Change Your Image
davidahlstrom514
Reviews
Gettysburg (1993)
Casting was excellent and based on a fine book (The Killer Angels)..
There are a lot of good reviews here about Gettysburg (1993). The longer, director's cut is well worth seeing (I think it is about five hours long, originally as a mini-series), much like the director's cut of the later prequel film, Gods and Generals. It's too bad Ron Maxwell (director) didn't get the funds from Ted Turner to film the 3rd in the 'trilogy' - Last full measure (more about US Grant). Spielberg is reportedly doing a Grant film, which I hope will restore his 19th century reputation as an excellent military (grand) strategist and theatre-level thinking (novel in warfare at that time). One comment I would have to some of the reviewers here - the American Civil War's main issue, by far, WAS slavery. It is exactly why many of the southern states seceded. I have been through this with my classes and readers till I don't want to talk about it any more, but for anyone really interested in learning about what the southern states had in mind in 1859-1861 (run-up to the Rebellion), get and read the book by (southern) historian Charles Dew "Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War" (2017). The Commissioners (sent by the initial secession proponents in the deep American south) traveled to SLAVE states to 'sell' secession to their fellow travelers. The secession documents (justifications and models for legal documents, etc) did not beat around the bush that secession was about preserving slavery. Later, Confederate leaders lied (or let's say, were 'retrospectively rationalizing") that slavery was "in no wise the cause of the War" (spoken and written by Andrew Stephens, the Confederate Vice President - I always liked his switch to Biblical-style language in his post-war speeches). Well, if it was 'in no wise' about slavery - why didn't the Commissioners go to the midwest and western states that were getting hit much harder by the supposed horrible penny tariffs than the south was? Charles Dew explains all this very well in uncovering a previously unknown part of the run-up to the American Civil War.
Archie (2023)
Decent acting, bizarre choice of accompanying music
The acting in Archie was pretty good. Jason Isaacs does a pretty good older Cary Grant, especially his mannerisms and way of speaking with an old Atlantic accent. The choice of background and interlude music at times was bizarre. When young Archie first came to NY, the background music was an odd, anachronistic beach-rock music. I'm not saying they should've played 1920s jazz, but music more appropriate to the periods would have been much better. There are numerous other anachronisms and scenes that are out of time order also (such as placing North by Northwest in 1961, and 'filming the crop scene in a studio, when it was filmed out on location), which are distractions to any viewer that knows something of Cary Grant's career. A decent show that could have been a lot better.
Blow Out (1981)
An overlooked film when it came out, now getting much-deserved recognition.
Blow out (1981) got a lot of negative reviews when it came out in 1981 and didn't do well at all in the boxoffice. I never understood why, as it is a stylish Brian DePalma film that is generally well acted (John Travolta, Dennis Franz, and John Lithgow). The twist on an older film noir that solved a crime using photos just taken by chance of the crime is that Travolta is a soundman recording some outside sounds for a film and he just happens to record a car crashing off a bridge into a river, killing a Presidential candidate. He suspects it was not an accident and the suspense builds as clues emerge, partly from the subtle sound recordings of the accident (crime). A generally very good film and suspenseful. Not quite a Hitchcock-level but solid DePalma and well worth watching.
Joanna Lumley's Hidden Caribbean: Havana to Haiti: Episode #1.1 (2020)
Cuba is misunderstood in this presentation
In her trip to Cuba, Joanna Lumley regularly talked about Cuba's dilapidation, problems with the hotel, and the general poverty she saw. This was all fair, albeit a little biased (though I have to say, more honest than most travel shows). But she repeatedly mentioned a myth that is always told about Cuba. That is, that Cuba is quite poor and underdeveloped due to trade restrictions, "sanctions," and a "blockade" (implied but not mentioned by name). None of this is correct. First of all, trade has a very limited effect on economic growth (this is well established in economics - trade is very good for efficiency and helps with standards of living, but has little effect on true, long-term growth, surprisingly). And more importantly, Cuba was only restricted from US trade. Cuba was free to trade and seek investment from the other 95% of the world, particularly after the Cold War ended. It wasn't "sanctions" that kept Cuba underdeveloped. It was poor economic and political policies that kept the people poor, lowered the life expectancy, and keeps the people in hardship today. Cuba can freely trade and seek investment - no one wants to invest there with the current regime. The media needs to get this straight (and they do NOT have a nice medical system, that is another fantasy).
Killing Kennedy (2013)
The first time Oswald was significantly included in the Kennedy story
There are a number of reviews on this board attacking this film for not covering the endless conspiracies about the shooting of JFK. I think that is a strong point of the film as the conspiracies have been shown to be incorrect or impossible (shooters behind the hedges at the grassy knoll, shooters in the sewer or onnthe overpass etc). It is funny also to see people commenting on the Warren Report. I'll guarantee not a single critic has read a significant amount of that report or even remotely knows what is in it. I have, and I can say that its findings have held up to very careful scrutiny over the past 50+ years and especially since the Congressional Commission on assasiniations in the late 1970s. Oswald was the lone shooter and he was easily able to shoot Kennedy (80 yards is a chip shot for a marksman like Oswald). Oswald shot Kennedy himself, and this film makes this very clear.
The Case for Christ (2017)
A different view of the extensive evidence for Christianity and the Bible.
This film is well acted and earnest. And yes, as the critics have pointed out, it didn't cover all (enough) of the evidence for Christianity and the Bible. How could it, it would take a very long string of documentaries to do that adequately; by my count, at least a dozen dense segments to cover the evidence from the socio-legal, to the historiographical, to the bioinformatics to the physics and so on. Perhaps the best authors in these areas are Dr. Hugh Ross (astrophysicist) to Josh McDowell (historian, archivist), to Dr Francis Collins (geneticist). And there are many others. I suggest reading the recent book(s) of Ross, McDowell and Collins for really starting to develop an understanding of the Bible and its evidence from those three major viewpoints. And to the reviewers who have said "pathetic" to the evidence for Christianity and The Bible, if you haven't read these or other major works, I suggest doing so before demonstrating your breathtaking ignorance to the world. There is more evidence for Jesus Christ and his acts than there is for Julius Caesar-- much more.