Change Your Image
dnitzer-465-412648
Reviews
Tropic Fury (1939)
One of the better B movies
This is one of the better "Aces of Action" movies made with Richard Arlen and Andy Devine in the late 1930s and early 40s. Of course, it is still a "B" movie so keep your expectations in line with that knowledge. Still, it puts Arlen in a more dangerous and seemingly hopeless situation than usual and this time he has to rely on his smarts and charm more than his fists to get himself and Devine out of trouble. One of the subplots feels like it has been borrowed from "A Tale Of Two Cities" and even if you can see it coming, it still works. The climactic scenes are satisfying even if predictable; some of the camera angles in the final conflict are striking and unexpected. Give this one a try, it's better than you'd think going into it.
That's My Baby! (1944)
This was excruciating
This whole thing was a poor excuse to drag out a slew of old vaudevillians and try to make them relevant and entertaining for audiences that had moved on from stage revues, silent movies and talkies to television. It offers plenty of evidence for why such acts went the way of the dodo bird.
One can only cringe for the actors engaged to try to sell this weak story. Not even Leonid Kinsky or Richard Arlen can save this dreck and one has to wonder if they really needed the money or the screen time this desperately. You can feel the pain in their attempts to pretend to be entertained and amused by the goings-on. Ellen Drew smiles too much and much too forced. Richard Arlen does his best with the embarrassingly cheesy dialogue and fake romance and one can only feel sorry for him slogging his way through this.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Meh... It's a remake of "Wings" from 1927
This is what one friend called "an hour of junk, then the attack, then another hour of junk." It is typical Michael Bay fare: long on loud noises, explosions, obviously CGI special effects and a simple story with no subtlety, wit or irony.
The story line is basically the same as the silent era classic (and first Academy Award winner) "Wings" from 1927. Two ace pilots and best friends fall in love with the same woman, their friendship is tested, war happens, and only of them can come out alive - that's as formulaic as it gets. But it was done better in 1927: the visual effects are real, no CGI, no green screen, but real fighter pilots in real vintage war planes acting out real dog fights in the real sky with real clouds and real airplane crashes.
If you're a fan of Michael Bay noisiness or Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett or Kate Beckinsale, then this might have some appeal for you. But if you want to see a superior story, with real action and no fakery, then see "Wings" from 1927. There is no question as to which is the better film.
The War of the Worlds: One, Two, Three (2019)
Disappointing
Disappointing on many levels. Story telling is interrupted repeatedly with time jumps that are unexplained and confusing. Plot goes far astray from H.G. Wells' original. The budget spent on production values and recreation of the time period is wasted on a script that is confusing, unclear, disjointed and more interested in delivering political and social speeches instead of telling a story. That a series could look so promising in the trailers and marketing and turn out to be this bad is hard to understand.
The War of the Worlds: Revolution (2019)
Not what was expected
If, based on the hype and trailers, you were expecting to see a production faithful to H.G. Wells' book, you are likely to be puzzled at first, and then disappointed. This version is set in the proper era, where across England, Martian cannon balls (not cylinders, but let's not quibble) are landing and wreaking havoc on the countryside. Also wreaking havoc is a script that introduces unnecessary and distracting elements and subplots including unsigned divorce papers, a liberated woman assistant scientist, premarital sex, and estranged brothers, along with awkward conversations ostensibly about the selection of new wallpaper for the parlor and breakfast rooms.
Presumably an invading army from Mars, bringing with it technology capable of wiping out the entire human race in a matter of weeks, isn't enough material to carry a three-part mini-series.
Will George convince his separated wife to sign the divorce papers so that he and Amy can marry properly before the Martians make divorce and marriage irrelevant? Will George reconcile with his estranged brother Frederick in time to get his blessing for their premarital union before the Martians take over Parliament? Will Amy's wallpaper arrive in time for the workmen to hang it and let it dry before giant tripods stomp the village flat?
Tune in for Episode 2 next week.
Titanic: Sinking the Myths (2017)
Not historically accurate
If you want fictional and highly sensationalized drama only loosely based on historical events, and you can tolerate cheap CGI, bad acting, and clips that looked like they were borrowed from other treatments of the Titanic story, you might find this a tolerable way to pass a few hours if you're sick in bed and can't reach the remote to change the channel.
But the "facts" presented in this documentary are nowhere to be found in the primary source materials of the actual disaster, and the narrative and conclusions are speculative at best. There is a lot of "it could have happened like this" along with quite a few "this might be what happened" and "if this had happened, then that might also have happened" type of analysis here. But most of the supposedly new information that sinks the myths are invented, stretched, incorrect interpretations, and just patently wrong and easily disproved.
As for passengers declaring that the rockets were the wrong colors... does the woman who wrote the book for this script really expect us to believe the passengers knew more about the proper use of distress signals than the crew or the ship's owners did? Neither Capt Smith, nor any of the deck officers, nor Thomas Andrews, Bruce Ismay, the QMs in charge of firing the rockets would not have noticed "these aren't distress rockets..." Passengers would not get into lifeboats, did not believe the ship was sinking, and yet they knew more about distress rockets than the crew?
