Change Your Image
prudhoeboy
Reviews
I Shouldn't Be Alive (2005)
Darwin Award
This show re-enacts true survival stories where people get into trouble in the outdoors and must withstand the elements or die. What is really shocking to see is how people who should know better but apparently have no common sense or anything between their ears gets others into trouble with them. In many cases someone venturing out into nature without having properly planned the trip or adventure or given any consideration to what could go wrong. Examples include not taking water, not taking a map, going into areas where cell phones don't work, not taking any signalling device like a mirror or flare in case one gets lost. Not even a compass. What one also realizes that these stories are of those who survived, so eventually we see them get rescued at the end of the ordeal. What we don't see is all the other idiots who did not survive, that doesn't make good television. So I ask, how many people don't survive these ordeals for every person who does? I would guess maybe not very many so the show only tells about the small minority that survived. The show is an education though for all those inclined to do extreme activities or go out in nature. Overall the show is good entertainment for those of us who would rather sit in the livingroom and watch dumb or overconfident risk takers put themselves in mortal peril and expose themselves to the wrath of nature by their own stupidity. For this reason I would recommend watching this series.
Titanic (1997)
Clever Story LIne
The movie was quite excellent, but I'm taking off a point due to some deficiencies that cause it to limp to port. The first is the beginning of the movie where we see the salvage ship and manned submersible. To me this was a bit of a yawn and took away from the story.
The movie should have started with a professor Lovett lecturing maritime museum attendees about famous ship wreck and then come to the Titanic display. He could then describe the construction of the Titanic not letting on plans to find it. Then flashback to the planning and building of the ship and voyage back in the day. I would rather have seen the crew on board the salvage ship yakking it up while going over the ghostly camera views of the ship as it lies on the ocean floor.
The movie theme song, which evoked Irish folk music, did not give the viewer any other connection to Ireland either. It's ghostly tone would have played well panning over the graveyards to give an appreciation of the victims.
Another big problem was the older Rose who recounted the story on the salvage ship did not look 101 years old! She looked about 84 years old and would have been but a baby at the time of the Titanic. In no way would she have been able to be transported by helicopter to the salvage ship to tell the story. To me, this mistake sunk the movie at the outset because it is the old lady that gives one a sense of how long ago the ship sank. So if Rose was 16 years old at that time, this movie would have been appropriate for the year 1981, not 1997. In 1997, the older Rose should have been in a nursing home in a wheelchair and being help along to tell the story. At the very least the make-up artists should have aged the Rose character actress by 16 years to make her really look like a 101 on the ship. Notice the older Rose was far to alert and animated for someone that age. If you've lived to be 100 years old or older, you're talking much slower. All that said, it is interesting that the actress who play the older Rose, was actually 87 at the time of the movie and actually lived to be 100 in real life! Also, she was born in Santa Monica which Dawson mention in the movie regaling one of his adventures. The casting really was spot on in this movie, she just needed a little more time in the makeup room to look the part and should have talked slower and tired.
Leo and Kate put in a good performance in the movie, and the cast was generally excellent, but to me Brad Pitt would have been a far more credible choice for Jack Dawson as a dashing, adventure-seeking lad. Frankly, Kate looked third class so I had more of a problem imaging her as upper class of that era. She certainly would not have been fetching enough for a Brad Pitt as Dawson. So for me that was a bit of an issue.
The special effects may have been state of the art for 1997, but to me I never felt like I was on the ship. There was no mist spray in the face or rain falling on the deck. The set fan wind and cgi dolphins did not do it for me and I don't think they can survive in cold water just above freezing like Dawson described it. So the elements of nature were never really brought into the movie until the end. At that point it is too late to draw the viewer into the movie and the viewer is asked to believe all that happens then. In summary, the movie should have made sure the viewer was on the ship long before the sinking.
There should also have been a little more character development of the famous people on the ship explaining how they boarded it other than just the fictional character portrayed by Leo.
Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
The American Dream,
Hard to believe this timeless Xmas classic is now 75 years old. It's interesting how times have changed since then, when children respected adults and were well behaved. The plot also mostly from an adult perspective with NYC and a court room looming large in plot. A very adult NYC way to resolve things too, putting Santa on trial. Compare to Home Alone, which is now over 30 years old. Both movies captured culture of that time period more or less.
