Reviews

15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Sergeant York (1941)
10/10
Watch for the great performances by Margaret Wycherly and Joan Leslie
31 August 2013
There are movies that you can barely remember hours after watching them, and there are movies you can't forget even years later. Sergeant York is the later. The movie remains etched in my mind and heart.

It is a story clearly told, yet not oversimplified, with characters boldly drawn, yet not caricatured, at least not the main ones. It would be a great story even if it were not true, but it is true, at least in the main. York's conversion by a lightning bolt striking his rifle is fiction, though his heavy drinking, fighting and ultimate conversion are not. So the lightning is cinematic device to shorten the process, and a brilliant one.

Those who talk about it as a war story (and who complain the first part is boring) miss why this film is so great. It is also a love story and a story of family. Joan Leslie is heartbreakingly sweet and lovely as Gracie Williams. We can feel the chemistry, and see that she is a force for good in Alvin's life, who was 30 when he was drafted.

Leslie's portrayal of Gracie is so full of life and youth and charm. Compare that with Margaret Wycherly's portrayal of Mother York, who is old, tired, dessicated of emotion. Yet she is full of wisdom, of understanding Alvin's passion for Gracie. In her eyes, you can see her thinking back to when she was once Gracie, in her long ago youth. It is a silent, motionless look, plumbing the depths of memory -- a master actress's use of silence.

I think most viewers take Wycherly's performance for granted, perhaps assuming we are seeing the real Wycherly. Yet she was born in London in 1881 to a father who was a doctor -- far from the poverty of Pall Mall, Tennessee -- and had been mainly a British stage and film actress. Nevertheless, those who knew the real Mother York say Wycherly's portrayal was spot on. Now that is real acting.

It is curious that this is the role that earned Gary Cooper his first Oscar. We, the modern viewer, have seen that Aw Shucks persona many times. But apparently it fit the real Alvin York, who insisted on Cooper playing him on screen, and was present for the movie's premiere. You can read about Alvin York online, on Wikipedia and on Gutenberg.org, which has a 1920s biography online. In the quotes of the actual Alvin York, you can easily hear Gary Cooper's voice.

Henry Fonda was considered for the role, and matched York's looks more closely. But he was only a few years younger than Cooper, so it wouldn't have helped much with the Gracie-York match up. I think he could have done the role, but Cooper's fit was right and almost magical. Modesty was the hallmark of York, and Cooper had it down, far more than Fonda. Frankly, I don't notice the age thing when I watch it; it's a movie and you need to be prepared to suspend disbelief up to a point. Besides, people who work hard outside tend to look older, especially if they don't have much to eat.

The scene where the family sits down to dinner and Mother York proudly presents the bag of salt is so beautiful. She reminds me of a stray mother cat who will do anything to protect and feed her children, even to the point of starvation or death, herself. And when I buy salt, I sometimes think about this, and how lucky I am.

As to the portrayal of "hillbillies," we must remember that this was an extremely rural mountain area with no road coming in -- the real Alvin pushed the state to build one after the war -- and it was nearly a century ago. People were different. There was little schooling, too, and the real Alvin later raised funds to build a school. While we see Alvin drinking and fighting, we also see hard working, intelligent, gentle people with nice homes, so I don't see any stereotyping here.

As to the war, yes, the story is true. You can read about it yourself. And it provides a great lesson we should continue to remember today and in the future: The only justification for killing people in war (aside from self defense) is to end the killing and end war.

That is what was in York's mind, and he says so, to stop the killing. York was a pacifist at heart. Killing the enemy out of anger, hatred, retaliation or revenge was not in his mind, and should not be in the mind of any soldier. When this happens, it corrodes the soul of the soldier, so that he can no longer feel like a normal human being.

It was also probably what was on the minds of thousands of Americans who enlisted after seeing this movie, which was released months before America actually entered the war following Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. By then, the war had already been raging for two years, and America's entry was consistent with York's hope of helping to bring the fighting to an end.

York didn't lose his feeling for his fellow man. I found this item from the IMDb trivia section interesting:

"Alvin York himself was on the set for a few days during filming. When one of the crew members tactlessly asked him how many "Jerries" he had killed, York started sobbing so vehemently he threw up. The crew member was nearly fired, but the next day, York demanded that he keep his job."

While the attack he lead killed 28 German soldiers, he also captured 132, saving their lives.
24 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A true story full of good advice for tourists planning to visit America
7 July 2011
What I like best about "Support Your Local Sheriff!" is that it is a true story that accurately depicts daily life in America, especially the Western states like West Virginia, Indiania and Detroit.

This movie is full of valuable information for travelers and tourists from abroad.

In every town in America, two or three people get shot in gunfights in just about every saloon every day, and that's before sundown. So it's important to know the rules of engagement: You can't draw first. If you do, and kill the other guy, you could get yourself hanged. (America's a very backward country; we don't have the guillotine here.) If you don't draw first, of course, you could be killed by the other guy. So a word of advice: Don't cheat at poker.

