A little silly? Maybe. But as I watched, it seems true to family's that manage to stay tightknit, especially when they are gathered for Christmas season. Thanks.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Ethical subroutines
14 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This review shows my failure to understand the moral difficulty. It's not Crell Moset, perpetrator of war crimes on Bajor; rather, it's a hologram of Crell Moset. The Doctor has "added" to his "subroutines" during the course of the show. I do not understand why "ethical subroutines " could not be added to the hologram of Crell Nosey.
Burn Notice
(2007–2013)
Awful
21 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The bad guys are incredibly stupid and terrible shots, even with machine guns. Murder by spy is usually hush-hush, but the show's writers favor explosions and machine-gun fire in open streets of Miami.
Supposedly an ex-Army Ranger, the main character is incredibly undisciplined and emotionally unbalanced and very defiant of the authorities placed in charge of him by the constitution he swore to defend; doesn't feel military in the slightest.
The one sympathetic character is the ex-SEAL. But why, after 7 seasons, he is not yet attending meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, is beyond me. All this middle-aged character does in his off- hours is drink like an alcoholic, with or without his billionaire girlfriend, yet he is fit to participate in field operations. It might have been more poignant if the ex-SEAL was in a permanent-care facility in the VA system with wet brain and the start of liver failure, and the protagonist is the only one who visits him for mentoring and advice...oh, well... This genre is best handled by British television.
Supposedly an ex-Army Ranger, the main character is incredibly undisciplined and emotionally unbalanced and very defiant of the authorities placed in charge of him by the constitution he swore to defend; doesn't feel military in the slightest.
The one sympathetic character is the ex-SEAL. But why, after 7 seasons, he is not yet attending meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, is beyond me. All this middle-aged character does in his off- hours is drink like an alcoholic, with or without his billionaire girlfriend, yet he is fit to participate in field operations. It might have been more poignant if the ex-SEAL was in a permanent-care facility in the VA system with wet brain and the start of liver failure, and the protagonist is the only one who visits him for mentoring and advice...oh, well... This genre is best handled by British television.
Amazing series
28 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This series had only one plot: chasing Dr. Richard Kimble, who escaped death row by a freak derailment of the train carrying him there. There is absolutely no character development, no "arc." The two main characters, Dr. Richard Kimble and police Lt. Philip Gerard, do not develop or grow after four seasons because a plot based on a relentless chase needs only a relentless hunter and a very elusive prey. In a way, the series is a prolonged episode of a tireless Elmer Fudd and a Bugs Bunny who is always a step ahead of his pursuer.
The reason I rate the series a 9 is because of the superb acting of the principals in keeping the tension high. Another reason is the parade of great guest stars and character actors that appeared throughout the series. They kept the dramatic tension high because Dr. Kimble is the mysterious drifter who appears (usually out of a bus depot) and mystifies the people because he doesn't look, talk or act like a drifter. Women fall in love with him, which causes suitors to hate him and suspect him. In the end, Dr. Kimble has to leave everyone behind, breaking a trail of hearts and embittering a string of rivals.
Another variation is when people get to like (or love) him a lot--- then they find out he's wanted for the brutal cold-blooded murder of his wife. The goodness they experienced first-hand stands in cold contrast to Kimble's record. Often people help him escape--or else look the other way--or turn on him. This show ran for 4 years and there was a 5th season contemplated.
The show would have no syndication value because everyone knows the ending, which was unknown at the time the series ran and also caused tension: will Dr. Kimble be caught and executed? or will he find the one-armed man and have his conviction overturned?
The series is worth owning as a collection of great TV plotting and acting. It should be offered on some streaming service: a lot of people would probably binge-watch it.
The reason I rate the series a 9 is because of the superb acting of the principals in keeping the tension high. Another reason is the parade of great guest stars and character actors that appeared throughout the series. They kept the dramatic tension high because Dr. Kimble is the mysterious drifter who appears (usually out of a bus depot) and mystifies the people because he doesn't look, talk or act like a drifter. Women fall in love with him, which causes suitors to hate him and suspect him. In the end, Dr. Kimble has to leave everyone behind, breaking a trail of hearts and embittering a string of rivals.