The people who made this "documentary" might think the crew was stupid, but the viewers aren't.
There are soooooo many things wrong with this documentary. And not just wrong, but demonstrably false. Conspiracy theorists will love this. As for anybody else... watch at your own risk. You've been warned.
The Jilting of Granny Weatherall (1980)
Not Katherine Anne Porter
If you've not read Katherine Anne Porter's original story, you're likely to watch this and wonder what is the point. It bears little resemblance to the story on which it is based, and viewers are likely to be confused by what seems to be a series of disjointed and unrelated flashbacks. If you have read the original short story, you're likely to be disappointed by this attempt to translate it into a visual medium. Towards the end it finally starts to line up with the short story, but it's not enough to save this attempt.
Jonathan (2016)
Missing the point
I liked this movie. Some say it moved slowly, but considering the story it tells, that is appropriate. It is a young man's attempt to know the story about his parents, one of whom he has never known, and the other who is now dying.
Some of the reviews here are complaining that it celebrated homophobia, and/or minimized the gay story line, or that it isn't truly a gay story at all. I disagree. The gay characters might be secondary to the primary character, but it's a gay story in how those secondary characters affect the primary character, and the impact they have had on him. This is about a young man caring for his dying father, who never knew his mother, and doesn't understand why his father refuses to talk about her, knowing that time is running out for him to learn anything about his mother. His reaction and frustration are normal.
This is not celebrating homophobia; it is demonstrating how it impacts people and causes them to do unintentionally cruel actions; it is demonstrating the damage that homophobia does. I thought it gave a realistic portrayal of a man who lived his life in the closet but was determined not to die there. Is it so surprising that his son would be stunned at learning the truth about his parents? This wasn't about the son being homophobic, it was about his very reasonable and understandable sense of betrayal, learning that he had been told lies about his parents, for his entire life... and while his one remaining parent is in the throes of dying. Who wouldn't be shocked and frantic and angry at such a time? This was hardly celebrating homophobia; it was demonstrating its effects.
The Bridge of San Luis Rey (2004)
The third time is not the charm
Thornton Wilder's novel on which this movie is based, asks what is probably the most fundamental questions that nearly every human who has ever lived has struggled with at some point: why are we here, and why do we die? Are life and death random accidents, or does Someone have a plan for us? The questions can't possibly be solved; the answers can only be believed because they remain unproven.
This is the third attempt to make a film adaptation of Wilder's book, and each of those three have tried to impose answers on Wilder's questions, completely missing the point of the novel. Knowing that they are unanswerable, Wilder makes no attempt to answer his own questions, but instead reassures us that is enough to have lived and loved. Why then do those who wrote the scripts for these movie adaptations feel compelled to try answer the impossible questions? The 1944 version swaps, replaces, and re-writes Wilder's characters, putting "wrong" (ie, different) characters on the bridge, inventing entirely new characters at times, even introducing one victim about whom we learn nothing whatsoever. Then why put him there; did his life not matter as much as the others? Why change the story at all? This 2004 version attempts to find the "reason" that the bridge claimed the victims it did. It seems to want to point to one character in particular (I won't reveal which one) as being the influence that caused the five people to be on the bridge at the climactic moment, even though Wilder's novel makes no such suggestion. Indeed, Wilder's novel leaves us wondering Why? He didn't try to come up with a solution. This adaptation tries too hard and fails.
On the plus side, the costumes, the cinematography, the score, the "mis-en-scene" of this version is beautiful. Some of the acting is good, some is embarrassing. It feels as if all the attention was given to the set dressing, the look and feel, and not much attention was paid to the actors or the script or the delivery of their lines. At times it seems they are acting in different movies, and nobody seems to be in charge.
The script meanders without focus, trying to fit the disparate lives into one cohesive, linear story. The novel does not do that; in fact, the novel avoids that approach entirely. There is a prologue, an epilogue, and in between, Wilder tells us three distinct stories, each one ending at the characters' arrival at the bridge. It is left up to us to decide if the three stories fit together or not, and if so, how?
Would it be too much to ask for a script that follows Wilder's structure?
Rescue Me (2004)
has its moments, but the writers are often lazy
The show is at its best when the characters have to face the consequences of their asinine behavior, or trauma of on-the-job events. Unfortunately that doesn't happen often enough.
The comedy is sometimes on-point, but more often it is sophomoric and cheap, too easy and obvious; it seems the writers don't know what to do. The comedy becomes filler, instead of growing out of the situation or the characters; the equivalent of a cartoon pie fight. Outrageous plots overrule character development.
When the show is good, it is very good, but you have to sit through long stretches where characters are not believable, and plots are set up to deliver a joke. With few exceptions, the characters rarely learn; they seem stuck in sixth grade. Once in a while someone shows some depth, but that depth rarely sticks; by the next episode they are back in sixth grade mode. I would not want to hang out with these people.