Now if you do get into a gunfight, the first thing to do is make sure you have your gun strapped to your waist and in it's holster, the holster tied to your leg. If you don't, you could always try throwing rocks. Now, just before you draw with your right hand, lift your left shoulder and move your left arm. This will trick the other guy into drawing first, so be ready to draw with your right hand. If left-handed, remember to reverse the feint. Oh, and remember to put bullets in the gun.

Six-shooters are handy, but old-fashioned and of limited value when in a gunfight that's 20 against one. Then what you need is a canon or two. The movie provides just one of the many creative ways to use canons to restore law and order.

So all you foreign travelers, when you visit the United States, your first stop on arrival should be to visit your friendly local armaments dealer and stock up on canon balls. Better yet, make reservations ahead with Hertz Rent-o-Canon; that way you can return unused canon balls at the end of your trip, if you have any, and if you do return home, in one piece.

If you are just passing through on the way to Australia, you can often pick up some pin money with a temporary gig as the local sheriff, particularly in Fargo. Don't worry, the townspeople will be there to help out when the going gets rough.

I'm so glad director Burt Kennedy did such a wonderful job of capturing the true spirit of America in this film. So all you Brits and Spaniards and Canadians, come on over. You too can strike it rich and find your very own gold mine. Provided you're armed to the teeth and have plenty of firepower.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The fillet mignon of HHGG versions.
6 May 2011
The essence of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that it is a stiletto sharp political and social satire. If you read the original "Gulliver's Travels," by Jonathan Swift, you will see a remarkably similar approach.

This TV series retains the essence of that satire found in the original radio series and subsequent book. While I enjoyed the original radio series immensely, when I listened to it again more recently, I found it a bit rushed, and liked the pacing in the television version better.

The extras disk with the DVD version provides an explanation of how the "computer graphics" were done in that 1981 pre-CGI age: by artists. What they accomplished was amazing and highly aesthetic.

The preceding review by In descending order... makes some good points about the order of the Douglas Adams opuses. I assume, being British, he has more first hand knowledge than I. But I think he may be a bit off. I think what he considers a subsequent radio series was, to my understanding, a dramatized audio book, and one with additional material beyond any of the books, from what I can recall. But perhaps it was broadcast in Britain.

And I think the original three books were revised when they were printed together as an anthology.

So it is a bit of a mess to say which is the definitive version. Short of reading the book, I would say this BBC TV production is my favorite. It really holds up well to repeated viewing. But you should still read the trilogy; it is a masterpiece that deserves a place in a college 20th century literature curriculum.

But one thing can be said definitively: The 2005 movie version is an abomination that bears no semblance to the artistic concept of the author.

As Paul Newman used to say, "Why settle for hamburger when you can have steak?"
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nuremberg: Tyranny on Trial (1995 TV Movie)
8/10
Essential viewing for understanding the Nuremberg Trials
6 May 2011
I have watched several treatments of the Nuremberg Trials -- including documentaries, re-enactments, and a semi-fictionalized movie -- and this is the most informative.

The list of experts interviewed is not long, and the production values are not slick, but Nuremberg: Tyranny on Trial provides a good historical framework of the complex subject, plus analysis from the commentators that helps interpret the facts and put them into perspective.

The BBC's "Nuremberg: Nazis on Trial" lacked these elements, though it did do an excellent job of bringing the defendants, as well as the participants on the Allied side, to life. There did seem to be an odd bias against Justice Robert Jackson, with the repeated playing of a scene where Goering gets the better of him, and he loses his temper.

While cross examination did not seem to Jackson's strong suit, at least at this point in his career, there was a side to this incident that was not explained in the BBC documentary, but was in Tyranny on Trial. The British justices had insisted that the defendants be given an unlimited amount of time on the stand to say whatever they wanted in rebuttal to the charges. They wanted to make it impossible for anyone to say they were denied a fair trial.

It turned out the famous scene of Justice Jackson losing his temper occurred when the court had given Goering more than two days to say whatever he wanted to during Jackson's cross examination, and Goering had scored some points Jackson could have rebutted better. This was not mentioned in any of the other treatments.

The toughest issue when covering Nuremberg is handling the interpretation of Albert Speer. How guilty was he, and was he truly repentant, or just playing on the sympathies of the court? This account glosses over these questions. With the benefit of greater historical information now, it is apparent that Speer played a more active role in the Holocaust and in the abuse of slave labor than was realized at the time. But, even so, the verdict of the court to let him live, with a 20 year prison sentence, appears to have been the right one because he has proved invaluable in providing first hand insight into the Nazi regime. "Nazis on Trial" provides more depth on Speer.

Obviously, the lengthy Nuremberg trials are an exceedingly complex subject, and the English, Americans, French, Russians and Germans would all tend to have different perspectives. But a documentary should try to be objective, and not take sides. "Tyranny on Trial" seems to do a good job at staying objective and factual, while still helping the viewer understand the complex subject with expert analysis.