Notice child steals the show and leads the adults to a more stable family life in the suburbs at the end. Most of the Christmas classics seem to involve getting back to a simpler way of living like the country or suburbs. The idea of celebrating Xmas downtown in a big city with children does not seem to have been explored but even in this movie we see children I wonder if a plot could be written where the family stays downtown. NYC seems to have solved this issue by constructing winter recreation facilities like ice rinks and decorating commercial places like Times Square. This movie should be judged in the context of its day and more modern ones compared to it to tell us something about ourselves and how times have changed. A takeaway from this movie is that it is much easier to believe in Santa in your own home in the suburbs where you are living the American dream with family.
Home Alone (1990)
Cherubic Child Defends Xmas
Executive Summary - Cherubic, but rambunctious child holds fort at home defending Christmas as jaded adults and conformist adolescents threatened by the Christmas message flee the scene. Other characters are presented, some redeemable, others not. Spiritually lost family returns home to celebrate.
Those not having Xmas spirit set up for comeuppance - insecure adolescent siblings; personality clashed in-laws; distracted parents numbed by it all; demonized old man next door whose family no longer visits him; jaded road musicians; minimum wage Santa workers; irredeemable burglars terrified of church; and the rambunctious cherub child unwilling to compromise Xmas. As the lost characters realize they are also alone on Xmas, they find their way back home we resourceful child defend Xmas against irredeemables. Resolution comes with family arrival and defeat of irredeemables. Christmas message heralded in as colored lights, real snow, and a new classic Christmas theme song - Somewhere in our Memories take over. Solid plot, great musical score, on location shots with real snow, child star stealing the show all make movie a classic. The Christmas message extends to all faiths, as long as you are willing to sit and be entertained by the adult cartoon. You can see why the movie did so well at the box office, appealing to such a large demographic. You also notice elements of the Charlie Brown Xmas, another Xmas classic, in this movie.
Curly Sue (1991)
Curly But Not Cute
I watched this movie in desperation having run out of Thanksgiving fare. I was hoping it might somehow be better than received. Unfortunately it wasn't. Overall the movie was recognizable as John Hughes script and had a chance, but to be brutally honest, like Curly herself, she just wasn't cute enough for that role. This movie puts average on a pedestal and it doesn't work. The only way it could have worked is to have the child actor steal the show like Macaulay Culkin did in the Home Alone franchise. Unfortunately, Curly fit too well as a streetwise runaway type, modern day throwback to the Dickens era. Cheeky, disrespectful, yuck. Someone we don't want to identify with or admire, certainly not suburban America, thus the low ratings. Bottom line - curly is not endearing to the audience as a street child and was miscast in this role. In other words, she was cast literally, not creatively. The audience wants to be surprised. She would have fit better in a horror movie. This movie could have worked, though, too bad. It had a good Thanksgiving message but not a word about any holidays and the church was kept right out of it. Memo to the writers - if you're going to use a goodwill theme, lose secular. It doesn't work. The idea of taking in homeless people to live in your home that don't have serious issues like addiction or mental illness is also trivializing their condition. This movie cost over $25 million and received mostly negative reviews. It made a bit of money, most likely because it was a John Hughes film, the last before he died. Or maybe just too many people snuck into the theatre without buying tickets and soda.
The Pianist (2002)
Needs A Prequel
This movie is as good as any other for Veteran's Day fare. We see photos and footage of bombed out cities of eastern Europe from WW2 on web but it's all very after the fact. This movie takes you there showing what it might have been like as a person caught up in the nightmare of living in a city while it is being invaded and destroyed. The main character did an excellent job I think in his role and taking up through the ordeal of a persecuted Jew in that war. The character development suffered a bit I think in getting this message across and we didn't get much of a sense of what came before it and what led up to it. The viewer is just sort of air-dropped into this nightmare. The piano angle was interesting also, but again context lacking as far as the society he lived in. In other words, if you're going to dehumanize the German people, not just the military, show us how it happened. This could have included no more than old footage of Hitler rallies etc and then focused on a typical German family caught up in it all. The movie would have benefited from a prequel showing all this.