Another variation is when people get to like (or love) him a lot--- then they find out he's wanted for the brutal cold-blooded murder of his wife. The goodness they experienced first-hand stands in cold contrast to Kimble's record. Often people help him escape--or else look the other way--or turn on him. This show ran for 4 years and there was a 5th season contemplated.
The show would have no syndication value because everyone knows the ending, which was unknown at the time the series ran and also caused tension: will Dr. Kimble be caught and executed? or will he find the one-armed man and have his conviction overturned?
The series is worth owning as a collection of great TV plotting and acting. It should be offered on some streaming service: a lot of people would probably binge-watch it.
Mannequin
(1987)
Pygmalion of the 80's
13 July 2016
I liked it. It's not cinema history. It's a fairy tale, complete with all the character types of that genre. The soundtrack makes me nostalgic for a time when I was young and dated dumb--well, no--I was the dummy back then (now, too, come to think of it).
The supporting cast did very well with very mediocre writing. Estelle Getty, James Spader, G.W. Bailey--and especially Mesach Taylor (Hollywood) played, respectively, the Fairy Godmother, the Ogre, his evil Henchman--and the faithful Sidekick/Buddy/Wingman. They did so with such panache that they carried the story to the level of farce.
The formula used in the movie for transformation I lost, but the point of this type of fairy tale is that Love does indeed transform people.
There's a lot of bad reviews here, which is unfortunate. The movie was released in time for Valentine's Day. I cannot remember a Valentine's Day where the mood was marked by anything other than the silly, laughing, playful mood that is captured in this movie.
The supporting cast did very well with very mediocre writing. Estelle Getty, James Spader, G.W. Bailey--and especially Mesach Taylor (Hollywood) played, respectively, the Fairy Godmother, the Ogre, his evil Henchman--and the faithful Sidekick/Buddy/Wingman. They did so with such panache that they carried the story to the level of farce.
The formula used in the movie for transformation I lost, but the point of this type of fairy tale is that Love does indeed transform people.
There's a lot of bad reviews here, which is unfortunate. The movie was released in time for Valentine's Day. I cannot remember a Valentine's Day where the mood was marked by anything other than the silly, laughing, playful mood that is captured in this movie.
JFK
(1991)
It's a movie, not history
8 July 2016
This is a well-made, suspenseful movie--in spite of it being about the most famous murder in history. When I watched the movie--most of which narratively was told in retrospect--I felt the knot of suspense that I feel while watching a fictitious thriller---even though I know what's going to happen because it's historical!
I'm also an amateur historian, a trial attorney who deals with the problems of reconstructing past events by using various types of evidence. Over the years I've read most of the Warren Report; I've read the conspiracy books. I find flaws in the former--and serious error in logic on the latter. Long ago, I concluded the evidence available was overwhelmingly demonstrative of Lee Harvey Oswald's factually causing the death of the president by shooting him with the rifle found. How that would have played forensically in a real trial is impossible to say.
The conspiracy writers have no evidence of anything, just holes in the evidence presented by the Warren Commission. From these holes come theories that devolve into circular arguments where they end up proving the theory by assuming to be true. If the conspiracy writers could have been able to assist Oswald's defense counsel (hypothetically), they could have created reasonable doubt, which may have acquitted Oswald--or gotten him on reduced charge of manslaughter. But enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction is NOT the same thing as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of other alleged culprits.
But this is a movie website, made for movie buffs like myself, who enjoy reading about movies and discussing movies and reading what other film buffs have to say about movies. As a movie, JFK is something I have watched a few times because it is so well crafted. I suspect Oliver Stone must be tough as a director because he also got performances out actors I didn't think possible--even known talents. It's editing, the music, the sound, the sets--everything creates this bizarre, paranoid effect, where nothing is as it seems. Like one of the legendary conductors that can move an entire orchestra to great climactic crescendos, Stone creates a thriller set withing a courtroom drama.
It's a virtuoso work, that also shows mastery of narrative technique, such as shifting point-of-view, retrospect and foreshadowing, story-within-a-story, building to devastating and heartbreaking ending of JFK's death and of a traumatized nation left with fear, uncertainty and unanswerable questions in the middle of a nightmarish Cold War.