I can't help wondering if the best documentary on Nuremberg has yet to be made. It is a little late to interview the participants. But it would be interesting to hear from modern Germans on what they thought of the way it was handled. And modern historians may be able to provide more perspective on this episode of history.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Not in the IMDb Top 250?
1 May 2011
There's something I'd like someone to explain to me: How come Field of Dreams isn't anywhere on the IMDb top 250 movie list? It used to be. I think it might have been in the top 10 a few years ago. Now it's gone. With all due respect to IMDb and its posters, there's something wrong here.

I wouldn't say Field of Dreams is No. 1, but it certainly is in my top 20, along with Harvey, Ground Hog Day and Being John Malkovich, all highly creative movies.

Did I mention "The Shawshank Redemption" is No. 1? A good film, (with a gaping hole in its plot), but how many times can you watch it, after knowing the ending? Are most of the IMDb reviewers cons in the pen yearning to be free?

Field of Dreams is a classic that has become part of our culture, part of our language. It is a movie you can watch again and again, and it still works, it still generates the same emotions, it still inspires you to dream.

One of the most amazing elements of the film is that there really was a Moonlight "Doc" Graham. The yellowed obituary that the newspaper editor reads from was his actual obituary. His brother was the U.S. Senator and Governor of North Carolina, as I recall, but Moonlight gave up his family advantages to be a small town doctor.

The scene of Burt Lancaster fading into the cornfield, his swansong on film, always brings tears to my eyes.

It's hard to imagine how this film could be more perfect. If Field of Dreams is not a 10, what is? Well, Field of Dreams is 22 years old now, made before some IMDb reviewers were born. It's a very American film, and I notice the growing hatred of America in the world is, sadly, rubbing off on American cinema, kind of like people who hate Wagner's music because they don't like his politics (what they've been told are his politics).

Anyone who refuses to watch great American films like Field of Dreams is the loser. I have lived abroad; I gave a copy of Field of Dreams to a co-worker, and in the entire year I was there, she absolutely refused to watch more than five minutes of it, and then said now she had "watched" it.

This movie is threatening to people in some more traditional countries because it is about individualism, of being a non-conformist even when people might think you are crazy and stop talking to you. It is the antithesis of the Confucian group think of countries like Japan, Korea and China, and who knows what other countries.

In America, individualism and non-conformity are held up as a high ideal to strive for. That's what this movie is about. Field of Dreams is the epitome of this theme that appears over and over in American cinema, in great movies like Harvey and High Noon. But in most countries in the world non-conformity is viewed as a bad thing, and so this movie might make adults feel uncomfortable.

There's also the problem of a number of cultural references that might be meaningless to foreign viewers, like the Sixties, not to mention baseball, itself. The commentary track is one of the most interesting, but perhaps there needs to be another track for foreign audiences? I'll let you in on a little secret: I showed this movie to a class of foreign school kids, with appropriate subtitles, as a last minute bonus. I think they got it.

When you think of it, Field of Dreams is a radical movie, radical in the Sixties sense. Adults might not like it, but it could inspire young people in other countries that there are possibilities to make wonderful changes in the world and in yourselves far beyond what your elders can imagine, if only you dare to dream and stick to your dreams, regardless of what others might say.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Auschwitz, the epicenter of Nazi evil
25 March 2011
The strength of this documentary is that it presents the facts without flinching, and without being judgmental or emotional. The result is a picture of Auschwitz of great clarity, from its historical beginnings. The question is whether the viewer can watch it without turning away.

I have been watching lots of documentaries about World War II lately, trying to put the many pieces together into a coherent picture. I am a baby boomer who is getting older, and I feel I must confront this now.

My grandfather died in Auschwitz, along with an unknown number of other family members. I have always known this. I, like most others, have seen the emaciated bodies, the dead bodies stacked like cord wood of dead and dying Jews. Now I know the day my grandfather arrived in Auschwitz and the day he died, from a database on the internet. And with this documentary, I am closer to grasping the reality of what he experienced, up to a point. This, of course, is not the complete story; no one documentary or movie can do that for World War II, or any one aspect of it.

I wish everyone would watch this documentary because Auschwitz was the very epicenter of Nazi evil. To remember, to understand, is to instill meaning into the millions of murders of Jews, Poles and countless others. That is the peculiar quirk of the Nazi regime: without these deaths, some might forget how evil it was, even apart from the Holocaust.

Any sensible person would have thought that, surely, this would have marked the end of genocide, forever. But it has not, and genocide, in the millions, has occurred again and again around the world. And it can, again.

I think the documentary's one weakness is that it focuses too much on Nazi's demonization of the Jews, which, sadly, continues in some corners of the globe. The real issues are more general, particularly that of one nation believing itself to be a race that is racially superior to other nations and peoples, as did Nazi Germany. Once you believe your group to be superior, it is almost rational to think it is your duty to kill those who are not in your group.

While Western Europe has grown beyond that phase, there are still countries that believe themselves to be racially superior to everyone else; I lived in one such country in Asia, and this message of racial superiority and hatred is taught in the schools from an early age.

Economic and political turmoil in Germany set the stage for the Final Solution. We could see such economic and political turmoil in the future in many countries. We must learn from history.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is not HHGG. This movie is an impostor!
18 March 2011
In theory, making this should have been a walk in the park. The BBC television series was very good, but had a limited budget. With CGI special effects and some money, this movie had enormous potential.

