters due to the lingering Inquisition weighing heavily over their heads.

All the rest is a waste of time, including the brief appearances of Gerard Depardieu as Michel de Nostradame, which by the way, I doubt ever met Diane. At that time, the only one who actually consulted Nostradamus and actively supported him was indeed Catherine de' Medici.

So, can I recommend it? If you like to pass the time guessing who is who during Francis' reign, go ahead and take pleasure in it, but if you, like me, have already read about the entire period and know something about true history and true biographies, you might end up dozing off in apathy.

But maybe you like that sort of thing, just being curious at how bad or good this new thing is.

So brace yourselves, since I watched it in the original French language, and if it was that bad in French, then imagine it when dubbed in English.

If ever and if possible, and still interested in doing so (it goes without saying), watch it in its original version with subtitles.

I can safely say to have wasted 210min. Of my precious time on this, but hey, I wanted to see if it was any good. I stand corrected, and really... it was that bad.

But for you to be the judge of it. If you like taking risks, please, go ahead and tell me if I am wrong.

Beau Geste (1966)

Re-writing of a classic

[7/10 · 24 April 2023]

OK, so, it's not a classic, nor is it a masterpiece, but let's be fair here: it' entertaining and in my own personal opinion, underrated. Some historic inaccuracies are indeed blatant, but hey, it's an adventure movie, not a historic one. If you wish to watch a history based one look elsewhere, but if you like to see Telly Savalas in his heyday, and as usual rather strong and harsh performance, then this movie is really made for us.

Strangely, when I watched the movie (made one year earlier than the "Dirty Dozen"), I couldn't help thinking at parallelisms with Lee Marvin's depiction of. Major Reisman, who was indeed a tough cookie and a S. O. B., just as the character Savalas plays in this one.

One cannot but wonder how Telly Savalas finally got to play Major Wright in the last two sequels to the original "Dirty Dozen" bunch. Probably because someone may have seen his role in this movie.

The rest of the cast does a competent and convincing job, and even Leslie Nielsen (who went in his later days to play. Frank Drebin in the successful Comedy series "The Naked Gun" among others), did depict the Commander of the Foreign Legion's Regiment with distinctiveness.

But as said, if you expected a faithful retelling of the original story you came to the wrong place. This take is quite different and depicts probably a bit better, without romantic interludes, the harsh and cruel realities that made out the Foreign Legion.

One could consider it a forerunner to the later produced "March or Die" (1977), starring Gene Hackman, Terence Hill and Catherine Deneuve, but as stated, without any female participation.

As such I consider it a discreet movie that should be left as a solo effort, without comparing it to any other similarly titled film.

In my view, the only mistake the producers and director made, was indeed to name it "Beau Geste". They could easily have changed the names in it and titled it "The hard life of the Legionnaires", which would indeed have had more honesty in it. Another title that comes to mind could have been "Lost in a Dream of Freedom".

But whatever other title would have been given to it, it would certainly have attracted audiences of the time to go and watch it.

Sometimes it is the wrong choices that make some movies appear as either bad pictures, or as poor productions, when in reality there a many other worse examples, both in story telling, as well as in performance.

This indeed is a worthy movie to be watched as it is, since if one forgets for a moment the so called realism, and tries to take in the moral values that it attempts to convey, one might find that this film actually succeeded in its projection of this message.

I for one enjoyed it as one of the better small movies made in the mid-sixties, particularly for the interaction among all the characters, which came through as honest without all the "schmaltz" (sweetness) that similar movies try to infuse in such stories.

Try to watch it in this spirit, forgetting both the title and its original source and you will see that in the end you will be satisfied by it.

Project Blue Book (2019–2020)

I hoped for more but they canceled it.

[8/10 · 29 September 2022]

Is it ever possible that when a good series is started some idiot decides to simply pull the plug?

I wonder at the logic of some media moguls and producers. Is it just for commercial purposes? Or was there a political agenda behind it?

We were left with an incomplete series that promised to be one of the best shows in a long time, especially since the X-Files.

I have always hated people who never end a job once it is started, but it seems to be the trend these days.

Those who demand a 3rd season are right and I would even add more, if the third were worthwhile.

