ptarmigan Reviews

Warm Springs (2005 TV Movie)

Brings history alive

[10/10 · 30 April 2005]

A movie that changes the way I see the world is, to me, a great movie. And this is a great movie. I will never think of FDR the same. What he went through is almost beyond comprehension. The movie conveys this, without getting mawkish.

I have met many politicians. While there are some who are in it out of self-interest, there are some who truly care about others and who are great human beings, not perfect, but great nevertheless. That is what we see of FDR in Warm Springs. We see a person of privilege getting to see and know the common man, and caring so much that he is willing to lay his entire fortune on the line in the risky proposition of buying this decrepit spa, against family opposition, and serving people who often cannot pay so that they may regain some small degree of their health.

While the movie does not spell it out, it does not take much imagination to see how this affected FDR's understanding of what people were going through in the Depression; he had lived among them.

And while the American public may not have known the details of this story, Winston Churchill likely would have. And it is interesting to ponder the parallels between their lives. For Churchill also was consigned to the political backwaters after WWI, with no realistic hope of a return to power. So this likely led to even greater sympathy between the two leaders.

This is a movie that needs to be seen widely, perhaps even in secondary school history classes. It brings history alive.

The acting is fine, all around. I don't know how much is the script, and how much the acting, but the movie succeeds in making us care about even the minor characters, which is an extraordinary accomplishment in any film. And there is character development successfully depicted in numerous secondary characters in the film. Everyone involved deserves credit for a job well done.

Spoiler ahead:

I don't want to spoil the plot, but did you know that Roosevelt got elected president five times - four after getting polio??

If you get a chance, watch it!

Show Boat (1951)

Annoying

[4/10 · 30 April 2005]

I have watched this movie a number of times over the years, mainly because I love the music. I keep hoping that I will also enjoy the movie. Sometimes the music wins, sometimes the movie loses, and I turn it off.

I just caught it again on TV, after a long avoidance. My first thought was, was this movie colorized? The color was so garish, and the depiction of the "colored" farm hands so out of date, that I wondered whether it was actually filmed in the 30s or early 40s, before color, like the original. So I logged on and found out it was actually filmed in 1951, in Technicolor. There is no excuse for the absurd racial stereotypes by then, at least in Hollywood; but then the whole movie is nothing but stereotypes, so I guess it is an equal opportunity offender.

The real problem is there is not much or a script to hold the musical numbers together. The movie starts with music, and the characters are never really introduced. Stuff just starts happening, and you never quite care about any of the characters. You get the impression someone just kept cutting out dialogue from the script to make room for the musical numbers and keep the movie short - 107 minutes - until there was hardly anything left except the bare storyline. Hey, if a film is good, you don't want to shorten it.

And while the melodies are wonderful, the singing is awful. There is far too much vibrato, more, I think, than you would find in most operas.

Next, if you watch the lips of the actors, you get the impression that all the dialogue is dubbed in afterward. And the acting is weird. In the beginning, it is bad because they are supposed to be bad actors on a showboat. But then they become bad actors in a bad B quality movie.

The best thing that could happen to this movie would be to put the soundtrack in a lifeboat and torpedo the movie. It is offensive to blacks, offensive to whites, offensive to music lovers, and most of all, offensive to movie lovers.

NetForce (1999 TV Movie)

It's about the future: It's 2005!

[7/10 · 4 April 2005]

We're here! Where's my videophone? This movie is not as bad as some of the critics here say. It is reasonably entertaining, if you can get past the first 15 minutes. It is Tom Clancy, so there is some twists and turns to the plot, which keeps it interesting. I think it is best to compare it to some of the lamer James Bond movies; on that score it looks reasonably good.

What was going through my mind as I watched it was that I bet the computer security folks have watched the movie as a warning of what could happen, sort of, if they don't do their job. And I bet some of the hackers watch it with dreams of glory.

Obviously, the problems with the Internet described in the movie haven't happened, for the most part, so the movie looks a bit foolish. Actually, I see from the book review that while the novel was written in 1999, it was set in 2010. But we have been learning in the past year or so about the dangers of spyware that abound. In that sense, the premise was remarkably prescient. Corporations just love to get their hands on all sorts of information about you, without your knowledge. And the government is not so different; often they work hand in hand, as in the airline passenger data collection. So the movie, as science fiction, is not entirely far fetched.

I'm a fan of Scott Bakula and his great work on Quanum Leap. Frankly, the TV show had better writing, not to mention better cinematography. And the critics who bemoan all the boilerplate about asschewing are right. Another point that bothers me, especially given Clancy's general penchant for veracity, is the absurdity of they guy's wife covering him on the news. No reputable news organization would allow this incest, except perhaps FOX.

But the ending is interesting enough to make it all worthwhile.

Fans of Ayn Rand should find this movie especially interesting. It follows the same theme as Rand McNally Shrugged. And the quality of writing is about equal.

Who is Steve Day???