That said, the movie presents an interesting and creative take on what it would have been like as a persecuted Jew in that war as well as others who died in it. Polanski was very smart I think in casting someone no one would ever mistake for not being Jewish to really bring home the message to the viewer that this person, the pianist, had no place to hide and was like a hunted animal. I recommend this movie.
The Buddy Holly Story (1978)
Bully Holly
This movie was ok to watch but had a number of problems belying its high rating. Neither Gary Busey nor Don Stroud looked the part and were too type cast as bullies to sell themselves as humble crickets. Busey did not look at all like the real life Buddy the only resemblance being the nerd glasses he used as a flimsy prop. His trademark "unsettling glint" and mean streak also betrayed him. Both he and Stroud usually played the bad guy surfer type in classic TV police shows like Hawaii Five-O. Or how about Point Break? Now we're supposed to believe they are nice guys? One would think the movie producers would have tried hard to cast actors that looked more like Holly and the band members. The third Cricket was more nerdy and fit better, but he didn't get much help. The factual inaccuracies are also a long list]or example, Holly married his wife in Lubbock whereas the movie implies they stayed in New York. The Puerto Rican wife was well cast, however, and helped the movie as was their manager. This is the only Buddy Holly story out there however so may as well watch it.
Swiss Family Robinson (1960)
Washed Up Plot
This movie is based on the early 19th century novel The Swiss Family Robinson by Johann Wyss. As the name suggests, it is a castaway tale based on Defoe's 18th century castaway novel Robinson Crusoe. The problem with the movie is that the book wasn't that great. Both the book and the movie would have been far better if it used 20 minutes showing how the preparations for the voyage, the village port, getting on the boat, some of the journey etc. Such scenes draw the viewer into the movie and help with character development. All this sets things up for the shipwreck and brings home the harsh reality of being marooned. All you get in this movie is a narrator's story-telling voice trying to make seem credible as the ship is tossed in a storm and then breaks up. So here are the characters presented to us we know nothing about and have to suspend our disbelief as elaborate Gilligans Island type gadgets appear along with a tree house, like magic. Then the contrived competition between the boys for the girl's affections. What? As for Janet Munroe, she over acts and never seems natural. Probably because she wasn't. Sloppy sloppy writing. Maybe you can fool the kids, but the adults are not entertained by this drivel. This movie borders on cartoon.
Robinson Crusoe (1997)
Not Defoe's Story
This movie appropriates the real novel by Daniel Defoe and basically re-writes it more along politically correct lines making it mostly about Crusoe's relationship with his native companion Friday. The movie goes to great lengths to deceive the low information reader that the story told is what Defoe actually wrote by including the author at the beginning and end of the movie about to write the novel based on the journal being portrayed in the movie. This is a lie. The plots of the movie and the novel were not very close. Now the story told wasn't bad, but this movie gets dinged for representing it as the real story.
Jurassic Park III (2001)
Really Good
After the train wreck that was Lost World I couldn't believe how good this movie was from beginning to end. The writers really turned it around with a solid plot, new dino types, one distinct plot (rescue) and most importantly, an opening that grabs your attention and is relevant to the plot. The casting was quite good enough to make it all work with Sam Neal reprising his role and Laura Dern, albeit calling it in. Far better for her to telecommute than bore everybody as a main character. The other big star of the film was Industrial Light & Magic with authentic looking animation and effects. It was also good that by the third installment the team had learned enough about dinos to survive situations they would not have before by understanding their behavior. This movie really reminded me of the old claymation monster movies of the 1950s giving it a classic film patina. This was an excellent sequel - a must see.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
Sloppy Sequel
This sequel pretty much was a flop in my opinion for various reasons, including casting, writing, character development and editing. The writing and plot was atrocious. Most obvious was that the writers apparently couldn't figure out what the plot was. This movie presents 4 plots - study dinos, rescue mission, big game hunt and dino in city. So what's it going to be? Any one of these plots would have worked but to include more than one made the movie confusing. Specifically:
1. The study the dinos plot was already done in the original but could have worked well in sequel introducing us to more dino types .A lone or amateur hunter could have been worked into the plot.