So, producers, wake up!....

High Life (2018)

Absolutely unwatchable

[3/10 · 13 June 2022]

I sat through the entire movie expecting something really interesting happening, but instead I was served with boredom, lengthy and empty scenes with illogical and banal banter, only filled with some brutality sporadically happening (something we can see in the news as well, no need for a movie then).

If this is the future trend of science fiction movies I am afraid the film makers will loose loads of aficionados of the genre along the way and production companies will loose tons of money.

It is not even a "cerebral" movie, since the plot can be guessed from the start and therefore it looses out even on that.

The actors and actresses all seem somewhat lethargic and I have seen much better acting in my life than this academic attempt at playing their roles.

I really cannot, in all conscience, recommend this piece of crap, which I wouldn't even call a movie, since there is seldom something really moving - except for the occasional and already mentioned brutality scenes -.

Science Fiction to me has another color, another taste and another style and this is really not it.

This one can easily be forgotten and should be shelved forever in a vault as a memento on how not to film a movie.

Tank Force (1958)

Oh man... I have seen bad movies, but this...

[3/10 · 12 January 2022]

Let me talk as a somehow expert on World War II, and believe me I have also seen other ridiculous and badly fumbled war movies of this kind, such as the 1965 produced "Battle of the Bulge".

What were the producers thinking?

Well, for one, back in 1958 and in 1965 many people really didn't care much about historic accuracy in WWII movies, just because much of the material that would explain such things was not as yet available.

So, what were these movies really like?

Well, call it war adventure/fantasy, since some themes were just ludicrous at best, and in many cases also very inaccurate.

Even "Battle of the Bulge" came out attempting to display one of the most pivotal and actually vital battles of the late part of the war, and despite its two and a half hours in length, managed just to become such an adventure movie without much historical background rather than its title.

For instance, they never actually pointed out where the various skirmishes between U. S. Troops/Tankers and the German Tank Force took place and the uniforms themselves seemed a bit taken from a theatrical wardrobe, rather than being the right ones worn both by German and American soldiers in the latter part of the war.

And as in "Battle of the Bulge" even in "Tank Force" you find fake German Tanks.

Granted, at that time much of the German material was used for scrap, but with some effort producers could have found some remnants, having been delivered to Arab Armies, and seemingly even Israel had some for training.

And yet, depicting Tiger tanks with British Centurions is outlandish at best, just like in "BotB" using Patton Tanks to depict King Tigers was indeed stupid.

But while finding actual Tiger or King Tiger tanks would have been difficult, also because a very few were at any time present in Africa since 1942, or later in Belgium, one could have easily have opted for readily available Panzer IVs and Panzer III, which were easily available from Spain, Arab Countries and as said, even Israel, if anyone had made his homework properly.

Especially the Panzer IV was a formidable foe and many times confused by Americans with a Tiger tank.

Now let's see the British side. They used Cromwells to probably depict Valentines. The Cromwell entered the fray late in WWII and was not used in Africa but vastly employed since D-Day in North-Western Europe.

And then the final insult. Huge Iron Crosses highly visible on the sides of the Centurions and repeated in the front and rear of the same. Add to this a very visible Swastika also painted on the side of these tanks.

This is truly madness. German tanks seldom wore highly visible National insignias on their tanks and vehicles, ever since their bad experience in the Polish Campaign in 1939, where they were used by the Polish Forces to identify them and knock them out.

If ever they would have had small Emblems on their turrets together with the platoon and regiment number (if ever) and in the front and rear the symbol of the Afrika Corps, which was a Palm Tree with a small swastika in its midst, and this, painted in white.

Such gross mistakes could have easily been avoided, but no one seemed to care.

Besides the story in itself is preposterous since no one ever attempted to kill Joseph Goebbels, also because being a very high ranking Official within the Nazi Party had a vast and highly well trained personal guard protecting him that would have immediately reacted by killing the would be killer.

Many were the movies dealing with the African campaign and only a very few actually were of some worth. Not even movies like "Tobruk" or the Italo/French produced "Battle of El Alamein" were or are to be considered serious efforts at depicting the true events, but rather adventurous fictions.