As an historian, I am not moved very much from what I still believe to be the sad, absurd and unspectacular truth. As a lawyer, I am impressed with the way reasonable doubt can be generated by working up facts more likely to be deemed irrelevant at a trial; equally, I am relieved to see that reasonable doubt to prevent a guilty verdict in the trial of one person (which never happened) is not sufficient to prove conspiracy in the trial of another. As a movie fan, I am awed with what a great director can do with historical material and a good cast and crew. As an American, I am also glad that movies like this can be made. It is the mark of a society free enough to express such withering criticism of the government without fear of punishment.
I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who has not seen it yet, and that it be seen repeatedly by those who have already seen it. The mark of a classic is it that can speak to people of all generations--and differently to the same person moving through life into older generations.
I'm also an amateur historian, a trial attorney who deals with the problems of reconstructing past events by using various types of evidence. Over the years I've read most of the Warren Report; I've read the conspiracy books. I find flaws in the former--and serious error in logic on the latter. Long ago, I concluded the evidence available was overwhelmingly demonstrative of Lee Harvey Oswald's factually causing the death of the president by shooting him with the rifle found. How that would have played forensically in a real trial is impossible to say.
The conspiracy writers have no evidence of anything, just holes in the evidence presented by the Warren Commission. From these holes come theories that devolve into circular arguments where they end up proving the theory by assuming to be true. If the conspiracy writers could have been able to assist Oswald's defense counsel (hypothetically), they could have created reasonable doubt, which may have acquitted Oswald--or gotten him on reduced charge of manslaughter. But enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction is NOT the same thing as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of other alleged culprits.
But this is a movie website, made for movie buffs like myself, who enjoy reading about movies and discussing movies and reading what other film buffs have to say about movies. As a movie, JFK is something I have watched a few times because it is so well crafted. I suspect Oliver Stone must be tough as a director because he also got performances out actors I didn't think possible--even known talents. It's editing, the music, the sound, the sets--everything creates this bizarre, paranoid effect, where nothing is as it seems. Like one of the legendary conductors that can move an entire orchestra to great climactic crescendos, Stone creates a thriller set withing a courtroom drama.
It's a virtuoso work, that also shows mastery of narrative technique, such as shifting point-of-view, retrospect and foreshadowing, story-within-a-story, building to devastating and heartbreaking ending of JFK's death and of a traumatized nation left with fear, uncertainty and unanswerable questions in the middle of a nightmarish Cold War.
As an historian, I am not moved very much from what I still believe to be the sad, absurd and unspectacular truth. As a lawyer, I am impressed with the way reasonable doubt can be generated by working up facts more likely to be deemed irrelevant at a trial; equally, I am relieved to see that reasonable doubt to prevent a guilty verdict in the trial of one person (which never happened) is not sufficient to prove conspiracy in the trial of another. As a movie fan, I am awed with what a great director can do with historical material and a good cast and crew. As an American, I am also glad that movies like this can be made. It is the mark of a society free enough to express such withering criticism of the government without fear of punishment.
I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who has not seen it yet, and that it be seen repeatedly by those who have already seen it. The mark of a classic is it that can speak to people of all generations--and differently to the same person moving through life into older generations.
My Big Fat Greek Wedding
(2002)
really??!
21 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie has nothing to do with Greek-Americans. Greek- Americans have integrated very well into American society. My mother first came to this country at the age of 25. She got a job at Woolworth's lunch counter, and made really good American comfort food. Also, she made lots of friends with non-Greek-American neighbors. One of the first coffee-klatsch offerings she learned to make when her friends came over was Bundt cake---which is why the scene where with the Bundt cake is so stupid. I never heard any Greek-American refer to Americans of other ancestries as a "xeno" (foreigner). More often, I would hear them refer those of other ancestries as "Americans"--as if the Greek-Americans were foreigners--which they were not. The American military cemeteries all over the world all contain an above-proportional share of gravemarkers with Greek surnames on them.