2. The rescue mission plot could have also worked well but would have required that a team had been sent months before and not heard back from. Rescue team, land on island, search, obstacles, lost, trails, pirate treasure, find way off island etc.
3. The big game hunt plot is a separate disaster movie delusion theme that is a different movie. Much of the movie present scenes consistent with this plot.
4. Dino in city - That is a different movie along the lines of a King Kong. Dino capture, transport, escape in city, city theme park. In this movie, it got confused with the big game hunt issues such as dino capture and escape.
Other problems with the movie -
1. The opening scene with the yacht and people drinking champagne on the beach of the other island was uninteresting. It looked like 1980s cheese wealth display. Should have shown Nedry miraculously surviving attack of spitting dino and making way to other island on raft. This would explain how dinos got to other island a lot better. Subway scene at beginning not serious. Poor opening for movie and irrelevant to plot.
2. Inadequate character and plot setup at beginning of move. Should have introduced Malcom, Dr. Sarah and child so relationship clear. Also gymnastics angle which became very important to plot later in movie. Should have picked her up at practice or something and explained olympics training or whatever.
3. The chairman of Ingen, Ajay was too weak of a character and not interesting compared to Hammond in original movie. Poor casting and character development.
4. The game hunting team just suddenly appears on the ground as if their landing scene had been edited out of the movie. As a result the viewer didn't get enough introduction to them.
5. A lot of time wasted on capturing boring dino.
6. Too many night shots took away from seeing what was going on and where they were on island. Not enough aerial shots of island.
Whatever. You get the idea. That said, you pretty much have to see this movie to watch the sequels in sequence.
Jurassic Park (1993)
Carbon Footprint
Humans risk losing their position at the top of the food chain in this movie adaptation of Michael Crichton's 1990 sci fi novel. Director Steven Spielberg removes any doubt that he is the successor to Irwin Allen of the disaster film genre so popular in the 1970s. Moreover, his first disaster film, Jaws (1975), made him a contemporary of Irwin Allen! Allen pioneered the genre and covered more disaster types. Taking up the mantle as a young film maker, Spielberg created a multi-level marketing franchise with sequels and theme park rides. I don't have much more to add to what has already been said in other reviews. The movie has a great false premise ready to crash down for us on the screen with a truly delusional proponent - an eccentric, grandfatherly entrepreneur. Cracks begin to form early when Malcom (Jeff Goldblum), a mathematician in a tour group of experts brought in to evaluate the park questions the wisdom and safety of the old man's idea. The casting was spot on with loser Seinfeld postman Nyder as the weak brick in the dam. Animation and special effects of the dinosaurs quite good. As with Jaws, food chain flipped. Movie also solutes the classic B movie genre where monsters fight it out at the end over who eats victim. What is singular in this movie, however, is that the proponent of the bad idea, the theme park creator, does not go down with his creations. Both live on so we have see the sequel. Takeaway from movie: Just as an asteroid wiped out the scary dinosaurs 66 million years ago, giving rise to mammals and eventually humans, misuse of high technology could wipe out humans.
Walking out of the theater the thought viewer might ponder a few troubling issues, such as:
Isn't there a bit of delusional park owner in all of us?
Do we tend to see things the way we want them to be rather than the way they really are?
Are we really much different than the dinosaurs in the way we treat other animals?
Is the desire to bring them back a sign of weakness? Are we a little complacent in our position in the top of the food chain?
Why were the dinosaurs so big in those days?
Is this movie really about dinosaurs or about the dangers of high technology and how it could destroy us if improperly used or out of control?
Britain's Biggest Heists (2010)
Dead Mouse
I noticed this series after running out of Daring Capers episodes. I immediately noticed a big difference between how the cases are presented. Daring Capers tells the story more from the criminals perspective developing their characters and plan for the heist whereas this series is all from the police perspective. I find the former more interesting. I've only seen a couple shows in this series, but the whole hour is taken up mostly by repetitive police accounts of the crime after it was committed. This give the show kind of a dull, after the fact tone and is less interesting than essentially letting the viewer in on the plot before the heist happens. So the series comes off sort of like a cat gloating over a dead mouse. The action is in the heist not all the police talk. The subject is interesting though so for that reason I only subtracted 3 points in the rating. Overall though, a very under-performing series given the fascinating subject matter and catchy title. Daring Capers is only a one-half hour show yet captivates the viewer by shifting the focus from the police accounts to the actual planning and execution of the heist by the criminals in chronological order not after the fact. This approach also gives the criminals their due respect for intelligent planning and the police for discovering it or tracking them down.
