Reviews

I've been interested in the Titanic for many years and saw this English movie many years ago on TV. It's not one of those movies that is shown very often. Fortunately it's on YouTube (after so many movies have been taken off), so feel free to indulge.

There have been many movies made about the Titanic--both for theaters and television--and while I do like James Cameron's 1997 version, "A Night to Remember" is the better film. Made only 45 years after the sinking, there were still many survivors at that time and a few hung around the studio watching the movie being filmed and offering their advice. Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall acted as technical adviser. James Cameron watched this movie many times and while I appreciate his attention to detail and historical accuracy, his version is basically a love story that took place aboard the Titanic. "A Night to Remember" is about the ship itself, based on Walter Lord's 1955 best selling book.

For anyone that knows anything about the Titanic and its cast of characters, you can easily pick out Thomas Andrews, J. Bruce Ismay, "unsinkable" Molly Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Isadore Strauss, Captain Smith, etc.

One aspect of this great movie that sets it apart from most of the others--particularly Cameron's movie--is the "Californian controversy." A ship, the Californian, was about 12 miles away while the Titanic was sinking and the crewmen on watch saw rockets being fired. But their telegraph operator had gone to sleep & missed the SOS. Nothing was reported to the ship's captain, Stanley Lord. Supposedly the ship couldn't have reached the Titanic in time even if it moved at top speed due to the ice--but it should have tried anyway.

So please watch this movie on YouTube, it's one of my favorites and I'm so glad I can watch it any time I want, it's a little over 2 hours long, you won't be disappointed!

I was a teen/young adult in the 1970s & saw lots of movies, but "Smile" somehow escaped me, probably because it was not well publicized. It wasn't until 1980 when I was visiting my mother that I saw it on HBO, she had recommended it. I thought the movie was hilarious. Very few people I know have even heard of "Smile," let alone seen it. And just recently I was talking with my mother & this movie came up, she mentioned that she thought it was terrible; I had to remind her that she's the one that told me to watch it all those years ago! I seem to be the only person I know who appreciates this movie.

"Smile" is a fictional behind-the-scenes look at a fictional beauty contest for Young California Miss (or something like that). There are familiar faces such as Bruce Dern, Barbara Feldon and Eric Shea (the voice of Linus in the Peanuts cartoons of the 1960s), but there's also a young Melanie Griffith as one of the girls. Can't forget Michael Kidd, who plays the pageant's career-slumped choreographer, who was an actual Hollywood choreographer (Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Where's Charley?). Oh yes, Annette O'Toole, who was in a few movies during that decade.

The story is great, the acting is terrific, the dialogue is wonderful. There are so few good comedies any more. I need to get "Smile" on DVD, as it's rarely shown on TV. Just wish I had seen it when it came out in 1975-76, I'm sure I would have enjoyed it as much as I do now.

I never even heard of "Downfall" before, guess it played in very few American theaters. It was on Netflix a few months ago, I was wondering if I should even bother with it, looked up the trailer on YouTube, thought it was worth my while & sat down with a bowl of popcorn. I was blown away by this movie, everything about it was great, even though the people around Hitler weren't readily identified (such as in "The Longest Day," another great film), you could pick out Josef & Magda Goebbels, Henrich Himmler, Eva Braun. It's like you, the audience, is there in the bunker with Hitler, watching/listening to him rant & rave to his generals. I would have loved to have seen what life was really like during the last few weeks in Hitler's bunker, but "Downfall" probably comes closer than any other movie.

Bruno Ganz should have at least been nominated for an Oscar. The Academy blew it, though (not unusual).

This amazing movie didn't get the publicity it deserved when it released. I have never cared for western or war movie genres but there are some exceptions and "Downfall" is one of them. Other war movies I've enjoyed--just for the record--are "Das Boot" (another great German film), "Hacksaw Ridge," "Schlinder's List," "The Pianist," "Saving Private Ryan," "The Longest Day," "The Great Escape," "Valkyrie," "Conspiracy," and "Tora! Tora! Tora!" Haven't seen much beyond that (wait, does "The Final Countdown" count?)

Anyway, check out Downfall!