If you want to learn something of what Greek-Americans add to the American mosaic, watch Elia Kazan's America, America. As an American of Greek ancestry, what I carry proudly from my Greek heritage are things like the Greek people saying OXI (No) to Mussolini's ultimatum in 1940 at a time when other small nations were looking to get out of the Nazi/Fascist war machines' way. That event hearkens back to Thermopylae where 300 Greek blocked a narrow mountain pass and made the taking of it so costly to the invading army that the rest of the Greek armies regrouped to win the main battle. To analogize to an overused scene from a Western, Greeks are the little guys in the saloon who, when the bad men come in, and everyone runs out of their way, politely refuse any intimidating demands.
They may lose, and they may get killed, but they will not stand down. Greeks historically choose right over wrong, even when wrong is very convenient. E.g. Greeks, during both World Wars, would never co-operate with Nazis just because they may have a gripe against the British. The Greek instinctively knows that Greece's allies always marginalize and ignore Greece's concerns after the war is over; nonetheless, they will choose the side of right over might--any day.
The people depicted in this film are people whose crass materialism masquerades as ethnic pride, unconsciously exaggerating their ethnicity and clannishness (or clownishness) to make up for how far from Greek values they have strayed. The Italian movie Mediteranneo had a far better appreciation of Greek character and culture than this movie. But if you think of this movie as a farce about a subculture of nouveau riche in America,then by all means watch and promote this film to others.
If you want to learn something of what Greek-Americans add to the American mosaic, watch Elia Kazan's America, America. As an American of Greek ancestry, what I carry proudly from my Greek heritage are things like the Greek people saying OXI (No) to Mussolini's ultimatum in 1940 at a time when other small nations were looking to get out of the Nazi/Fascist war machines' way. That event hearkens back to Thermopylae where 300 Greek blocked a narrow mountain pass and made the taking of it so costly to the invading army that the rest of the Greek armies regrouped to win the main battle. To analogize to an overused scene from a Western, Greeks are the little guys in the saloon who, when the bad men come in, and everyone runs out of their way, politely refuse any intimidating demands.
They may lose, and they may get killed, but they will not stand down. Greeks historically choose right over wrong, even when wrong is very convenient. E.g. Greeks, during both World Wars, would never co-operate with Nazis just because they may have a gripe against the British. The Greek instinctively knows that Greece's allies always marginalize and ignore Greece's concerns after the war is over; nonetheless, they will choose the side of right over might--any day.
The people depicted in this film are people whose crass materialism masquerades as ethnic pride, unconsciously exaggerating their ethnicity and clannishness (or clownishness) to make up for how far from Greek values they have strayed. The Italian movie Mediteranneo had a far better appreciation of Greek character and culture than this movie. But if you think of this movie as a farce about a subculture of nouveau riche in America,then by all means watch and promote this film to others.
More like a TV pilot episode
8 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The movie was enjoyable. I am biased, though. I grew up idolizing the Lone Ranger. I can never understand the decision to cast Klinton Spilsbury in the title role. This would not be too hard to understand if we follow the theory that a TV pilot was the original idea. But this theory falls apart when I consider that, for some reason, Spilsbury's voice wasn't deemed good enough, so it had to be dubbed. This causes the unintentionally comical situation of a Hollywood movie looking like a foreign-made spaghetti western because the dialog and the actor's lips are not always in sync. The narrator and the songs are irritating. Despite all this, I liked the movie. It started out with the elements of an epic picture about the story of a legendary hero, a film that should have been 3 hours long. Then, after the set-up of how he came to be the Lone Ranger, the film rushes into what seems like a TV episode. A small amount of screen time elapse from the kidnapping of the President to his rescue, which was reminiscent of a Gunsmoke or Bonanza episode, where the story had to unfold in between commercial breaks, all within 1 hour air time. A lot of people got very lazy in the making of this movie. Still, to me, it's as if it were a 98-minute episode of the Lone Ranger. Heigh-ho, Silver! Away!