The only exceptions being "The Big Red One", "Patton", "The Desert Fox" and "The Desert Rats", although the former two only depicted two specific events in that Campaign.

More recently, at least in the early millennium did the Italians produce a TV movie also called "El Alamein" depicting a dramatized but at least accurate depiction of that battle.

It is amazing to me to see that no one ever made a serious effort to at least try to come up with something genuine and honest regarding the African Campaign.

But for that matter,, we are still waiting an honest and thorough account of what really happened during the so called Battle of the Bulge, which a movie alone will never be able to fully satisfy, due to its complexity, and that I must assume will only be feasible if produced as a mini series.

Still, this movie is a stinker, at least in my view, and unless you don't really care about historic fact and rather prefer the big bang factor, might still satisfy you, but as a WWII movie it is a completely wasted effort.

I gave it three stars for the efforts made by the cast and stuntmen in it, but if I had been in it as an actor, I would have been ashamed to ever receiving a credit for it.

Haven (2010–2015)

Very strange and eery...

[8/10 · 29 December 2021]

When I first watched it I thought it was yet another crime scene mystery series, but allowing it to flow across my eyes I discovered that it was by far much more a weird and disturbing piece of a mystery thriller.

I could probably compare it to a sort of "Twilight Zone" tale, stretched out into a series.

Nothing and nobody in this series is really what it seems to be, not even the little town of Haven.

There are phenomena, events and accidents at every corner and some of them totally inexplicable and just one detective (again from the FBI, who else?) trying to make sense of it all.

She's an outsider, who in time discovers her own true identity in this very strange setting, where everybody seems to be friendly but has something to hide.

A really fascinating series with many turns of fate and plot twists that culminates into a grand finale like no other (including an appearance by the legendary William Shatner).

Eureka (2006–2012)

Who ever said that Science Fiction has to be serious?

[9/10 · 29 December 2021]

I loved every episode of "Eureka" from the very start to the very end.

I am not a scientist and therefore I cannot evaluate which of the theories and facts examined in the series are actually based on real science or at least, theoretical science, but as played out, they all seem reasonable (although quite weird).

But what makes this series worthwhile watching are not so much the scientists in the tiny brainy "Eureka" town (a secluded and very secretive town financed by the DoD - Department of Defense), although all geniuses mind you, but rather the Sheriff of the town (the only one with an average mind but with a knack on finding original solutions to catastrophic problems).

And indeed, all turns around him, and his rebellious daughter who comes to join him from Los Angeles.

I have watched many science fiction series, but never such a funny one (with maybe "The Orville" as an exception, although happening in outer space).

The problems arising in it are serious enough and indeed at times, even life threatening, but there is always that Sheriff going stumbling around where he shouldn't, while the scientists are attempting to solve those problems, and guess who solves them in the end?...

Well, let me say, he is an essential part of it all.

As said, a highly entertaining series for the entire family and for once, also very fun to watch.

Forget all the more recently produced ones and go back in time and watch it again, or better, if you never watched it before, discover it as a big surprise.

Fringe (2008–2013)

A companion piece to the X-Files.

[10/10 · 29 December 2021]

As I said in another review of mine, I am not so very inclined toward Science Fiction based on Earth, but there are a few exceptions, and this is one of them.

I watched it when it first was broadcast and I was immediately hooked.

While "The X-Files" was all about two FBI agents investigating mysterious phenomena and indeed extra-terrestrial cases, "Fringe" to a step further and instead of just investigating such things, also tried to make sense of them.

And now add a twist. A pair, or three, super minds, of whom one was just released from a mental hospital and you have an explosive combination.

Add to this once again a different FBI department with two gorgeous agents seeking the help of an absent minded scientist (the one released from the hospital), a son of the same, trying to take care of the oscillating mind of his father and you are hooked in time and space.

Oh yes, I forgot, add yet another component: an intersecting universe threatening the very existence of our own and you will have plenty to worry about.

Will our heroes manage to survive it all? Will they cope with new realities? Will they find happiness? Will they finally find a normal life for themselves?

All questions asked and answered in this very fascinating series.

And among all of this, big family issues, as well as friendship relations are also being explored with sometimes quite surprising results.