National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)
Book of Fiction
As with the original movie the plot is fictional candy with an historical wrapper to try to make it plausible. This movie fits in the same genre as Da Vinci code, a time when people seem to have lost their minds over fake history treasure movies. Really I think the treasure hunting genre does better giving a moral lesson as the treasure than a lost city of gold. So fake and then you add all the Indiana Jones clap trap on top of that. Not very original. McKenna's Gold (1969) did a far better job of the lost Indian gold plot. Also so obvious if you're looking for legendary city, you at least consult with an old Indian chief to give the premise credibility. Playing word games with clues doesn't cut it. Ultimately this movie trades on fiction as true history. This is a delusional idea for kids even though it may make for a popcorn munching treasure hunt movie. The lie is also wrapped in patriotic zeal to make it more tasty. This sequel to National Treasure doesn't have the energy of the original. Both movies have some history in them though so there is that to it.
National Treasure (2004)
Disney Ride
This is a pretty good general audience movie for family viewers, especially the kids. American revolutionary history provides the backdrop and fabric for weaving the treasure hunting tale. Of course the tale is fictional but relies on historical facts to give it plausibility continually coaxing the viewer to suspend disbelief. Notwithstanding the history angle, the movie ends up looking more like Indiana Jones with the mechanized fake rock traps and doors etc. The best part of the movie is probably chasing down the various clues which Cage solves for us within the average viewer's attention span for the genre. No pirates or swords through the skeleton in this one. Overall not bad for the genre. Definitely better than the sequel that followed it. Be careful though with movies that offer fiction as a more informed truth. Anyway, not really my cup of tea but the American history angle might interest the kids.
Fake or Fortune? (2010)
Overlooked Gem
A friend tipped me off about this show and I have been addicted to it ever since. I've seen all episodes and waiting for Season 10 to be announced. The series is basically a detective show to determine the authenticity of a given artwork presented. Both hosts are very engaging and welcome the viewer into the art world. Unfortunately one of the experts, Bendor Grovesnor was also very good but left the show a few year ago. The show has suffered in his absence so hopefully he will come back.
Escape to Athena (1979)
Escape From Athena
This movie was almost slapstick and barely qualifies as a 60s/70s WW2 genre movie. It presents an interesting assortment of period actors in or just past prime but looks low budget and not serious, as if made for TV. Not many night shots and too many sun-drenched scenes. Plot also schizophrenic visiting various ideas - treasure, archeological dig, art heist, submarine, camp takeover, rocket. Well which is it? None are adequately developed. No wonder the viewer leaves the theater feeling unsatisfied. Also, Moore not a credible Nazi - should have been written in as a neutral party, say a Swiss collector captured by the Nazis. Lazy lazy writing. The humor angle was interesting but went overboard and was corny. USO skit very Hogans Heroes not big screen. Ultimately on a low budget show like this, the big name actors need to come through with improv doing their thing. Savalas came through but Gould's MASH routine was not creative enough. He did not bring anything new to the movie. Also talking about treasure and fine art but never seeing any might be NY humor but doesn't work on a Greek Island. No priceless pieces to captivate the viewer. This movie could have worked had the writing been better, cast Roger Moore differently and done more night shots. Also should have muzzled Gould when it was obvious his improv wasn't working. He doesn't have to be funny guy all the time. If the director sees it isn't working, it's his job to fix it on the spot. Really no excuses for this movie and I'm being generous with the rating. The problems with this movie actually made you want to escape from Athena.