But the first problem is you are taking a six-part TV series (which didn't cover the entire radio series or book) and squeezing it down to a two hour movie. But it could have been done, if you retained the essentials.

And it should be mentioned to all the reviewers who say "I didn't read the book," Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy did not start out as a book. Well, yes, it is the title of a book, but a fictional book within the story, with the words "Don't Panic!" on the cover.

The franchise started as a radio series on BBC. So it began life with some definite ideas about how the characters were to be played, and were to sound. The BBC television series generally improved on the performances, without changing the characters.

So there were hopes for this movie that it would continue in that vein, maintain the concept but improve on the performances and production polish.

Then something went fundamentally wrong.

I have to assume the blame belongs to the director Garth Jennings and the writer Karey Kirkpatrick. Apparently, they not only didn't read the book, but didn't listen to the radio show or watch the BBC series (there are other iterations, such as an audio book). Was this too much work? Someone must have told them what the characters were supposed to be like, and they resented it, because they turned the original characters on their head, into the opposite of the original Douglas Adams conception.

Some of these actors must have known the original version, yet, given the result, it seems the director must have forced them into a very different performance.

In short, what director Garth Jennings has created is deeply disrespectful of Douglas Adams.

I have listened to the original Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio series many times over the years. I saw the BBC version on TV, and I own the DVD and have watched it many times. I have read the book more than once. And I have listened to the various audio versions, which have material not found in the book.

And I will do it again.

Why do I do this? Because Douglas Adams' work is so wonderfully witty and insightful that I enjoy it every time as though it were the first time.

I own this movie on DVD. I had to force myself to watch it to the end. I will never watch it again. Why? Because I am not a masochist.

Let me put it to you this way: If Garth Jennings had remade "Miracle on 34th Street" he would have made Santa Claus the drunk on the parade float, his lawyer would have spent Christmas in jail on contempt of court charges, the little girl's mother would have been fired, and the girl would have died on Christmas eve because no one would buy her matches.

He just doesn't have a clue what this story is about.

I do not often rate a movie a 1. But it is hard to imagine how this movie could have been worse. It is one long chalk screech for anyone who knows the real HHGG.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bittersweet America
17 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
To watch "Give 'em Hell, Harry" is to be sad and proud at the same time. It is sad that all politicians are not this honest and dedicated to doing right by the American people. But it makes me proud that there was once a man from Missouri who became a U.S. Senator and President of the United States who always told the truth in plain words, no matter the political price.

I see that one reviewer on another site said he did not know if Truman actually went to a Ku Klux Klan rally to tell them off. It's true. And he did it without any protection; on his way home he encountered some of his friends headed the other way to protect him. He told them to go home, that the Klan were nothing but a bunch of cowards, and they would never attack anyone in the daylight.

If America had had more people like this, it would have saved us a whole lot of trouble.

Sadly, Truman made some enemies on the other side of the political aisle. They spread a lot of lies about him, and some of those lies continue to be circulated today. Sound familiar? One contributor on IMDb.com, Bob Shields, accused Harry Truman of being an active participant in the Missouri organized crime "mob" while President!

You should watch this to find out about the real Harry Truman. And read "Plain Speaking," by Merle Miller, an oral biography, which is the source of much of the material used here.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Victory in the Pacific (1995 TV Movie)
10/10
Absolutely essential to understanding the war with Japan in WWII
28 February 2011
The last months of World War II in the Pacific did not get much attention even in the press at the time, because attention was focused on Europe and the defeat of Germany. And so the details of events told in "Victory in the Pacific" have largely gone unknown. So opens this excellent documentary.

This has led to historical misconceptions on both sides, by Americans and Asians. Some view the attitudes of the American military and media as racist. But when you see, through documentary footage and interviews, what the Japanese did, you see that certain attitudes were understandable. Racism is never justified, but the attitudes toward the Japanese military and leadership was directed at the Japanese, not to other Asians; in fact, America and its Allies were liberating other Asian nations at great cost of lives. And it was due to actions by Japanese soldiers that are so horrible I cannot describe them here, but the documentary does.

Even before the fall of Nazi Germany, the eventual defeat of Imperial Japan was inevitable. Yet the Japanese military leadership refused to face reality.

The Japanese military leadership did not seem to care if every Japanese soldier and civilian died due to its refusal to surrender, and I mean EVERY. They had the Japanese people so brainwashed that they would and did calmly commit suicide, taking their children and babies with them, rather than surrender to Americans, whom they were told would commit acts of barbarity toward them (acts Americans did not commit, but Japanese soldiers did). This is documented here, in interviews with witnesses and survivors, and in film footage that will be seared into your memory forever. (In The War, by Ken Burns, witnesses said Japanese soldiers forced Japanese mothers to jump off cliffs with their children at gun point, rather than surrender.)