Everyone in this series, including at some point and in some episodes even the great Leonard Nimoy (formerly Spock) is simply playing his role to the hilt.

But those who really stand out are John Noble, Anna Torv, Joshua Jackson, Jasika Nicole and Blair Brown, to whom I owe an affectionate thank you for having played the parts so realistically that I couldn't help but weep when the last episode rolled on, coming to the end of this fantastic series.

Defiance (2013–2015)

I prefer alien planets and voyages through space, but...

[5/10 · 29 December 2021]

I never could stand science fiction movie based on planet Earth unless with a plausible scientific background.

This is more a parable about refugees, in this case alien refugees landed on this forsaken Planet of ours and the problems it causes.

But event he problems are a little bit to mundane as to be of any true interest for a true Science Fiction fan, and not even the addition of the alien languages used (with English subtitles for those who do not speak those outlandish languages) do not do much to sway you from watching a rather shabby series of crime and punishment, revenge, fornication and betrayal.

But is this truly Science Fiction? Or is it just a poor excuse to introduce us to social studies?

It appears that even the producers might not have it clear in their minds.

The actors involved in it are all very competent and do their job well, but in the end, at least in my very humble view, all this, was a wasted effort.

There is nothing fascinating here, nor anything to get a grip on it.

It's just there, right in front of you and either you accept it or you reject it.

In my view it's more a roadshow series than a real Sci-Fi one.

I watched all three seasons. The first one was boring, even in the sense of introducing us to who is who, the second was a bit better and only the third and thank heavens, last one did really hit the spot.

But that's where it also falls, since had the premise been outlined better from the very start, and perhaps shown us a bit more of the aliens on their respective planets and explained why they all had to abandon them, the series would have made much more sense.

But as it is, it is just yet another well meant effort, but without any true substance.

Raised by Wolves (2020–2022)

I am used to a different kind of Sci-Fi

[3/10 · 29 December 2021]

Boring could still be a compliment to this useless crap of a series.

I expected more from Ridley Scott, especially after his Prometheus inception, but what I expected was to see more of a story about the "Engineers" of the prequel to the "Alien" franchise.

Instead, what I received was a preachy piece of android "educators" with some rebellious kids and a bunch of Viking style religious fanatics, and of course, also a lot of Yada-yada-yada blabber (dialogue as sterile as the two main characters, mainly "Father" and "Mother").

The action is so slow that one could easily take a nap before he sees something interesting happening.

Visual effects are dreadful and even the SFX are not what I would call "exceptional".

And music?... What music? Lots of so called "alien-ating" noise, nothing more.

I don't know how much the production did cost, nor do I want to know, since this shouldn't be the concern of an audience.

And said that, I have seen much cheaper productions which were galactically better conceived and indeed entertaining.

This can just be ignored, since it appears to be a personal account by Ridley Scott about his own frustrations and it doesn't add anything to the Alien saga.

Quite the contrary. It diminishes it to a jumbled effort of brainy concepts that any intelligent being can have witnessed and understood in his movies.

Sorry Ridley, you have to do better than that if you want to impress someone like me.

Abelar: Tales of an Ancient Empire (2010)

The worst sequel ever made... and this is a compliment...

[1/10 · 4 August 2017]

First of all: bad acting, bad acting, bad acting.

Need I say more?

OK then... let's see.

A movie that lasts barely 90 minutes which has a 10 minutes title opening.

Got the picture?

Nothing mind shattering is happening during the opening. Just a lot of bla-bla delivered as badly as these actors (and actresses) ever could.

The director must have had "Dune" in mind, since this picture opens with a female narrator and goes on and on about a story that those ho ever watched the original one well remember.

It was probably done for those affected by Alzheimer's disease (poor sods...).

The rest is not even close to a sequel. Just a lot of "macho" acting, some stupid giggling around for no reason and a story line (if one can call it that) that is as confused as the rest of this movie.

I believe the writers of this homunculus of a movie must have sniffed too much cocaine, or meth, and have just read comics, instead of true literature.

I am aware that there are some around here and elsewhere, who have praised the sequel as "solid". I don't know where they were while watching this, or what kind of other distraction may have confused their minds, but they apparently never really watched a truly well made movie, and I do not mean a blockbuster movie - just a well directed and acted one - there are some low budget movies that have astonished me in my own lifetime, but not this one.