I saw "Chappaquiddick" a few days after its release & it just hit my local "cheap" theater--didn't take long, must have not done too well at the box office. But I thought it was pretty good. Didn't even know Jason Clarke was Australian, he did a good job.

I remember this incident from the summer of 1969, a tumultuous summer--the moon landing, Manson murders, Woodstock and the Chappaquiddick Incident, which coincided w/the weekend of the moon landing. It was a national scandal, similar to the O.J. Simpson trial. But there are so many people around nowadays who don't remember Chappaquiddick or don't know about it or just don't care, which is probably why it was pulled out of the big theaters so fast. I'm surprised a movie wasn't made before Senator Kennedy died in 2009. The incident itself is definitely movie material.

Most everything in the movie is pretty accurate (according to records), the only problem I have is Bruce Dern's portrayal of Joe Kennedy. Joe was pretty much bedridden by the summer of 69 and was on his way out, so to speak (he passed away that November). He was rarely speaking any more (since his stroke in 1961 he didn't say much beyond NO and an occasional yes), so him telling Ted to come up with an alibi never happened. As a matter of fact, Ted did not tell his father what had happened until later that day--or the next--and he went up to his father's bedroom where Joe was lying in bed. Ted admitted that he was in trouble & that his father was going to hear all sorts of terrible things about him--Ted--from now on but that none of them were true. Joe took hold of his son's hand, held it to his chest, and listened to Ted's story. Not that Bruce Dern didn't do a great job (he's a fantastic actor), but I think the screenwriter(s) should have been more accurate. Also they should have shown his siblings & mother, not just his father and cousin Ann (Joe Gargan's younger sister & Joe Kennedy's companion/caregiver).

Ed Helms did a great job as Joe Gargan.

This one event of Senator's Kennedy life plagued him to the rest of his days, spending the rest of his life making up for it.

As for me, I never knew much beyond the basics, but after seeing the movie I went online to learn more and have come to the conclusion that Ted was not in the car with Mary Jo Kopechne when it went over the bridge; he had gotten out on Dike Road and she drove off by herself, she was drunk (.9%), wasn't used to driving such a big, powerful car (she drove a VW) and ended up going down the road at high speed, did not approach the bridge with caution & careened off into the water. Long story why I think that's the way it happened. Ted should have told the truth from the beginning, it would have made things easier for him. But he was in big trouble whether he told the truth or not.

Anyway, a good film.

Saw quite a few movies in early 1976 and two of them stand out even after all these years: one is Barry Lyndon and the other is The Man Who Would Be King. So many people haven't heard of these films and I always recommend them. John Huston had been wanting to make this movie for years but wasn't able to until the 1970s. I think it was worth it, because he picked a great cast.

It takes a while to get into The Man Who Would Be King, but once you're in, you're hooked. Danny & Peachy (brilliantly portrayed by Sean Connery & Michael Caine) are a couple of hell-raisers, stationed in India as part of the Queen's forces. They've done everything imaginable and are longing for a new adventure. They hear about a remote land beyond the mountains where no white man has gone since Alexander the Great.

After almost killing themselves getting to this little place, they finally arrive--and, through a series of coincidences, Danny is crowned king. Who is he to tell the natives that they made a mistake? Danny & Peachy have a great time as the king & his consort (so to speak) until the natives find out that they've been hoodwinked; Danny is a mere mortal like everyone else. And they aren't too happy.

I had to purchase the DVD because TV hardly ever showed this movie. But it's worth the price. John Huston directs a wonderful adventure story that stands the test of time.

When I was a senior in HS a friend & I saw this movie in 1976--a stretch for me, as I've never been a fan of either Stanley Kubrick or Ryan O'Neal. But this movie blew me away--the story line, cinematography, scenery, narration, costumes, acting, everything was just wonderful. There was a lot of publicity building up to the movie because Kubrick was using Marisa Berenson, a top model with little to no acting experience, who did a terrific job as Lady Lyndon. Ryan O'Neal was also pretty good, his Irish accent wasn't too bad.

For some reason, Barry Lyndon was rarely shown on TV & I had to buy the DVD so I could watch it a few times a year. I'm amazed at the number of people who have never even heard of this movie; I recommend it whenever the subject of movies comes up.