When you see this documentary, you will understand why Harry Truman never had any second thoughts about his decision to use the Bomb against Japan, though he certainly gave the decision plenty of careful thought beforehand. It was not just our soldiers' lives at sake; defeating Japan with the Bomb, rather than invasion, saved millions of Japanese lives, too.

As to the Japanese internment camps, facts have come out since this documentary showing why they were needed, sadly. We had broken the Japanese code. There were secret radio transmissions from the West Coast, especially around Seattle, in the Japanese code coming from spies living among Japanese-Americans. We knew where they were, but couldn't arrest them because that would give away that we knew the code. (Some Japanese spies were arrested around Seattle and Portland before the internment, and had radio gear, weapons and explosives.) We also knew from intercepted Japanese MAGIC coded transmissions that there were Japanese-American spies working in defense-related factories. So the only option to stop the spies was internment of ethnic Japanese living on the West Coast. This is discussed in a wikipedia article on Japanese American Internment.

I was told about this by a veteran with first-hand knowledge of spy intercepts back in the 1990s, and I see that a book was subsequently written about it. It is historical fact, though not well known. The internment of innocent Japanese, the majority of whom were loyal to America, (along with the spies) was sad and regrettable. But the decision by FDR was not racist.

(Another little known fact is that many Japanese-Americans served loyally in the Pacific to help decipher Japanese military radio traffic, which was kept secret at the time.)

To watch this documentary is to understand why so many Americans became so angry at the Japanese soldiers, who were more sadistic than German soldiers. Some never forgave them. The remarkable thing is that any Americans did.

It is important to remember that to some extent Japanese soldiers were pressured into their extreme actions by the military, and through the Japanese system that enforced social conformity through sanctions against one's family.

According to the documentary, the Allies pushed for unconditional surrender because they knew they had to dismantle the social system that enabled the imperial military leadership to dominate a willing country.

Some may view my comments as shocking and even biased. But look at "Victory in the Pacific." It presents the facts more completely in a way that I think the viewer will find even-handed and objective. Every American, every Japanese, every Asian should watch "Victory in the Pacific." Seeing this documentary is vital to forming an informed opinion of your own, whatever your perspective.

Note: I am a bit puzzled. There are two "Victory in the Pacific" documentaries listed in IMDb, 1995 and 2005. Are they different? This review is for the American Experience 2005 version.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The ultimate antidote to Nazi wartime propaganda
28 February 2011
While the basic facts of Germany's role in World War II are well known among older Americans, Europeans and other Westerners (but not Asians), there are some fundamental misconceptions.

I guess some of these arose during the war, when the public had no direct insight into what was going on in Germany; all we saw were the early successes and how dangerously close Germany came to total victory, which would have been complete if it had successfully invaded Britain. And some undoubtedly resulted from Germany's own propaganda machine portraying Hitler as a strong, brilliant leader.

It is ironic watching "The Bunker" 1981 seeing Goebbels in his last hours before committing suicide ranting about how the Jews were to blame for Germany's downfall, again. Germany's loss in WWII was due largely to the incompetence of Hitler, whom Goebbels' propaganda had built into a god. That's the case this documentary makes, convincingly.

Hitler pulled Germany into a larger war in Europe it was not ready to fight by invading Poland, which was supported by mutual defense treaties with other European nations. This led to war on several fronts, but not with the USSR, with which it had a treaty. And so what does Hitler do? Invade Russia, too, while still trying to bomb Britain into submission. And the invasion of Russia came too late in the year, bogging the Nazis down in the Russian winter, without winter gear. Not very bright, Adolph.

Yet, Hitler still could have won the war. The Germans were the first to get jet aircraft into battle. But Hitler felt they should only be used offensively, for bombers, not defensively, as fighter aircraft. This, of course, was backwards. Could you imagine what jet fighters would have done to British and American prop planes? There is even evidence, presented in another documentary, that a prototype jet aircraft the Nazis built may have been an early stealth jet, designed to minimize radar detection. It was not used.

This documentary goes through a long list of such gross errors, deflating the mystique of infallibility surrounding Hitler. As such, it is must see viewing to correct our common misconceptions about Hitler and the Nazis.

Another must see documentary is "Victory in the Pacific" 1995. You cannot understand Japanese and Allied actions during the war, especially the use of nuclear bombs on Japan, without seeing this documentary. I think many Asians have a severely distorted view of this period of history. And many Westerners have an overly simplified view.

"How Hitler Lost the War" is not a dry, academic treatise. It is full of surprises and holds your interest. And it has an important lesson we should remember: Seemingly invincible tyrants can be incompetent.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A valuable contribution to understanding the Nazi leadership
28 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I decided to watch "Nuremberg: Nazis on Trial" after reading the obituary of Raymond D'Addario this month, who was the lead U.S. Army photographer during the Nuremberg trials. If you've seen photos of the Nazis sitting in the dock, they were probably his.

The strength of this series is that it brings the trial and characters to life, through a combination of archival black and white footage that then cuts to the color re-enactment. The series shows the trials of three top Nazis, Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess and Albert Speer (who is not listed in the cast on IMDb!), each in a separate one-hour episode.