This is simply trash, despite the presence of Kevin Sorbo and Lee Horsley (who also starred in the original one).

Sorry to disappoint you all with my own view, but if I had had the money, I would certainly have produced a much better and more inventive movie than this one.

So, in short, if you want to watch it go on and do it. If you like it, the better for you.

My copy landed in the trash bin and into oblivion as it should have been when produced...

Approaching the Unknown (2016)

The New "Dark" age of movie making

[3/10 · 18 May 2017]

I would have wished to give this title a "1" for "awful", but my sense of fairness, and considering that someone must have worked very hard on this nonsense of a movie, has convinced me to give it 3/10.

It's the most boring movie I've ever watched, especially for a Science Fiction genre.

Considering that people defined "2001: A Space Odyssey" by Stanley Kubrick, when it opened, as incomprehensible and boring, I would say that this was an insult to a masterpiece in story telling.

It is evident that the film makers wanted somehow to emulate Kubrick's effort, and maybe, just maybe, pay tribute to him. Well, they did not. Quite the contrary. They achieved to insult the Master.

Besides, this movie aims to mimic, at least in visual effects, the above mentioned masterpiece, but without any true reference to a possible reality.

It could have been written by a psycho-analyst, a la Freud, but has it achieved a result? None whatsoever, as in true psychiatry, in which it is the individual who has ultimately, to cure himself.

It is just a waste of time.

In 1964 there was a movie called "Robinson Crusoe on Mars", and that specific one, was much more interesting and visually enticing, than this mumbo-jumbo of self-pity, introspection, and as someone else has said, a zen-like attitude, forgetting that we are not all oriented toward Oriental spiritual values and therefore don't have that time, or money to waste for utterly boring and useless considerations.

Movies should be entertainment first, art second and commercial third.

I leave psychoanalysis where it belongs, in a study or a clinic. It has no place in movie theaters.

Concerning the performance of the solitary astronaut, well, he did his job, nothing more, nothing less (in other words, what one might come to expect from the star of a movie), but all his wining, all the time went slowly on my nerves and I simply could not show empathy with a guy who is supposed to be on a mission for Mankind, but instead lands up brooding on the meaning of life.

If you want to brood on the meaning of life go and watch Monty Python's version of it. It's by far more elucidating than here...

Moreover, this film is an insult to our intelligence. We all know that NASA would never, ever send a solitary mission to Mars, and therefore, already there, you have a false assumption to start with.

NASA trains his astronauts through the entire process and many of them come from a well "steeled" military career. Some are test pilots. An elite among aviators and flight aces in their own right. Others are scientists and researchers and therefore have an above average IQ that makes them impervious to self-doubt and brooding as shown here.

Then there is to consider that even given that this had been a factual mission, those in authority would have chosen a very strong and steadfast man for it, and not one who could crack up at the seems when the first glitch appears.

So, in conclusion, what did the writer/director want to achieve with this little effort of his? I wouldn't know since I am not in his mind, but he must be pretty insecure about himself if he writes scripts like these.

Frankly, this is also why I never liked Woody Allen, Ingmar Bergman or Roman Polanski's movies, except perhaps, for those few exceptions we all came to know in time.

All these attempts at psycho analysis on themselves and make you pay for it, just go against my grain.

When I go for a movie, especially a Science Fiction one, I want to discover the marvels of space, have some nasty surprises perhaps, enjoy the adventurous ride and have an intelligent ending to finish it all.

This one, it's just a static nonsense, reflecting just how humanity these days has no sense of grandeur, nor has any hope in the future and instead is being filled with plenty of unnecessary doubts, which in reality, amount to just negative views and nothing else.

Great cinema should do the opposite. It can be critical, and can even be aggressive and accusing at times, but in the end it has to offer some hope and yes, as I have already said, some glimpse for a hopeful future.

Perhaps it is just me, but I am so very tired with all these false "prophets of gloom" and pseudo-intellectuals who would like to see a La-La Land of inert people, either always happy and in love, or always in despair and suicidal.

