Reviews

IMAX 3D was made for "The Finest Hours." The technology is fully exploited and realized as it takes you in to the immediacy of the fact-based story. I didn't expect much. So many films made for 3D and/or IMAX are strong on FX and weak on story. At my age, story is paramount, and if the FX can be enlisted to that end, we could get a good film. "The Finest Hours" is an excellent film.

So many of the films for IMAX 3D are fantasies which probably would have engaged me in my younger days, but as I've aged I have increasingly related more to "true" or "real" stories like "The Finest Hours." I'll also mention that it was a relief to everyone in our party to not be subjected to a barrage of what is euphemistically called "language." That has become the movie norm in an effort to dial up realism or tension or whatever. None of the people in my life ever talk that way and "The Finest Hours" demonstrates that realism and tension are both well off without it.

IMHO, "The Finest Hours" was excellently cast and excellently performed. The two male leads both give subtly nuanced performances as just plain guys trying to do their jobs and not seeking recognition or leadership positions, who find themselves in situations forcing them to take charge, and portraying their gradual personal progression as they have "greatness thrust upon them."

In IMAX 3D, the effects are jaw-dropping. One review, an outlier, complains that the price of 3D is reduced brightness. I thought it was worth every penny. Another review complains that the film lacks human drama. The writers' adaptation from fact to film story and script relies on some well-worn devices, but everyone in my party thought it succeeded beautifully in limning consistent and plausible back stories, portraying women of implacable strength in what might have been strictly a male story, and wrapping the whole tale in a tender romance.

I'm interested now in reading the book. In case you are too, note that there are two versions, one for Young Adults.

First off, I'm 75 years old. Second, I know zero about the two leading performers, so they get no points from me for being "stars." Their performances were accomplished and subtle, but IMHO they were playing ugly characters: rude, vulgar, lots of foul language and bad behavior, mistreating and abusing each other. Maybe they were depicting a clinical condition accurately or brilliantly, but that ain't entertainment to me. I just feel offended and roughed up. Incidentally, I am an NFL fan and I think the characterizations in that department were surely intended as parody or farce, but if that's the case then that whole plot mechanism is out of sync with the rest of the film.

There's plenty to appreciate here: spectacular locations and flying sequences; period costumes, props and sets; and competent writing and acting. However, to enjoy a drama, we need at least one principal who exhibits some qualities that we can like or admire. In this bunch of catty snobs, we found only one character who is at all likable — a hapless enlisted man in a fleeting peripheral role as their helpless victim. From the reviews here, it is clear that we are completely out of step, but we did not find their malicious-schoolgirl behavior amusing or entertaining. Even the dog is detestable. We threw in the towel after two of the six episodes, so you should discount these observations accordingly, but what I could find written about this mini-series gave us no cause to expect character transformation or redemption.

We just saw the film for the first time in 2005 and, despite the high ratings here, for us, this is a 4 out of 10. The beauty of the photography, albeit that it was created without computer enhancement, was insufficient to offset the overall lack of dramatic tension. The photographic techniques (e.g., fast frame, time lapse) that may have been unusual or original when the film was made are today commonplace. Glass is not our favorite composer of film scores. His score here is hammeringly repetitive repetitive repetitive. We wondered what John Williams or Badalamenti or Poledouris or Barry would have done to accompany these images.

A clever and insightful script, wonderful performances, a thoroughly entertaining film, and, at the core, serving up a pernicious theme at the ideological level. As the film unfolded, its central message seemed to be this: that male politicians generally behave despicably, and one of the central freedoms that our forefathers fought and died for is the right of female politicians to behave just as badly. Its dedication to `our daughters' underscores this misinterpretation.

On analysis and reflection, however, the message even more fundamentally is not about gender equality in the degrading-behavior sweepstakes. It is this very destructive idea: that publicized sexual indiscretions of a candidate, whether male or female, are irrelevant to character and worthiness to serve in public office-a bad idea indeed. Nonetheless, ideology aside and judging purely on its merits as a film, I score it 7 out of 10.

Fragmented, disjointed, unsequential story and screenplay, is innovative and certainly attention-getting, but ultimately mutes the emotional impact of film. Too few moments when the viewers here could connect, possibly because you have to work so hard continuously to figure out what is going on. An intricate cerebral puzzle but without passion.

We didn't expect much here, so it was one of these experiences where you are pleasantly surprised. I would mention Irons and Depardieu first because they are just great. I suppose Depardieu has performed in comic roles before but I don't recall them and so was quite pleased and amused with his grace and charm in such a role. Irons is imposing and has more gravitas that anyone else in the film. Byrne is strong and a pleasure to watch. These top performers take this material and make it delightful. DiCaprio is a talented young man, I suppose, but my personal demographics are in the periphery of his fan base (wrong sex, wrong age). I'm no Malkovich fan, but he was not a sufficient detraction to me to offset my enjoyment of the others. Over all, the film is a lot of fun--a really nice film.

Long on action and stunt work, but so short on character delineation and development that it failed to hold our interest. Not always easy to figure out which side a character is on and who's doing what to whom.

Interesting, sometimes startling, amusing, but a little arch. A slight film, entertaining, but not for every taste. Rarely does the film deliver the kind of punch of the opening scene so don't let that induce any expectations.

A sweeping spectacle with compelling moments, but some amateurish dialogue and clumsy direction detract. Worth watching, lots of stars, often not put to their best use. For example, compare John Wayne's awkward performance here with his superior work in the Pearl Harbor Naval film "In Harm's Way." I give this a 5 out of 10.

True, this is an "B" level action, adventure, crime film, but it has some genuinely (and surely intentionally) hilarious moments. Rod Steiger chews up the scenery and Jill Ireland has some great opportunities too. The net effect is -- not the slickest film by far, but a very entertaining one.

This film is so theatrical and intellectual, that it is hard for me to visualize it as a commercial film. As the executive producers, Messrs. Hackman and Freeman may have seen it as an opportunity to play roles that go considerably beyond what is typically offered to them. If you would enjoy seeing them flexing their muscles as performers and displaying considerable versatility and agility in the process, this film is for you. It is a very interior and closed film in many ways despite a game effort to open it up with carnival color, light and noise. The story kept us guessing all the way.

A lot of the ingredients of an enjoyable jaded cop film are there but they just didn't work for us. The contrived and complex plot is so densely packed into a few lines of dialogue in several scenes and the switches, surprises and reverses are so numerous that for us the film became increasingly incoherent and finally ludicrous.

I had no expectations; I'd never heard of Jamie Foxx; all I knew was that the film has some strong character actors in it. I thought it was highly entertaining; it was fun. The plot was different and unpredictable enough to hold my interest. To me, Foxx is an original. David Morse is terrific (true, this is not his finest role). I thought the chases and pyrotechnics contributed to the film and were well done. I didn't expect a lot and I was happily surprised.