We see the three on trial, in their cells talking with Gustave Gilbert, an Army psychologist-liaison, and we see the lawyers discussing how to try the case. Plus we see some academic experts providing insight into the trials and the three Nazis.

The program plays up the ambiguities of the defendants, just how sane or insane was Hess, how guilty and sincerely remorseful was Speer? These are gradually addressed over the episode, with some resolution at the end. But can anyone provide a full, balanced portrait of a Nazi in one hour? You come away feeling something might be missing, but not sure what. So you need to learn more about what happened, which is not a bad thing.

Also, you probably need some background beforehand. I had just watched "The Bunker" 1981, starring Anthony Hopkins as Hitler during the last days of the war from inside Hitler's bunker in Berlin. It is apparently accurate (except for the ventilator), and provides key information about Speer's actions during this time. I happened to read an account of a nurse who was in the bunker, which prompted me to watch this.

It helps to be in the right frame of mind to watch these sorts of programs. Just thinking about the Nazis and the Holocaust can make me nauseous. But it is essential that we understand this period in history; the lessons were paid for with the lives of millions of Jews, Catholics, Russians, Germans and Allies.

It would be easy to dismiss Nazis like Goering, Hess and Speer as insane, as incarnations of evil, as not human beings. But they were human; that is one of the benefits of seeing "Nuremberg." There was at least some rationale in twisted logic to their actions, even to Hess'.

The program reveals at the end Hess' explanation of what drove the Nazis: drugs secretly administered to them by a Jewish conspiracy. While this sounds nuts, there were drugs being used; Hess was sitting next to a morphine addict, Goering, during the trial. Hitler was a regular Elvis Nazi, and may have been treated for Parkinson's -- see "High Hitler." There are even claims that Hitler took hallucinogens in the early days of the Nazi party as part of occult practices. So Hess may, indeed, have seen Nazis on drugs.

But, ultimately, the human motivation was simple: They thought they would win, they would gain personal power, they would get away with it. Mel Brooks summed it up in "The Producers": "Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi Party!" Why did Speer join? It was the smart thing to do.

We feel sympathy for Speer in the The Bunker and in Nuremberg. He was the one government bureaucrat Allied lawyers could feel relate to. He apparently did not admit to specific crimes against humanity, but pleaded guilty to participating in the crimes of the Nazi regime. Yet he probably did play a direct role in the holocaust, through helping to design an expansion of Auschwitz and supervising the production of poison gas. Obviously, they all had to know about the Holocaust; the problem evident here was finding the evidence to prove the charges so soon after the war.

Yet I feel it was right that Speer's life was spared because his memoirs, "Inside the Third Reich," provide a unique look into the inner workings of Nazi Germany. Allowing a person with a conscience to live can be far greater punishment than death.

I also recommend the documentary "How Hitler Lost the War" 1989, and the documentary on the "Battle of Britain," 2000. Reportedly Goering and some other Nazi leaders were opposed to Hitler's decision to invade Poland; the loss of the "Battle of Britain" was one of the consequences; Goering blames Hitler for this in one scene.

Supposedly, the Nazis didn't plan to conquer the world so much as take over eastern Europe and Russia, and were surprised when western European nations declared war in support of their treaty with Poland, resulting in Germany's offensive move into France. The reason the Nazis lost was partly because of Hitler's astonishingly poor judgment. Too bad he didn't stick to designing cars.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Crooked Road (1958)
Season 4, Episode 4
10/10
A drive to hell and back.
24 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I used to watch Alfred Hitchcock Presents as a kid with the family around the TV set. This show, along with Perry Mason, The Twilight Zone and the Ed Sullivan Show were events the whole family looked forward to each week.

Of all the dozens of episodes of Hitchcock Presents that I have seen, it is this episode that has always stuck out the most in my mind. So I was delighted to get the opportunity to finally see it again. And it holds up just as well today, if not better.

When I first saw it I, like most viewers, had no idea who Walter Matthau was. I am now a fan of his best work, films like Hopscotch, Charade, Mirage and the Bad News Bears. This episode is in that class. He plays the part of the crooked Southern small town cop to perfection.

I think when you first see this episode, especially in decades long ago, the viewer gets the feeling of helpless terror in the hands of a crooked system with crooked witnesses in a small, out of the way town far from home. It is epitome of an archetypal nightmare lurking in our subconscious, which is the essence of Hitchcock. It is truly a drive to hell in a hand basket. Plus, there was a time when speed traps were not uncommon in small towns, especially before the Interstate Highways, or so I've heard.

Fear of the police had been the ultimate nightmare of Alfred Hitchcock, himself, ever since his father sent him to the police station with a note for the captain saying to lock this boy up for awhile, which he did! Yet, while Matthau knows just how to press the right buttons for the couple driving through town to scare them into compliance, he doesn't go too far. He is not as sadistic as, for example, the Alabama officers in Driving Miss Daisy. Efficiently crooked would be a better description.

What is brought out in such sharp relief is the feeling that no one would believe you if you complained; it would be your word against the police, judge, etc. How often have we all felt that way? It's a fear similar to, but taken to the ultimate extreme in, Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

I think it is this simple, pure story line that makes Crooked Road stand out after so many years. Once you see it, you may want to watch it again to see just how finely tuned the acting is, in light of the totally unexpected ending.