Just for a change, wouldn't it be refreshing to have a straight out movie with normal people on board?

If wishes were horses...

Bermuda Tentacles (2014 TV Movie)

Terminator Mama goes berserk as an Admiral

[1/10 · 8 October 2015]

In one word? Awful. In more words? Terrible, horrible, stupid, dumb, stale, cheese... I could go on forever, but for crying out loud, what were the movie makers thinking? Special effects (CGI) of yesteryear and action scenes that were just ridiculous. Even the "tentacles" were better in "20,000 Leagues under the Sea". This movie takes every cliché' of other filmed material and mashes them together to come up with a completely ridiculous "Navy & Marines" would be action caper. Linda Hamilton must have aged badly, if she has to appear in such a bad "C" class movie. Even John Savage, of all people, appears as the President of the U.S. of A. and despite making an effort to go through the footsteps of other better fit actors in a long line of emulators, falls short and looking out of place here. The rest of the Cast? Well, personally I have seen better acting in the first year acting classes at Strasberg than here. I wonder if these were even actors. They all looked as if they had been dragged in by force, given a hasty script to memorize and then sent out in the frail of battle. This is not even Science Fiction, since Science Fiction, if well made by people who actually understand the meaning of the definition, should be at least based on some scientific sound fact. "Bermuda Tentacles" is nothing of the sort. It is more a mixture of Fantasy and Horror movie knit together, but a very long shot from movies like "Alien" or even "Predator". There's a scene in which our heroes have to rescue the President aboard a super speedy submarine. In order to return to the surface, they go so very fast, that in a real world these people would have imploded, but nothing happens. At the end of the movie a crew takes off with a Huey chopper to destroy the Alien ship that surfaces from the Ocean Bed. After they have done the deed, if someone did notice, the chopper miraculously changes into a Sea Hawk Helicopter, and then again into a Huey... Oo-rah indeed! If I were either a Navy or Marine member, I would be ashamed to be depicted in such a shabby and stupid movie. Those Corps should be honored in a different way.

The Blacklist (2013–2023)

Finally, something worth watching...

[10/10 · 29 January 2014]

Every now and then, amazingly, television can dish up something really worthwhile to watch.

For many years I thought that the best TV productions were those of the past (see "The Twilight Zone", "Star Trek", "Attack", "Bonanza", "Kojak", "Ironside", "M*A*S*H", just to name a few).

Yet, there are, to this day, some shows that really stand out from your usual ones. "The Blacklist" is one of them.

I don't know if it is for the massive presence of James Spader in the leading role (who never ceases to surprise me for his versatility as an actor, ever since he starred in "Stargate", to the more recent effort with William Shatner and Candice Bergen in "Boston Legal"), that impresses me in this latest product, but fact is, that the entire series so far (13 episodes) has started like a rocket and so far maintains its "true grit".

An original premise, interesting stories and a very natural acting makes this very commendable and highly worth watching.

It cannot compare to other shows of this kind, such as, for instance "N.C.I.S." or indeed "The X-Files" and "Fringe" (which are, at least for the last two, more Sci-Fi ventures, rather than being pure Investigative shows).

"The Blacklist" can, if ever, be compared to movies such as "The Bourne Identity", only that instead of the CIA, we have the FBI as the center of attention.

But make no mistake. This is not just a pure Action/Adventure series, although there are some components of this. It is a more subtle treatment, and facts are served in due time, with a dosage worth the best of meals being served in the more refined of restaurants.

In fact, every episode leaves you with a wish for more, like a second or third serving. And the more you "bite" into it, the more you are demanding. The series never disappoint on this point. Every single time it hits a nerve, a different theme and a different threat.

It is like having an Italian meal one day, Chinese the next, and perhaps Mexican the next.

It is very palatable.

According to what IMDb lists on its pages, "The Blacklist" will have another nine episodes to end Season One, followed by a full Second Season.

I really hope so. It is a delight to watch, and not just for James Spader, but also for the rest of the cast that keeps in step with him and works very well as a team.

If the writers keep up the good work, and the Networks will support it to the fullest, I am certain it will develop into something very special.