I had been waiting to see "Dunkirk" for months & planned on seeing it on 21 July, the opening night. Rarely does Hollywood put out a movie that I'm willing to see right away, but "Dunkirk" looked like a fantastic movie.

What a letdown; I was so disappointed. The trailers made it look so exciting. I mean, how could it be otherwise? The Battle of Dunkirk was perfect movie material: in the spring of 1940, over 300,000 British & French soldiers were trapped on the beaches around Dunkirk, making them sitting ducks for the Germans. The British military called for civilians w/boats to sail across the English Channel to Dunkirk to pick up as many men as possible & bring them to larger ships, as the larger ships could not make it to the beach- -and they succeeded. Surely an event worthy of a movie on a grand scale.

Unfortunately, the trailers showed the best parts of the movie; everything else was a letdown. Not a lot of dialogue (which could barely be heard above the background noise) and little to no character development, which I consider essential to any movie. I swear Kenneth Branagh--one of the best actors in the world--did not have more than a few lines. Neither did Cillian Murphy or Tom Hardy, both great actors. Only Mark Rylance had a decent speaking part. There was not an opportunity to get to know the characters in the movie, what kind of men they were or personalities they had, what they might be thinking or feeling in their horrendous situation. Nolan never gives you a chance because it's the focus of the movie seems to be everything but the characters themselves.

And the film was disjointed & lacked continuity. Of course all aspects of the battle had to be shown: from the air, from the sea, from the land, so jumping from Mark Rylance in his boat to Tom Hardy in his fighter/bomber and Fionn Whitehead on the beach was necessary. BUT you couldn't always tell when anything was happening. At one point it was nighttime at Dunkirk; you could see the fires & the lights on the beach. Then you'd see Tom Hardy in his plane or Mark Rylance on his boat--in broad daylight. Why? What time of the day was it? I thought it was night. If it's nighttime on Dunkirk then it's nighttime in the air & on the Channel, but we never see that. The events seemed out of order.

Chris Nolan is a good director, but he could have done so much more. There should have been more character development so you could get to know these men better & empathize w/them & their situation, thereby becoming more involved in the movie. But he did not do that.

My mom had wanted to see this movie (she's almost 80 & hasn't been to a movie in years). I told her to wait until it comes to Red Box and watch it. I mean, it's not a bad movie; just not as good as it should have been. It's not so much a war movie as it is Chris Nolan's version of a war movie.

I saw "Shackleton" on A&E around 2002-03 and taped it because I thought it was so good, watched it again on Thanksgiving 2005, then it disappeared somewhere. I tried finding the DVD online, never could find one until FINALLY, about 2 weeks ago, I saw that Amazon had it for like $10. I immediately ordered the DVD and am waiting for a rainy, lazy weekend to watch it. It may be a while before I can view this fantastic adventure story again but at least I have the DVD in my possession--finally.

I love Kenneth Branaugh, the man can't give a bad performance, and his portrayal of explorer Ernest Shackleton is among his best. The movie goes into great detail about how Shackleton managed to talk the British government into funding an expedition to Antarctica. He had already been down there before, but now he wanted to cross the continent pole to pole. He managed to get the money despite the fact that Britain needed it for the Great War, which had just started that year (1914).

So Shackleton, on a ship named Endurance and a crew of men and dogs, set out for the South Pole. What starts out as a grand adventure turns into a struggle for survival in the middle of the frozen nowhere w/hardly any communication to the outside world. You just shake your head and wonder "Why did these guys even decide to do this and how are they going to get out it?" You have to watch this great movie to find out!

I try to go to a movie on federal holidays, sort of my own way to celebrate. I used to do this for a long time except for the last few years because there really hasn't been anything out there I want to see--even at the $2.25 theater. But a girlfriend & I decided to take a chance on this movie on New Year's Day. Had to pay $12 because the only showing that fitted into our schedules was 3-D, which really irritated me. Never again! Anyway, "Passengers" was not a bad movie. I felt really bad for Chris Pratt & prayed Jennifer Lawrence wouldn't find out why she "woke up" ahead of schedule. You can't blame her for being furious! This was a good movie, though, and I only wish I had waited until it came to the cheap theater. I don't feel as if I've wasted a bunch of money if I don't like the movie (plus I can wander the hallway and find another movie to watch so my $2.25 isn't totally wasted).