Credit for fine directing goes to Paul Henreid of Casablanca fame. And Patricia Breslin sure is easy on the eyes!
25 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The kids teach the adults how to play softball
15 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Don't go making the mistake of thinking this is a kiddie movie. And don't go mistaking it with the dreadful remake.

Made 35 years ago, this movie is a classic that could have been made yesterday. This ain't no softball Disney marshmallow fluff movie. Disney doesn't make movies about drunken, swearing Little League coaches, do they? Or 11 year old girls who go on dates to Grateful Dead concerts to persuade the local hood, Jackie Earle Haley, to join the team?

Haley ends up chasing after Tatum O'Neal, whom Walter Matthau has bribed to join the team with the promise of free ballet lessons. So Halley, wearing cool sunglasses, has crashed a ballet lesson and ends up putting the make on an adult ballet student in tights twice his size with the line: "Do you live around here? I've got a Harley-Davidson. Does that turn you on? A Harley Davidson?'

And then there is the overweight catcher who throws the ball back to Matthau covered with chocolate. During practice Matthau lays down a bunt and the catcher just stands there. Matthau tells him it is his job to get the ball and throw it to first base. The catcher is highly annoyed.

So then in the first game when the Bears are being pummeled, a hitter lays down a bunt. What does the catcher do? He tries to get the runner out at home by throwing it to a very puzzled umpire.

There are, I hear, some people who for some reason do not like Walter Matthau. Well, this is one of his truly great roles. Watch how he interacts with the kids and reacts nice and slow. There are parts later in the movie where he gets really angry, very convincingly, but mostly he is very relaxed, and his acting looks real natural. Some of the kids may have been a little stiff, I think he brings out the best from them with this style. It is great acting because he is so natural.

I decided to re-watch this after an aborted attempt to make it through the remake, which lacks any of the charm and believability of the original, and said, hey, isn't that Moocher from Breaking Away as the hood? Sure enough, it was a younger Jackie Earle Haley. He's an interesting actor.

If you like The Bad News Bears you might also like Breaking Away, which is about some teenagers who enter a bicycle race. One of the great sleeper movies, though at the time of its release everyone it seemed was talking about it.

And if you like Matthau in this, check out Hopscotch. Another great role of his is in Mirage, with Gregory Peck, as a private eye -- a hard to find movie.

Because of the swearing, this may not be suitable for little kids. Really, it is a movie for adults to watch and learn from, especially parents involved in kids sports. Come to think of it, Bad News Bears was ahead of its time. It is about adults who get bent out of shape trying to push the kids, a growing problem we've read about in the news in recent years. The lesson is its about learning to play as a team and have fun, and to be a kid!
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The immortal Judy Garland at 16
12 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
To fully enjoy this movie you need to imagine you are a teenager back in 1938 watching a matinée on a Saturday afternoon. It is the tail end of the Great Depression, with World War II in Europe only a faint rumble in the distance. Someone looking for light entertainment would find it in Listen Darling.

The plot is hackneyed now: children trying to help their widowed mother find a good husband she will love and they will like. But back in 1938 I suppose it was still fresh, especially the conflict of mom marrying for money versus love in the Depression. While camping, they just happen to find a clone of mom's deceased husband, plus a jolly good millionaire. I'll bet the kids watching this were rooting for the banker or millionaire to be their new father! (If this had been one of those saccharine sweet Disney movies, the millionaire would have won.)

I like movies like this as a cinematic time capsule. Anyone who has owned a travel trailer will love seeing the insides of these two old gems. The idea of going camping in a trailer was probably still novel back then. This is the first trailer movie I can think of. Lucille Ball's wonderful "The Long, Long Trailer" is next.

If it weren't for the first-rate cast, this might have been a B movie. Judy Garland and Freddie Bartholomew were two of the most famous young actors of the time. See Captains Courageous for Bartholomew's best. And The Wizard of Oz was just a year away for Judy, who is reunited with Charlie Grapewin as her uncle. Judy was one of the finest singing actress ever, and it shows here, even at the age of 16. I'll bet every teenage boy fell in love with her in this movie.

After watching this, I said, hey, isn't that the Alan Hale in Gilligan's Island? Sure looked like him. But, of course, it was his father. You can see the resemblance, even in mannerisms.

Walter Pidgeon was a fine actor from the period, largely forgotten today, with a distinguished style like Gregory Peck. See him in How Green Was My Valley.

Mary Astor is fine, the sort of mother you wish you had, but a dozen other actresses could have done as well.

It was odd seeing Bartholomew driving, and not being asked for his drivers license by the police. Perhaps they hadn't created drivers licenses yet. Bartholomew is cast as Judy's cousin from Canada, I guess because of his very proper British accent.

I watched this because I had read it was filmed using experimental stereo sound. There is no evidence of this in the print I watched. The music in The Wizard of OZ was recorded using multiple tracks (recorded separately on film), and reissues have stereo sound in sections. Fantasia was recorded with six track audio. It would be nice to see Listen, Darling remastered and reissued, especially to better appreciate Judy's singing.