The Prey (2011)

A Thriller worth its name

[10/10 · 29 January 2014]

I am not, as many movie-goers, a fan of all French movies, especially not these days, when every French movie-maker tends to "ape" the Hollywood stream.

Yet, said that, occasionally, there are some tiny gems that stand out from the rest, and this is just the case with "La Proie" (English - The Prey).

It starts very slowly and at first it seems your common jailbird caper. A prison, two convicts and confined rooms pervaded by harsh conditions, but soon things start to happen which turn everything upside-down.

The question then is, who is the Prey and who the Hunted.

In a very tightly knit thriller, action upon action, cut upon cut, the story unfolds in front of our eyes and keeps us biting our nails to see what happens next.

Suddenly, nothing and nobody is or stays what he or she once was. The innocent is guilty and the guilty is the innocent, but who and when and how they turn to be like that is just a matter of turns in the storyline.

The end of it all is also a surprise. Not your usual Happy Ending a la Hollywood, but rather a "staccato" ending, in which one tends to say, "well, it's a French movie and therefore it has to end tragically", ah... but wait, there is a surprise, an Easter Egg if you want and you leave with a sense of satisfaction after an intense ride on the edge of a razor blade.

Granted, some scenes could remind us to a certain pace in the famed James Bond movies, in which certain characters jump from bridges and land unharmed on a platform, yank themselves out of a window on the third floor only to land unscathed on a minivan's rooftop, but this is just a movie and we can easily forgive such heroics, even if a bit unreal (everyone else would brake a bone, strain a muscle or rip a tendon).

Still harm comes to everyone and no one is really a super-hero here. It is probably the Adrenalin pumping that keeps our characters doing what they do.

Yet, unlike so many other action capers these days, there is even space for some solid good acting by everyone involved. The direction is competent and skillful, but the real secret as always, lies in the excellent editing of this movie.

One suggestion though. If you want to really enjoy the movie, try to watch it in its original French language with perhaps, English subtitles to help you out, because the dialogue is important to fully understand the mind-frame of the characters. A competent dubbing could also do the trick, but alas, in my experience, dubbing depends on the translation and the translator, and one can seldom rely on a faithful transliteration of the original text.

Therefore, since this is one of those rare cases of movie enjoyment, with a solid and interesting story, expert acting and directing and a considerable amount of thrills I have added it to my list of films that have to be seen and perhaps even collected.

For you to judge whether the effort was worthwhile or not, but I can guarantee you that you won't be disappointed. But then again, taste is taste and we all have different parameters for this.

Oh, and by the way, the German title has been changed from "On the Run" to "Traue Niemandem" (Trust No One). In fact there are so many movies called "On the Run" that one could get easily confused. But in view to the fact that the Main character states many times that he doesn't trust anyone, this seems indeed to be the appropriate Title for the movie.

Fixed Bayonets! (1951)

Samuel Fuller. The name says it all...

[10/10 · 11 October 2012]

Of all the war movies I have ever seen (some very good, some good, some less good and others, simply awful and preachy), this one, together with all his other "companions" (see "The Big Red One") is simply what one might expect, or better, should expect from a "war" movie. I put quotes around "war" because in reality, Fuller's movies of this genre are all but war movies. If you look deeper, you will see that they are actually anti-war movies at their best and absolutely not pontifying a message of peace, but rather depicting war and the men involved in it, as a total chaos, a slaughterhouse and a total misery for those who live it. Fuller's movies do not glorify war, but rather show the grittiness, the dirt, the shadows and the deepest darkness that surrounds and envelopes people who are in its midst. There are just a few others in his league, such as Peckinpah and John Irvin who managed to send the message home. Yet, sadly, there are still people "glorifying" war as a noble expression of human endeavor. Such people never understood a thing about war, or simply never served on active duty, in order to judge with their own eyes what war is really all about. Usually, such people sit comfortably behind a desk in a wonderfully padded armchair, or simply on a luscious couch, following Baseball or Football events and allow others to do their dirty work for them. "Fixed Bayonets!" is a crude, raw and unforgiving depiction of what common men are put through in a war situation. The Korean War might be just the excuse to do so, since every war, past, present and yes, even future, brings inexorably pain and death to those who fight it, as well as to those who wait back home, for a husband and father (today also a wife and mother), or for a brother, sister, son or daughter... Samuel Fuller's intention was always to bring reality into the game, but evidently, his message never got through to some, especially not to those hyper-thyroideal muscle men who believe that brawns alone will win you a war... In my book, this movie, together with all other Sam Fuller's work of this kind should a must see in schools everywhere. This would finally teach children what war is really like. But, said this, I just remember another movie, called "All quiet on the Western Front", in its two incarnations, one in 1930, and the other more recent, in 1979, which already dealt with the very same argument and what did those movies affect? Nothing. War is still among us. And so is the misery of our human condition. When will humanity listen to people like Fuller, Peckinpah, Irvin, Remarque and many others who lived through war and survived it? Oh sure, they are honored now... now that they are dead and cannot do too much harm to the war and death industry, but will there ever be someone who will actually manage to put the word "The End" to war? I seriously doubt it. In my view, this movie is simply a must for those who are seriously interested in studying war as a phenomenon, not just as a past time.