My 4 kids grew up knowing I was a huge I Love Lucy fan, watching it whenever it was on. So when I found a copy of this movie in a video store about 20 years ago, my youngest remarked, "What are Lucy & Ricky doing in color?" Well, that's the reason they agreed to do this movie, because it would be filmed in color. Lucy & Desi are just as good in this hilarious comedy as they were on TV. They play a pair of newlyweds, Stacy & Nicky, who buy a long, long trailer. Nicky is hesitant, but Stacy talks him into it. Once they purchase the trailer, it becomes "one long nightmare," almost breaking up their marriage (while on their honeymoon). I don't know why this movie was hardly ever shown on TV because is's very entertaining. I had to order it on Netflix & will probably end up buying the DVD on Amazon.com. Plus it's nice to see Lucy & Desi in color!

I can't believe I wasted $7.50 last night to see this horrendous remake of "Footloose," but I was desperate to see a movie and nothing good was playing at the $1.50 theater. Why can't Hollywood leave remakes alone? Are screenwriters nowadays that unoriginal? Even though I felt that the 1984 film had a lame script (and acting), I loved the score, dancing, and scenery and the movie remains one of my favorite "guilty pleasures." Dean Pitchford wrote this script, which is almost a carbon copy of the original movie. Most of the same songs were used but were "updated." The only big difference is that the two leads--Kenny and Julianna--can actually dance whereas Kevin Bacon and Lori Singer couldn't (or at least not much). I'm still fuming at wasting all my money last night and would have walked out if I had paid only $1.50. Sorry to be so harsh in this review but I was not impressed. But I do hope that a better "dancing movie" comes along for Kenny and Julianna, because they are terrific dancers.

I call these kinds of movies "mortgage movies," meaning the script was so lame that everyone involved agreed to make this movie only to earn enough money to pay their mortgage. And this is a script by James L. Brooks, a great writer. I went last night with another couple (the wife chose this movie because she loves Reese Witherspoon) and I was angry but kept my mouth shut because I had already read the review on here and knew what to expect--not much. I don't like to pay $7.50 for a movie (I get a discount) unless it's something I really want to see--and "How Do You Know" wasn't it (I wanted to see "True Grit" but my friend didn't). The plot made no sense to me. All I gathered was that Reese didn't make the USA softball team, so she's upset and ends up with 2 men--a knuckleheaded (but warm-hearted and well-meaning) pro ballplayer (Owen Wilson) and the CEO (Paul Rudd) of a business that is in legal trouble thanks to the CEO's father (Nicholson, who must have been desperate for money to star in this movie).

No need to go into more details. Let's just say that I sat there fuming, irritated that I had wasted my $7.50 on this idiotic movie just because my girlfriend loves Reese Witherspoon. Last night I made a New Year's Resolution that I had never made before: Beginning today, I refuse to spend my hard-earned money at a first-run theater for a movie that I don't care to watch--period. Not even to appease a dear friend. I can wait until it comes to the $1.50 theater--and even then I may not go, but at least I'd only be wasting $1.50.

Last night, before going to the theater, we ate at a near-by restaurant and ran into some friends who had just gotten out of the theater and were now going to have dinner. They had seen "True Grit" and told me how good it was. So tonight I am going to pay $7.50 to see a movie that I actually think is worth it.

I'm a fan of movies about real people & events, & I think I would have accidentally overlooked "The King's Speech" if my parents hadn't mentioned reading a review in the local paper, where a critic had given it an "A-minus." That was good enough for me, so I saw it today in a crowded theater and was not disappointed. "The King's Speech" is definitely one of the best movies I've seen this year (and I go to about 30-40 movies a year).

I read about King George VI's speech problems but that's not what the movie is about. It's about facing your fears, especially in your darkest hours--and it's okay if you need (and seek) a little help. Prince Albert (Firth) was put into a difficult situation; he was a happily married family man/naval officer and totally unprepared for the role that fell to him in December 1936 when his brother, Edward VIII, abdicates the throne to marry a twice-divorced American woman. Albert had been taking speech therapy from Lionel Logue (Rush) for a while before becoming king & after he was crowned, Britian got involved in WWII and King George VI had to make lots of speeches (via radio) to bolster his subjects. Logue was with him all the way, yet no one ever knew.