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
Attention Got Away
This movie had so much going for it - big name actors, period sets and locations, respectable budget etc. But for me didn't really come together. I also wonder why watch a movie about a faker? This movie glorifies the cheat at the expense of the honest people of that era, which I find rather sad. Who wouldn't want to go back to that time compared to now, at least for a visit? The action was also rather tepid. I'm not sure the casting was right either. The movie could have been a lot better maybe if the actors were in to it a little more. A decade earlier, this would have been a perfect movie for Val Kilmer and Tommy Lee Jones with stepped up action sequences and pace. Leo's pleading personality also seemed a little too much for me compared to the smoother style of the real life version, who whose common working class looks allowed him to slip through the cracks of the system easier. Also, Tom Hanks as the Fed was all covered up with hat and coat most of the time, making it hard to develop his character. The musical score was also boring. That said, Steven Spielberg doesn't make bad movies, this one sort of labored on in an autobiographical way and was not as engaging as others he's done and lacked something I can't put my finger on. At the end of the day, the movie failed to plie the viewer and for that reason in my opinion is over-rated on this site. Also recommend watching original first for comparison.
The Getaway (1972)
Pump Action Shoot Out
Like other films shot on location in the 1970s this movie gives you a glimpse back to that era drawing you into the movie. I thought the character development suffered a bit at the expense of the action sequences so we never really got to know Doc and his wife that well. More flashbacks would have helped and intimate scenes not interrupted by action. Credit the thug played by Al Littieri for giving the movie extra grit. He and Sally Struthers were credible in their roles but I wonder why Doc let him live after knocking him out at the hotel. Also, a scene inside the hotel with Sally Struthers reaction to it would have been interesting. At the end of the day, this movie wasn't about the get away car or police chases or even the money. It was about the pump action shot gun and what a devastating weapon it is in a fight scene. Coming in second was the high caliber handgun used. This movie reminded me of an old west shoot out like the OK corral.
Beyond the Poseidon Adventure (1979)
Disaster Formula Violated
This sequel to the Poseidon adventure was definitely watchable but had a weak plot. The writers really went down with the ship on this one. Most of the movie spent crawling through the upside-down ship but there was no plan or route mapped out. The writers didn't even bother to make the salvage formal so there was no plan that we could watch go terribly wrong. This violates basic disaster movie genre formula. So it was hard to figure out where they were going and why. The casting was also a mess. On the one hand, the protagonist (Michael Cain) and villain (Telly Savalas) were very strong, among the best in Hollywood, but the supporting actors were boring, even Karl Malden, a leading actor of the period. Also miscast was Sally Fields who came across as gushy and plot-resistive. She wanted it to be all about her issues so just didn't fit it. Mark Harmon looked a goof and the rest also boring contributing little to the movie. Period actors like Kristi McNichol or Mariette Hartley would have fit in a lot better. Character mix in disaster movies has to be right.
Even miscast or boring characters can work in a movie, but there is sort of tacit understanding they won't make it to the end. Satisfaction comes in seeing them chewed up in a turbine or some other fitting demise. So at the end of the movie you're left wondering, why did so many boring characters survive? Isn't the point of the movie to make it an ordeal and have a body count? Are we celebrating boring in this movie? The only thing that kept this movie going was the acting force of Caine and Savalas and the left over sets from the original movie. Other than that, there was nothing to salvage out there because the writers didn't write it and not enough people went down with the ship. The ship didn't even go down. Basically the whole movie came across as not serious and a bit contrived.
Flight (2012)
Flight Time
This was quite an entertaining movie and funny in its own way. Also very balanced with a good mix of action, character development, plot and moral lessons. The movie presents real people with serious flaws, not pumped up heroes and superficial actors. The main characters also grow as the plot moves along so by the end of the movie they have either moved on with their life or been transformed for the better by living in the real world. They see the world and the people they interact with in a different, wiser way. Captain Whip transforms from a lying alcoholic in denial to a person who comes to terms with his alcohol addiction. For most of the movie, he insists that he is in control, not the booze, just as he expertly controls an airplane. It is a choice not a control issue with him. The plane crash is a metaphor for this struggle of conscience, and the issues litigated at the NTSB investigation of the crash. His lawyer provided an out where he could have stayed the same lying Captain held in high public esteem, a hero no less, if he was willing to tell just one more big lie. The alternative is serious prison time for drinking on the job as a pilot. But the transformed Captain Whip realizes the game is up. He is already in the prison of alcoholism and telling one more lie is not going to get him out of it. He cannot control the bottle like an airplane and the accident is a warning that he put the public's lives in danger all those years. What's more, he can't kick the addiction as a free man, he is better off in prison where he cannot drink. As a black actor, this proposition is all the more compelling given the country's history of slavery. What is freedom worth if you just become a slave to the bottle? So this is a healthy message that might especially resonate with black viewers. There can be many types of prisons, including one' own mind. We can also be a "prisoner" of our own choices and actions. Freedom means taking responsibility for them rather than blaming others or the system. Some may actually prefer the institutional atmosphere to avoid the responsibility that goes with freedom, including impact of one's choice on others. Perhaps this is Denzel Washington's message to the viewer.