Anonymous (I) (2011)

How little do we know,... and really understand...

[1/10 · 6 September 2012]

Assuming just for a moment, and I repeat, just assuming that this is based on solid documentation of facts (which this work of... what? Art? Fiction? Dumbness? Shallowness? For you to judge...), which indeed is by far denied by various very competent and serious critics of the works of Shakespeare throughout the ages (and mind you,... there were many contemporaries who already tackled with this "plagiarism" problem), then it would simply represent a sort of dramatization a la "Amadeus",...

But alas, this work, if one can call it that, just because it was put together by someone with a Name, such as Roland Emmerich, is flawed and boring at best. Those who have deepened the subject already know about these misguided views, and some may even concede that some Sonnets, not the plays, may have "borrowed" bits and pieces from elsewhere. Then the question is: so what? Do these exposed facts make this movie into something special? In my humble view, not really, nor is the highly praised acting in it anything but conventional in my tired eyes.

This movie can only be considered a good movie, by those who know absolutely nothing, or just fragmentary pieces of the actual biography of William Shakespeare.

Besides, drunkenness was the favorite past time of the Brits since Roman times... And while we are at it, Ben Jonson, and even Christopher Marlowe, could beat Will Shakespeare in that past time by a far length... So therefore, in that instance at least, there is really nothing new or scandalous about it.

So now, what really memorable is there to be watched in this movie that catches the eye? Except costumes and settings? Not much. And this should receive praises? I wonder...

Methinks that movie makers these days pass away their time in deconstructing history and the biography of others, considered by many as giants (whether wrong or right, is a matter for others to judge), just to make themselves feel better somehow... Is it a form of psychotherapy they are practicing for themselves? I don't know and I cannot judge this, since I am not a Psychoanalyst, but there must be such a component beneath these efforts of theirs, to drag everything that is of some value (or at least has been until now) through the mud of their contorted and sick minds.

I don't know what these people are smoking or snorting up their noses, but this, always in my own and very personal view, has absolutely nothing to do with true creativity, nor taste.

It just shows us how jaded and ignorant some people, especially high placed people these days, can be, and how pretentious they can become when they reach the top.

A nice dose of humbleness and a bit more wisdom would suit them best, but alas, they keep on coming with these preposterous and ill-fated (apparently not by a vast majority of viewers, naturally) subjects, stating facts that are not grounded in any serious publication, and which may probably be more suited in trash papers like The Sun or other gossip Newspaper of sad present fate...

But then again, my opinion may not count much these days, since everyone is out for a shock-treatment, rather than using their own brains for something useful and truly constructive.

How easy it is these days, to destroy the work of a lifetime of people who really did sweat their daily bread and butter, and how sad it is to see how other less talented (at least in my view) people, struggle to become the "talk of the town", for their own personal satisfaction.

Oscar Wilde and Noel Coward would probably know this phenomenon better than I, and would probably have much more to say in this regard, certainly with a lot more style than I could ever muster, and even be able to add some very poignant notes to what I just described.

Alas, such sublime authors do not exist anymore, and all we are left with are some comic strips and cheap literature that entices just the occasional reader to open a real book. What a loss for us all. How sad...