The Last Days of Patton
(1986 TV Movie)
The movie is a character study
1 October 2008
I found this movie compelling to watch. Selecting only the final days of its subject's life, it is not really a biopic. There is no plot--the life of any person seldom has a plot. I call it a character study, probably the least spectacular of all dramas. What character studies lack in spectacle, they're supposed to make up for with a fascinating portrait of the subject's personality--like looking at a great oil painting of a famous person--except that it's a motion picture. Having said that, I found this film to be remarkably well done and could have been better were it not budgeted as a TV movie. I think the film's theme (rather than plot) is how a person handles his own impending death. When the subject is General Patton, a first-class soldier and real hero, a man who always wanted to die by the last bullet of the last battle of the last war of his life, and the circumstances of his dying is by a fender-bender that breaks his neck and renders him an invalid for 12 days, a recipe for a real dramatic character study emerges. How a man like Patton handled the absurdity of his transition to death is the human question that permeates the whole movie. It starts off by his return to the States for the first time since November 1942. He has his wife on his arm, and the couple is surrounded by reporters. The reporters demonstrate that, whether pro or con, Patton is a legend and he makes good copy. Beatrice at his side reminds us that he was also a family man--and a good one--a man who compliments his wife publicly. The film is filled with reminiscing flashbacks which shows two things: that Beatrice was a good match for Patton, particularly the scene where she drives the tank prototype, at her husband's request, to demonstrate the ease with which it can be driven before the Army brass; a man who is sorely tempted to see no more point to continue living is tugged one way by memories (thus, acknowledgment) of having lived a good life and tugged another way to put up a cheerful front in facing the absurd, anticlimactic present. Beatrice realizes this in a scene with General "Hap" Gay in a darkened hospital room where she reveals her understanding that her husband has everyone fooled by his charm and bravado--but her husband is slipping and he knows it. The movie shows that Patton's heroism was not an act put on for his soldiers or for the public or the press--nor was it self-delusion--his heroism ran deep--steeped as he was in his knowledge of history, his own ancestry and family, the film shows that the dying, invalid Patton was heroic in another way: he was kind and generous to his doctors and their staff; he tried greatly to spare his wife any unnecessary hurt. Even in his attitudes towards the de-Nazification policy--is not driven by any political motive. No real warrior takes any pleasure in seeing a vanquished people suffer after they've been disarmed. Given his upbringing and values he had demonstrated all his life, I believe that Patton saw his job as military governor of Bavaria to help the Bavarian people survive the winter and to get back on their feet. Even if he were wrong about de-Nazification, the film is interested in the character that drove the man. His attitude towards the Soviets was probably also driven by what he saw as very cruel and heartless conduct by the Soviet forces against the conquered German population. This movie is not for everyone. It will not entertain anyone who needs real spectacle to remain entertained. The natural audience for this kind of movie is a more mature--or emotionally deep--audience.
Good stuff
7 April 2004
I saw this movie maybe twice--once in the theater and once on TV--all over 30 years ago. Then I obtained a very good VHS copy and it is in my collection. It is very good and deserves a release in some form. I enjoyed some very comic moments: Jack Elam plays a half-crazed, legally blind bounty hunter with thick spectacles, teaching his finger how to read a wanted poster; Jack Cassidy ends up in jail and loses his temper because the one locking him up is too stupid to understand he's got the wrong man; Nannette Fabray gives the burly Dan Blocker a big roundhouse punch which seals their romance. The plot is a classic: a mail-order bride no-show motivates the town to fix their only blacksmith up with a saloon girl substitute, who just arrives in town. There a lot of subplots that are slapstick. The scenes between Fabray and her hostess where Fabray reveals that she's unexpectedly fallen in love with the gentle giant of a blacksmith; and the scenes between Fabray and Blocker are quite good and are what makes this film better even than what its writer or director probably intended. I would have directed Fabray to keep in mind that her character--while probably matching Fabray's intelligence and robustness but not her sophistication--is not accustomed to having such deep feelings. Perhaps a scene or two more to contrast her relationship to Panama Jack with her newly-discovered capacity to deeply love a man who is not a Western stereotype (but probably closer to the majority of men actually living in the post-Civil War West), the unarmed, simple rough-cut but still part of Victorian America--blacksmith named Charlie. This movie is a hidden gem because it's a product of an old-school cast that whose careers started in an era where actors cared deeply about their work. I cannot see today's TV or movie crowd making such a movie without treating the subject matter and their characters as beneath them--or adding unneeded sex scenes, more violence, profanity, politics and message--so that they could show their constituent audiences, or their equally cynical paymasters, that they're determined to be "realistic." Folks, get a copy of this if you can; it's worth it.
Tell Your Friends