Lost Horizon (1937)

Watch the DVD reissue

[8/10 · 27 March 2005]

I have seen Lost Horizon a number of times on TV over the years. It seemed that sometimes it was much better than others, though I thought it was my imagination. From watching the DVD, which restored a great many chopped out parts, it is apparent that a variety of editors did a hatchet job on the movie over the years. That is why some versions did not seem to do the book justice - parts where missing from the film.

The restored version shows that Capra did a sincere job of trying to stay faithful to the book. However, the book is so much fun that it is still worth reading.

One of the best parts of the movie is the lovely Jane Wyatt! Especially in the swimming scene!!! She gives Hedy Lamarr a run for the money! It was a very daring scene for Wyatt to play at the time, and she deserves credit for it. Besides, she is quite beautiful and charming throughout the movie.

Anyone who has not seen the movie or read the book, must. It is part of cultural literacy. A bit of trivia: FDR, when asked where Doolittle's planes came from that bombed Tokyo in WWII, answered, "Our base in Shangri La."

There is one detail that irked me, and was an odd error on Capra's part. So these folks are being hijacked in an airplane flying across Asia, and they keep asking where are they????? Yet there is a mounted map on the wall at the front of the cabin that apparently covers China and much of Asia. This is plainly visible in the DVD version.

This raises the question of why the map was there. The effects in the movie are quite good of the plane flying, etc. It looks like they got their hands on an actual plane in or from China and had to return it, so they didn't remove the map. This, of course, does not make sense, from the Hollywood perspective. You build a set. You can't film within a plane. But it sure looks like they did. It would be interesting to know more about how they actually filmed it, if anyone knows.

But as I watch it, I keep wishing one of the characters would say, hey, we've been flying for 20 hours at 300 mph in a northwesterly direction, so according to the map we should be over Nepal, headed for Tibet. Or something.

Is this a spoiler? I liked it, anyway.

The Time Machine (1960)

What did Wells know?

[8/10 · 27 March 2005]

Too bad IMDb doesn't have a separate category for reviewing the extras with the DVDs. The Time Machine has one of the best. It is almost a mini-sequel. It is so good that it is too bad they didn't go the extra mile and actually make a sequel. Of course, H.G. Wells didn't write one, but....

The movie stands the test of time relatively well. And it is more faithful to the book than most movies these days. However, this is one book you really should actually read. That is not asking too much. The narrative, like the movie, is meant to be a story told over a long dinner, say two or three hours. That is about how long it takes to read the book, which is less than 70 pages long, as I recall.

One might also watch Things to Come, another book by Wells. It is curious how well he anticipated the general trend of history. Specifically, he seems to have anticipated the long, drawn out stalemate of the Cold War, not to mention World War II. There seems to be an undercurrent of what might be called mysticism in many British writers.

Smoke (1995)

Zzzzzzz

[3/10 · 26 March 2005]

No spoiler ahead.

I'm sorry, was there some point to this movie? I fell asleep in the middle. Or is this just some pseudo-intellectual clap trap?

Just for the record, I used to live in NYC. But I don't like stare-at-your-navel movies about New York any more than the ones about California and Hollywood.

And what really irks me is that the cover of the video portrays the movie as a light-hearted comedy. It is anything but. Apparently, even the film studio could bear to watch it through to the end.

I understand I have to write at least 10 lines about a movie to qualify as a review. This is a challenge in this case.

On the plus side, the cast is excellent. There is nothing particularly wrong with the acting, aside from the fact that the movie is basically pointless and boring.

And since I borrowed the movie from the library, I didn't have to pay to watch it.

By the way, I once interviewed Harvey Keitel, who was doing - get this - an Italian movie set in eastern Canada that was being filmed in Alaska. He was some sort of bear hunter searching for a buddy lost somewhere near the North Pole or something, and he was getting on the train to go find him. And the train he was getting on was in Anchorage. Right.

I didn't have the heart to point out that there was no rail line to the Arctic, in either eastern Canada or Alaska.

I wonder what ever became of this movie? As far as I can tell from IMDb, it was never released. Not that I know Italian.

The Village (2004)

And the moral of the story is....

[8/10 · 26 March 2005]

The first point I wish to make is if you have not seen this movie, avoid spoilers like the plague.

This being the 100th anniversary of Einstein's theory of relativity, I hope he won't mind if I apply it to the evaluation of motion pictures.

Having sat through, more or less, such drivel as Anchorman and Eurotrip, I find it difficult to understand why some ingrates would bash a competent, intelligent movie. Or perhaps they find Anchorman intellectually stimulating? I suspect the real problem is deciding what category to put this movie in. It doesn't really fit in any. There is even, dare I say it, ambiguity in the movie.

But once you figure out what the point of the movie is, or put another way, what the moral of the story is, it starts to fall into place.

So here is the spoiler.

The moral of the story is that the problem is not society. It is people.

In other words, society doesn't kill people. People kill people.

And you get nut cases in small towns as well as big cities; in modern society as well as in olden days. The 20th century didn't invent murder, after all.