I don't have any substantial criticisms of this movie. The title could have given us more though. I would have called it "Flight Time" or "Beverage Service". It was very entertaining, and teaches a good moral lesson and even shows a church. I recommend this movie.
United 93 (2006)
Puts You Right There
It's been over 20 years since 911 and I finally go around to watching this 2006 movie on the fourth plane. I actually knew someone who was on the plane so the movie was of personal interest to me as well. Anyway, this is the best movie I have seen in a long time. No joking around or made up plots. It was like being there. The composition of the movie was perfect - showing the air traffic control room and NORAD chaos as the first three plans fall off radar and then slam into their targets. So the viewer is already drawn into the action as the events leading up to the hijacking of the fourth plane and ensuing terror are shown. What begins as a calm, routine flight ends in one's worst imaginable nightmare of what could go wrong. I see the events of this movie as a metaphor for how quickly a civilized society can descend into barbarism and how the modern implements can be used against those who take them for granted. Troubling questions are raised such as can a civilized society institutionalize barbarity and must it to remain civil? Is as terrorist a "bad guy" or a barbarian? What happens when you let the fox into the hen house? It's been over 20 years since 911 and can we even articulate what the lessons are and how to prevent them from happening again?
Flightplan (2005)
Plot Low on Fuel
This movie started out quite good drawing in the viewer to the interesting idea of a child disappearing on a large passenger plane and searching the various places on a plane that the passenger normally would not see. That said, the plot ultimately revealed itself as rather simplistic and hokey. It was as if the actors made it to a point where the script ended and they had to just wing it. It was also obvious the movie had budge issues or there would have been other actors that could have helped develop the plot. Tom Arnold is a name that comes to mind. The viewer really needed to be sold the plot in the last half of the movie even if preposterous. There were also no subplots in the movie and a lack of character interaction. The pilot, for example, was uninteresting yet could have been written into the plot as a villain. So that's about it. What the movie really needed was not a flight plan, but an interesting plot. This one ran low on fuel.
Midway (1976)
Look At Me
The officers in this movie looked like they had come out of the VA retirement home. It was interesting to see all the big name actors, but after a long build up and various sortie attacks, the movie just sort of ended without drawing the viewer into the action. I had to consult a separate video to understand what really went on in the battle and it wasn't that reassuring. The American fighter squadrons and torpedo planes got wiped out by the Japanese, and it was only because of the dive bombers that the American's won the battle. This suspense was not captured well in the movie. Maybe it got left on the editors table, who knows.
The Pursuit of D.B. Cooper (1981)
Dukes of Harrold
This was a disappointing movie to watch and I did not finish it. It seemed to go on and on with repetitive Dukes of Hazard type scenes. The movie had nothing to do with DB Cooper rather it just used that title to deceive the viewer into watching it. And what a waste of talent - write the movie so your actors have something to do other than play around. If I was Kathryn Harrold looking back at this movie, I would be angry. She was in her prime then and had the talent for a much more substantial plot. As for Treat Williams, I liked him in Battle of Britain, but he was miscast in this plot. There is no information to suggest that DB Cooper was as outgoing as William's character so from the outset he was not believable. At the the very least get an actor who looks like the sketch and is a cool cucumber. This movie should have been a lot more serious and involved tracking through the wilderness and survival sort of like a fugitive idea. There could have been encounters with wild animals and a show down at the end. The humor schtick didn't work at all. The more I think about this movie the more turned off I get with it. Don't waste your time, it's not about DB Cooper.