Great performances all around by Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth, and Helena Bonham-Carter. Guy Pearce (one of my favorite actors) played Edward VIII (he didn't look as wimpy as Edward but he definitely appeared as flaky) and I wonder how many young people know (if they see this movie) that the oldest of the king's 2 daughters is now Queen Elizabeth II? Anyway, don't take my word for it. See "The King's Speech" and decide for yourself!

Back in April of 1974, when I was in the 10th grade, my father came home from a business trip and said that while he was gone he went to see a movie one night and it turned out to be the best movie he had ever seen. It was, of course, "The Sting." The next week I saw it and I felt the same way.

I don't think there is any such thing as a flawless movie but "The Sting" comes close. First, the cast. You can't beat a Newman/Redford combination and American movie-goers were hoping that the 2 actors would star in another movie again but it didn't happen. Robert Shaw, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Dana Elcar, Ray Walston, and Harold Gould all put in fantastic performances.

Second, the story. The movie takes place in Chicago around 1935. Prohibition had been repealed a few years earlier and another way to make some money was pulling off a few scams--both big and little.

Redford plays Johnny Hooker, a small-time hustler who works in a threesome with Luther Coleman and Joe Erie. The three grifters work well together and steal a lot of money, until one day they con a guy who's a "runner" for Doyle Lonagan (Shaw) take $11,000. Doyle is determined to track down these guys and kill them. He has Luther killed but can't find the other 2. In the meantime, Hooker goes to Chicago and teams up with Henry Gondorf (Newman), who used to work "big cons" but has now settled down in a whorehouse with a madame named Billie (Brennan). They decide to do one last "big con" and Lonagan's the "mark." Gondorf gets all his old friends together and they plan a huge "sting" against Lonagan. Besides planning out the con, they also have to make sure nothing else happens because a crooked detective (Snyder) is after Hooker.

What's interesting about this movie is that you are also part of "the sting"--only you don't know it! When you watch this at home, please put it on pause if you get up from your comfortable seat, as you can't afford to miss a minute, you really have to follow the movie. And the ending is enough to make you fall out of your seat.

Hollywood doesn't make movies like this anymore and it's a shame!

Okay, I'll admit it--I am not an Adam Sandler fan, and as long as he keeps churning out stupid, mindless comedies, I never will be (I didn't even like him in "Reign Over Me"). The only movie I tolerated him in was "50 First Dates," and that's only because my daughter was on a flight from Salt Lake to Anchorage in 2003 and was sitting behind some men who were talking about a movie they were working on called "50 First Kisses" (title later changed). I saw the movie (title later changed) so I could see some Alaskan scenery, only to find that the whole thing took place in Hawaii with just a tiny bit of Alaska at the end.

Sandler plays a successful Hollywood agent with spoiled kids and a gorgeous wife who is a successful clothes designer. He reunites with his old boyhood basketball-playing friends (who won a championship in 1978) 30+ years later at their coach's funeral. Afterwards they and their families spend a few days together at the late coach's summer cabin on a lake (in Essex, Massachusetts--beautiful scenery!) and try to reconnect and relive their childhood years by acting like idiots, ignoring their wives and ogling young girls (daughters of the character played by Rob Schneider) and trying to introduce their children to the joys of a 1970s childhood (no video games, iPods, cellphones).

Adam Sandler is talented but I'll stick with him in SNL, thank you very much. I challenge him to write/produce a movie that has some substance and actually encourages the audience to think--not making crude, stupid, comedies. He has the talent; he just doesn't do it. I've seen only one other Sandler movie--"Bedtime Stories." And even that was pushing it.

I know a young man named Aaron who loves Sandler and goes to every one of his movies as soon as they're released and then buys the DVD. He was always encouraging me to watch the movies, even offering to loan me his DVDs. When I tried to tell him why I didn't want to see the movies, he didn't seem to understand.

Produce something intelligent, Adam Sandler. I dare you!