Movies like this were commonplace entertainment in the 1930s. It is still enjoyable and worth watching today as a reminder of life in a different era.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Flawless (2007)
5/10
Annoying anachronisms abound
5 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Michael Caine plays a working class stiff with more brains than money in the humiliating role of janitor amidst some of the most privileged upper class -- a diamond wholesaler similar to De Beers with a virtual monopoly on diamonds.

Movie buffs might want to compare this to "Gambit," one of Caine's earliest movies, which co-starred Shirley MacLaine. To tell you the precise connection would be to give away the endings of both movies. In Gambit, Caine uses Shirley MacLaine; in Flawless, Caine uses Demi Moore. I wonder if Edward Anderson, the writer on "Flawless," was familiar with "Gambit."

This sort of crime caper was hot in the early 1960s, with Charade being the best of the genre. They were an offshoot of Alfred Hitchcock's wry, thriller-mystery style, especially North by Northwest. However, Flawless is devoid of the light humor that made these movies so classy and cool. Instead, it is heavy and dark, like Double Indemnity. And it lacks precision in fitting the pieces together. Instead, the plot relies too much on luck and impulse, rather than logic.

This is a period piece, which it establishes with women's dress styles, and a few cars in the street. It would have been better to place it in 1965-1970; there are some jarring anachronisms for 1960.

This business of blood diamond protests is off by 30 years; black miners protesting in South Africa in 1960? You must be kidding! They'd be thrown in jail. And there simply weren't sign waving street protesters for any issue in 1960; that began in the second half of the 1960s. Even the press were polite in 1960, unlike the pack of jackals portrayed in the movie.

Basic anachronisms annoy me because it suggests kids at work who don't know or care about history -- much like the dippy newspaper editor in the movie. The LP was introduced in 1948 and runs at 33 rpm, singles were released on 45s; the record Demi Moore is listening to in her apartment is playing at 78 rpm. Couldn't she afford a new phonograph? I guess they didn't want viewers reading the Brenda Lee "I'm Sorry" label, which didn't match the cool jazz actually playing, also anachronistic by at least five or 10 years. However, Dave Brubeck's "Take Five" was first recorded in 1959, so it fits.

I'm skeptical they had television cameras as small as the ones used for surveillance in 1960. Professional studio TV cameras were huge back then and used tubes (valves), but compact transistor cameras would have begun showing up around 1965. They didn't have automatic timed switching between surveillance cameras till later.

In the press mob scene the photographer is waving a Speed Graphic that uses 4x5" sheet film and flash bulbs, which belongs in the 1930s. By the 1950s, press photographers had switched to 2 1/4" roll film, probably a Rolleiflex, if not a 35mm Leica or the Nikon rangefinder, which swept the press corps in the 1950s, or the Nikon F SLR (1959). Plus, they had electronic flash strobes by then, with the Honeywell Strobonar "potato masher" the most popular with the press.

The device used to record the interrogation was a Dictaphone Dictabelt, which recorded a groove with a needle, and which was still in use in 1960. But a real investigator might have used a Uher battery operated 5 inch reel to reel, or maybe a Nagra Kudelski.

Sure, this may be quibbling, but it all gets in the way of the viewer becoming immersed in the movie's reality. Plenty of movies get historical details right; Quantum Leap nailed it every week.

It would have been simpler to place this around 1965; there were still limits on women, but this was about the time they began to challenge the glass ceiling, like Demi.

I guess youngsters seem to think the "Sixties" began suddenly in 1960. You see the same in Chocolat, where long-haired hippies sail into town in 1959. Yet in reality, long hair on guys didn't happen until 1966 and on. If you are going to make period movies, get some old Look and Life magazines and thumb through the pictures and articles. Or use Google images.

Both Demi Moore and Michail Caine's performances were very good. I wouldn't have known it was Demi Moore without the credits, she so disappears into the role.

One other note: I'm a bit skeptical that the skimpy amount of diamonds in the safe could have been worth a $100 million ransom, especially in 1960, and would not keep such a large enterprise in business for long. De Beers has whole storerooms filled from floor to ceiling with diamonds. But I guess the reality would have been hard to believe, among other logistical problems.

Spoiler alert:

But the biggest deal breaker is the ending. Demi writing checks soon after the crime for millions of dollars all over the world? Interpol would have been on to her like flies to honey. And what happens to Hobbs? "I never heard from him again," Moore says. That's all? That's writing?

If Flawless had been released in the early 1960s, amid movies like North By Northwest, Charade, Mirage, Goldfinger, The Ipcress File and Gambit, it would have fallen flat.

A caper movie needs a kicker ending. Flawless gets trapped by its flashback format, which results in a dull, fade to black ending. It would have been better for Moore to tell the reporter: "Yes, it's been 40 years, and I've kept quiet. But now the statute of limitations is over." And then we see her writing checks to give the money away. And then we see the flower covered grave site.
25 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed