earthinspace Reviews

Amanda Knox (2011 TV Movie)

These movie-makers were not under oath

[2/10 · 20 March 2011]

This movie promotes several gross distortions which CBS News Crimesider, for one, has identified. Example: in one scene Amanda knew too much prior to her interrogation, such as how her friend Amanda had died. CBS CrimeSider calls this one of the five biggest lies in the film. And yes, it was not in the trial either.

Why was Amanda's interrogation not recorded? Why did the prosecution's forensic team not testify in the trial about any crime scene cleanup? Why did the police, while testing, destroy the hard-drives of the computer which Amanda and Raffaele said they were using that night? Why are so many other facts misreported in newspapers and TV? The movie does not answer any of those questions truthfully, or even raise them. It is mysterious. It seems to be a commercial game. Or maybe they are just "giving Amanda and Raffaele a bad time." In this movie, a blonde Italian-American Hollywood woman acts out a screenplay to portray a red-haired Scottish-American honor student from Seattle as if she were a bratty, suspicious and brazen character. Someone has friends in low places.

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)

Excellent in some ways; its religion & economics are way out of focus though

[6/10 · 27 March 2010]

Michael Moore's team has assembled a worthwhile film. The film is entertaining and delivers some good information.

Best parts of the move were the most gritty & real parts -- _some_ hard reporting and some "you-are-there" super-excellent film clips. Workers, home-owners & President FDR are luminous in their roles. Oscar-worthy performances.

Worst parts are: panders to old empires; has some totally uninformed theories about history; and blurs the line between "socialism" and "democratic socialism" for most of the movie. They don't mention a lot of information they could have read in David Halberstam's _The Reckoning._ They do not go very deep on why the workers in Germany & Japan received "The New Deal" since WWII. ... just that they did. Maybe it was because religious inertia was swept away there but not here. Just sayin'. I love the positive _feelings of religion, but read _Science and the Modern World_ by Alfred North Whitehead and see if you can fix some of religion's problems, please.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams in the movie was great! Uh, doing so only in print as the movie *ends* was okay, I guess. But when we observe the air-time given to Catholic priests and bishops condemning capitalism, then Tom - Ben - John seem slighted. Is it fair to credit the Catholic church with being our main hope? Michael Moore accuses capitalism of crimes -- yet does not document the religious backgrounds of the players. I guess the idea we're supposed to get is that Catholics are not to blame. Well, show that.... document it... fairly. Not as if this were a court at the Inquisition.

If workers could control their destiny, would they still have a modified form of capitalism? There are some structural problems with previous forms of socialism which the movie should have illuminated instead of creating an impression that the bogeyman was able to operate without opposition from the Catholic church until it was too late.

The movie also forgets until near the end that capitalism's link with the Constitution was not forged by the USA's founders. Apparently, the movie-makers chose to _equate capitalism with financial greed and corruption -- while the real problem is that capitalism has -- with tacit approval even from religious leaders, it seems, from "on high" -- been too _lax in allowing financial greed and corruption. The Constitution did not allow corruption. More likely, religion allowed it, since church says we're "all guilty" and therefore let's be forgiving. Forgiving is good. Being too lax is a problem.

Religion has sometimes focused on condemning the vices of the working class and all too often, it seems, religion allowed the vices of the rich.

I am very moved by my understanding of Christ and the story of Jesus, even though I wish I could read his autobiography. Contrary to what the movie songs said, if Jesus were in America today, the Bill of Rights would protect his freedom to speak.... and by the way, when I criticize the Catholic church, or any religion, it is with the desire they might experience the beauty and joy which is supposed to be life's companion eternally. I believe they mainly wish the same for us too. So all this is just a communication problem we're working out. That's why it is troubling that this movie still clings to the idea that insider Catholics are the answer and our Constitution's founders' intentions are a mere afterthought. I do not want to leave this review on a down note, so I'll just say "Galileo was Catholic" "Ben Franklin was Quaker" "Thomas Jefferson was Deist" "Isaac Asimov was Jewish, or perhaps atheist" and so on. Michael Moore made religious leaders an issue in this film and that's why I mention these other persons as examples. In this, no religion (or lack of religion) was ignored for cause -- it was just a casual list, okay?

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008)

Very nice, very good... except they made the Nazis into blue-eyed pale folks

[5/10 · 4 May 2009]

Casting plus cosmetics equals....? It could have equaled historical authenticity along with a nice, worthwhile story. The film has some good ideas and some good production values.

Unfortunately, the producer's weird color agenda or fetish is revealed from the beginning to the end, as all basically all the Nazis are OSTENTATIOUSLY portrayed with pale skin and luminous blue eyes and the Jewish persons, of course, have "nicer" colors. The question that comes to mind is, "WAS THAT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE?" A second question is,"IF NOT, THEN WHY DID THEY PORTRAY IT THAT WAY?" .....A dark-haired, dark-eyed actor becomes a blonde, blue-eyed concentration camp commander. Was the Auchwitz camp commander a blonde, blue-eyed man with an all blue-eyed, pale-skinned family, as this movie suggests? .... If you care what's true, then how about researching this question at Amazon, wikipedia, google, ask.com etc?

Noah's Ark (1999)

They should lop off the Sodom and Gomorrah segment, then it's watchable

[6/10 · 28 June 2008]

It's hard to watch the first part because the producers puffed out a few paragraphs of Lot's story in Sodem and Goomeruh to make about 45 minutes of head-scratching tedium before ever getting to the story of Noah's Ark. The acting was pretty good in that part. It might even have made a reasonable comedy sketch of five minutes. It just didn't fit the mood in oh, _so _many ways.

Up 'til then, the movie is about a 3. After that, the rating of the movie rises to 7 based upon its reach, its beauty and even some dreamy profoundness that exceeded my expectations. What's beautiful are the animals, the inside of the boat, the arc upon the ocean, and the people. What was dreamy and profound, for one, was the original story itself -- which may have its roots in the scientifically-confirmed flood of the Black Sea shore by an epic deluge of water from the Mediterranean Sea. Also worth the time are the conversations between Noah and God which, while not profound, might be a springboard for Your own profound inner conversation.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)

Adequacy equals Excellence when making a movie about Science

[9/10 · 23 April 2008]

This movie is best watched without a horse in the race. I am into evolution, but I don't have stress headaches about it. I like jokes like,"What was the Creator of the Universe doing -- during the 160-million-year Age of the Dinosaurs?" I like this movie! My sense of Evolution was not attacked, only supplemented.

This is a good human-interest documentary with depth and good production values .... about Evolution ! Because the arguments were humanely delivered, I enjoyed the contrary intellectual content as counterpoint. There were occasional snide comments I did not agree with, and there is another side to the story that wasn't covered much. Still, I think some genuine points were coherently made with grace and style and love. This movie exemplifies how to put greater human interest into a science subject ... We can make a counterpoint movie with love too. Wow! this movie is a fine opportunity for reverie...

Richard Dawkins was not always given the most favorable lighting and makeup; still, he did talk ably and intelligently face to face with the producer in a "60 Minutes" hot-seat way. ....I hope this won't be the last good movie about Evolution or Science for a while! The complexity of a single cell was treated with very nice graphics for a couple of minutes. The movie has a friendly manner, light psychological mood, and high level of abstraction about wider issues.

Staffers (2004– )

Is 'The West Wing' this show's only competition?

[7/10 · 7 February 2008]

After seeing The West Wing on DVD, I bought this from the discount bin. After watching three episodes, I have absolutely no regrets. Each episode is 22 minutes behind-the-scenes in the 2004 Democratic primary campaign. The lives of the staff people are treated with a quick running conversational style from week to week. It is not deep but it is not fake either.

If you watch Democratic party election returns, You will very likely enjoy this and learn from it too. A few specific people are revisited in each episode as they experience the highs and lows of it all. We also meet the Presidential candidates in a less contrived setting than usual. So far I have seen episodes centering on the campaigns of Kerry, Clark, Dean, and Lieberman.

There is enough dramatic content to hold it together.

Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story (2006)

Excellent Movie and Pretty good documentary

[8/10 · 6 February 2008]

The comments by people who "hated" this movie were very good comments. There are a few parts of the film which are crafted more for the enjoyment factor than the education factor. In doing so, the filmmakers sacrificed maybe one tenth of this film's historical value. I also agree with the people who loved this movie because it was so well produced and acted. All in all, this is a good film for anyone who cares about good government, family values, whether liberal or conservative. It provides a sound basis for further research if you are at all interested in the history of good government in the 20th Century. Speaking of "liberal," in the movie it is a puzzle why "liberal" seems to mean one thing in Canada and something else in the United States. Ah, well.

A More Perfect Union: America Becomes a Nation (1989)

"Good enough" treatment of an excellent topic

[8/10 · 2 February 2008]

A Congress of the United States was never so well portrayed, was it? I wish there were more hours of this.

I am a fan of "The West Wing" and "1776" and in some senses, this film is even better. The acting is excellent. Documentary logic (the writing) and production values are too. Artistic sensibility -- same. Nuances: same, I think! The film was produced by a university film department while its actors are talented career actors.

The topic was so large that I think we must forgive the shortage of scenes with women because they were not delegates to the Constitutional Convention. It is a movie that can seem too long only if one does not take breaks to move around.

Among the high points of this film are portrayals of the delegates. The actor's so-so resemblance to George Washington is bridged by a successful portrayal how grave and lovable he was remembered to be. Benjamin Franklin and others are brought to life, it seems.