Trying to escape from the evil cities to a simpler time doesn't solve all your problems.

I remember the time a computer programmer who moved to the small, isolated (no road access)town of McCarthy, went on a rampage, killing half the town before he was finally stopped. There are plenty of small villages in Alaska that have had to deal with psychopathic bullies.

The extras with the movie are interesting. The director went to great lengths to immerse the cast in the historical character of the era, which is ironic given the reality of the story. I wish more directors would do this with historical pieces.

And finally, any movie with Sigourney Weaver in it can't be all bad. Not that this one is.

All of the cast does a first-rate job.

The bottom line: I enjoyed the movie. And the movie sticks with you for a while, giving you something to think about. This is more than I can say about most movies these days.

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

Highly entertaining

[3/10 · 11 January 2005]

This is one of those movies where the writers, actors and director seem to assume that if they make it really dumb, you won't expect much.

The writing is dumb. The story is dumb. The acting is dumb. But they love it.

There are moments of great creativity.

Nevertheless, the movie does not sink to the level of annoying stupidity. It has some semblance of a story line, so it keeps your attention. In other words, it is bearable. If you plan to rent this movie, watch it now, because I doubt it will be on the shelves in a year or two.

However, when you get finished watching Anchorman, you feel like your brain is on novocaine. It is a bit like a cinematic lobotomy. If you watch it three times in a row, including extras, I suspect you might suffer permanent brain damage.

Watch at your own risk!

Addendum:

I've watched it five times, and must say that it does seem to get funnier the each time around. Perhaps I have been a bit unfair to this truly brilliant movie.

Now where did I misplace my brailn? It must be in there somewwhere?

Quigley Down Under (1990)

A thoroughly enjoyable movie

[10/10 · 11 January 2005]

It is not every day I give a movie a 10, but this one deserves it. The acting, the cinematography, the script, the music, all are impeccable. But what ultimately gets it a top rating is that it is creative, with an original story line and some great, creative music.

From the opening scene of Selleck packing, the movie gets your interest and keeps it.

The acting is very genuine, and the relationships are believable. And, as a nice touch, there is an old-fashioned morality underlying the movie. This movie is suitable for family viewing, without being Disney dreck. (However, there is some violence, of course. We're not talking Dumbo, here.)

The bottom line is this is an interesting, fun movie.

As to the commentary on the ballistics, the movie makes clear that this is a custom gun with unusual sights. That's enough to make it believable.

Swimming Pool (2003)

might be a good picture, might not

[4/10 · 11 January 2005]

But then I am not going to find out.

This DVD will not let you bypass the copious promos and previews. I tried going to the DVD menu. No luck. I tried fast forwarding. Nothing. After a while, I got a message saying I could fast forward through the previews. So I put it on fast forward, all of 8x, which is my Philips DVD's limit.

It seemed I went through the same previews about five times. After about five minutes, I finally got to the movie, or more precisely, the credits. I was getting highly annoyed, to put it politely. So I decided to keep fast forwarding, right through the movie.

Even in fast forward, it looked like a slow, boring film. A lot of scenes of Charlotte Rampling at a laptop computer.

So I returned it to the rental store.

I would be especially upset if I had bought this advertising laden DVD.

The Affair of the Necklace (2001)

Well worth watching

[7/10 · 25 December 2004]

I disagree with some of the harsh criticism of the film on these pages. This movie is far from dull, the music, much of it classical, is just fine, and the acting is very good, all around, including Hillary Swank. The opening credits have to be among the most beautiful ever filmed, and relevant to setting up the movie. There is not a great deal of depth of character, but then there does not need to be; this is a great story. And it is an historically accurate story that I was unfamiliar with. I checked the entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and it matched the movie, so it cannot be too far off, unlike some so-called historical films. The the story is presented plausibly within the film, regardless. But it is not a documentary. It is presented with just enough of a light touch to not be ponderous. And there are a few amusing and surprising twists, particularly near the end. As to the accents, basically any film maker has to make a choice, to go for authentic accents, try to fake the accents, or just skip it. I feel skipping it is better than bad accents, which would call more attention to the issue. There is only one actor with a French accent in the movie that I recall. Who cares? Just as long as I don't have to read subtitles. The movie brings to mind the Masterpiece Theater version of I Claudius. Here all the upper class Romans spoke with a British accent. The acting was very good, but it was still a TV production. But it was a riveting historical drama. If you liked I Claudius, you will like this. Plus, the cinematography is vastly superior. As to Hillary Swank, I tried watching Boys Don't Cry, but never made it through; it was more of a teen flick. She does just fine here. Toward the end, her enunciation becomes less precise than in the beginning. I assume that as the plot unravels, she inevitably drops some of her earlier pretense of nobility, which is reflected in her speech. She is portraying a woman who was pulled from a noble upbringing at early childhood and orphaned, who is trying to return to her earlier station in life, with limited success. This is reflected in her out of date fashions, but also in her manners. I think Hillary got the role right.