Inside Man (2006)

Just one leetle problem

[7/10 · 16 February 2007]

We love these characters so much that we could forget that, even with all their wonderful personal qualities and noble motives, the movie suggests it is fine for the big money to be made in corruption and robbery. If the mayor and the bank president and the discrete Jodi Foster character are all 'compromised' then it should okay for bank robbers to be our heroes. And when they remember to give the good, honest cop a big diamond for his wedding ring, we can almost swoon. For here is this movie's answer to the world's problems: We can have fun and use our intelligence to make movies that even corrupt bank presidents and corrupt mayors will like. Okay, well, we can't base an entire economic system on it. But it had us charmed. And in the end, we don't quite have enough good news lately. It's not my favorite genre, or I'd probably give it an '8.'

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

10 for effort, 8 for excellent parts, 0 for carefulness

[6/10 · 3 February 2007]

It is certainly worth seeing, yet I feel it should have been re-edited to leave out some parts that were quite misleading. There is dramatic tension between the good parts and the major falsehoods in this film. The good parts reveal a surprising amount to a thinking viewer, such as when the spokespersons for "the other side" are allowed to speak freely. The major falsehoods occur when the filmmaker jumps to conclusions or mixes exaggeration and satire with very sober (and sobering) facts. These 'falsehood scenes' (which I am talking' about) are sometimes humorous sketches and sometimes editorial comments by Moore. Unfortunately, Moore is truly, truly not an expert and that is probably why, several times, he offers botched conclusions and hack history. An example of the falsehoods: a short cartoon film about American history where paranoid early Pilgrims in America proceed to shoot all the nice Indians and then the Pilgrims go on to burn each other as witches. My understanding is that burning witches ended in Europe and did not cross the ocean. Also, that cartoon film fairly strongly implied that paranoia is something the "white" people have and the other colors did not. Sorry, but I am not going to name all the errors. I simply claim that historical rigor would oppose several of Moore's main points.

The film is worth watching but with a disclaimer:"This film is not a reliable source of detailed background information or analysis but conveys almost an hour of good, worthwhile data about its chosen subject."

Freedom Writers (2007)

It's a point of view, not 'a message from heaven'

[9/10 · 15 January 2007]

This movie does not try to solve every problem or tie up every loose end, yet it raises emotional truths very well. On a side note: One student said,"I hate white people" because the white policemen had arrested her father. Is that how most people obtain their social conscience -- by a little thinking and a lot of anger? Maybe. And grade school is a chance to think a little more. And with leadership from the teacher, the students in this movie were gradually developing their thinking skills...not just re-arranging their biases. So many things were left unsaid in the movie. That is okay. There are powerful things to be said about "white people" (if there is such a group) in social justice debates. The "9" was deserved for portraying a plausible episode when students began the road to true justice. Some of the methods might come right thru the screen and do some good.

The Jack Bull (1999 TV Movie)

As I remember it . . .

[9/10 · 8 December 2006]

Almost as Intense as "Pulp Fiction"

Almost as Grand as "Gone with the Wind"

Almost as Deep as "The Grapes of Wrath"

Almost as Noble as "Walk the Proud Land"

A Western this good could win the award for Best Picture if it were as 'uplifting' as this motion picture was tragic.

As I remembered it, Cusack's character simply did not understand the system at first, and being human, the system was not doing its job very well. "Evil" in the film seems to result from carelessness and lack of concern by those who, it might be hoped, should know better.

Sacred Ground (1983)

Real frontier atmosphere

[9/10 · 7 April 2006]

Do you want to feel the _real_ old West? "Sacred Ground" will show part of it to you. It is very much like being there. The characters are not posing or becoming legends. They are living on the screen.

I don't care in this instance that the story and ending are only so-so... unusual but not deep. I rated this film a _9_ based upon: 1) almost perfect acting during 3/4 of the film; 2) authentic and beautiful outdoor location scenes; 3) worthwhile costumes; 4) very believable indoor sets; and 5) everything else being at least adequate. In the collision between European Americans and American Indians, this movie shows human values with more depth than "Little Big Man" or "Cheyenne Autumn." While they are struggling desperately in conflict, neither is given too much nobility nor too much shallowness. Who is the "hero" and who is wrong tends to shift organically as decisions pile up through time....more authentic even than some great movies like "High Noon" with Gary Cooper. ...... The editing tells the odd tale almost seamlessly with just a few glitches. One or two minor moments of "huh?" happen in the plot.

Actor Tim McIntire lived several years in the wilds of Montana before electricity arrived. It seemed he was on "familiar ground" and not just "making a movie."

Rose-Marie (1936)

Short Story and Natural Beauty

[9/10 · 7 April 2006]

Rose-Marie's occupation is singing. The Mountie also sings, but not for pay.

The Canadian Rockies are gorgeous; they are in Canada. The movie was filmed near Reno. It's a chicks' movie but with benefits. The benefits are...1) watching the guy be aloof and distant. We all need to learn that in the early stages, don't we? 2) guys like camping, don't we? Lots of camping in this movie. 3) I think the horses go in the water. That's cool too, eh?

The plot is simple. The characters are complex. The sets vary from the opera stage to the dingiest cabin in the far-flung woods. The clothes are now 70 years old, so that's something.