Reviews

The documentary titled The Curious World of Hieronymus Bosch directed by David Bickerstaff came out of the 2016 art exhibit of Bosch's works at the Noordbrabants museum in 's-Hertogenbosch, organized to observe the 500th anniversary of Bosch's death. Bosch (born Jheronimus or Jeroen Anthonissen van Aken in the year 1450 or thereabouts and died in the year 1516) was a native son of 's-Hertogenbosch who took the surname he used from his native city. Charles de Mooij put the exhibit together and persuaded several museums that had a work by Bosch to contribute what they had for the exhibit. He secured 20 of the 25 surviving panels, including several triptychs, and quite a few drawings attributed to Bosch. The exhibition was a success.

I was familiar with the works of Hieronymus Bosch before I saw the movie. If you're a Bosch fan (I am), by all means see the movie if you have the opportunity. However, a caveat. If very disturbing art upsets you, then you would not like the art of Hieronymus Bosch because his depictions of hell and some of his other works, e.g., Christ before Pontius Pilate (Ecce Homo) and Christ bearing the cross (two different versions), are very disturbing indeed. In fact most of his work falls into this category in one way or another.

I also take issue with the art historians (all British as far as I could tell) who periodically make appearances within the movie to give the viewer their impressions of what Hieronymus Bosch and his art are all about. All in all they give Bosch too modern a spin. Although I found some of their comments interesting, IMO they missed the primal impetus that drove Bosch's art. And that central mover was the lifeworld in which Bosch was born and in which he played out his existence. This lifeworld was that of the Late Middle Ages, which in Northern Europe covers roughly 1350-1500. The Renaissance, which had begun in Italy around the second half of the 14th century, involved much of Central and Northern Italy, which at that time consisted of city-states, various principalities, republics, and the Papal states. Due to wars fought in Italy by northern powers such as France in the 15th century, the culture of the Renaissance slowly spread into Northern Europe and began making its mark in the late 15th and early 16th centuries as characterized by such prominent figures as Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) and Sir Thomas More in England (1478-1535).

Although very little is known of Bosch's personal life, I contend that the spread of the Renaissance had little or no effect on Bosch's life and that his mind-set was dominated by the dark themes of the Late Middle Ages. The Late Middle Ages was an age of pessimism. The Black Death (bubonic plague) struck Europe in the middle of the 14th century and is said to have killed off a third of Europe's population. The Catholic Church had always preached that one's life in this world was transitory and would soon be replaced by an eternity in the afterlife where an individual would either spend all eternity in bliss in heaven or a terrifying existence in hell. This idea is expressed quite vividly in Bosch's Last Judgment (two slightly different versions exist: one around 1482 and the other around 1504-1508). The Church's teachings became more dire and drastic after the Black Death because what was left of the population either sought solace from religion to compensate for the briefness of life on this earth or else they felt the futility and ridiculousness of existence and succumbed to the vices, foibles, and follies of the pleasures of this world (the sins of the flesh), a view that is amply expressed in Bosch's The Garden of Earthly Delights (created somewhere between 1495-1505). It's pertinent to point out that his works were very popular at the time and frequently imitated, which emphasizes the importance of this worldview at this time.

In summary, his art mesmerizes not only for the message he was trying to convey but also because of his unique artistic abilities and his vivid imagination. He must have deeply thought how hell, purgatory,* and heaven must really truly be like. This assumes they exist of course but I'm firmly convinced that Bosch truly believed they did exist and that one of these three possibilities awaits us all at the time of death. Quite possibly he experienced dreadful nightmares that spurred on his art. I think it's almost impossible for us today to get into this head-set and its effect on the human psyche.

Although dating history by dividing it into different periods is somewhat arbitrary, it does help categorize history into roughly accurate slices characterized by different worldviews that became prominent at that time. The period following the Late Middle Ages in Europe was the Renaissance which gave birth to what we call Modernity, beginning around 1500 and extending to the present. The spokesman of the early part of this Modern period was Francis Bacon (1561-1626), who in his Novum Organum (the new tool; the new method) predicted the rise of modern science, which continues to this day as the primary driver and overarching worldview of the modern world.

I saw this movie at Laemmle's Playhouse 7 in Pasadena, CA on January 23, 2017.

Because I find Bosch's works truly capture the worldview of his day and done convincingly with great depth of imagination―a worldview that has long since vanished―I give this movie 10 out of 10.

* Purgatory was a temporary place where souls who had behaved somewhat badly suffered but were eventually allowed into heaven. On the other hand damnation in hell or bliss in heaven existed for all eternity. There was no escaping from the tortures and horrors of hell.

I really enjoy good sci-fi movies and look forward to them when they come out. I saw good reviews of Arrival and was anxious to see it when it came to the movie theaters. Although Arrival has some very good actors in it, Amy Adams (American Hustle), Jeremy Renner (The Immigrant), Forest Whittaker (The Last King of Scotland), the script is implausible and the action drags along at a snails pace.

I say the script is implausible for two reasons: (1) Linguists have had knowledge of the existence of Cretan Linear A for over a century, but no linguist to date had had any success in translating it (unlike Cretan Linear B). This demonstrates how difficult it is to decode a strange script, even if one form of it (Cretan Linear B) has been successfully tackled. That is why the deciphering of the squids' writing system in Arrival seems totally implausible. (2) Also, if the squids have the technology to create spaceships that can traverse quadrillions of miles of space and defy gravity when they land, they could certainly have created a device to translate their language into Earth languages and vice versa.

As I assume that Arrival isn't meant to be fantasy, both of these issues are serious plausibility gaps in the movie. The depiction of the squids languidly swishing back and forth in a large sealed vat of smoky liquid (or gas--I couldn't tell) looked amateurish. In addition, as I mentioned above, the movie moves along incredibly slowly. Except for the Amy Adams character, the rest were one-dimensional.

Conclusion: I get it. The squids bring all humans together as one. They're good guys and they want us all to get along and play nice together. And in 3000 years they'll call on us for help. Have a visit by aliens (good ones of course) and we'll all have peace on Earth. What a peachy ending. Boy, if only it were that simple.

Overrated. Mediocre at best. Too bad because it has some good actors in it. A better script and better special effects would have helped.

5 out of 10. Good try though.

I saw this movie based on a review in a national magazine that gave it three stars out of four, so I was expecting more from it than I got. The acting is OK but I failed to see what exactly was the point of this movie. Certain young women can be very naïve and/or stupid? White girls are what all the boys in the hood want? Drug-fueled people indulge in wild sex? Don't play with fire because you're gonna get burned? Maybe that's it.

The young woman in the movie, Leah (Morgan Saylor), is returning to Queens, NY a few days before college starts to move into an apartment. The movie opens with her and her roommate (India Menuez) moving furniture and settling in. To relax they start smoking marijuana and need more, so Leah looks out the window and spots some young Puerto Rican guys across the street pushing drugs on the side. She goes across the street and asks one of them to sell her some. Very soon she and one of them, Blue (Brian Marc), hit it off. Blue has his own issues but wants to make extra bucks so he can impress his new girl. This spirals out of control. He gets picked up by an undercover cop for selling drugs. Leah gets a lawyer (Chris Noth) to help Blue fight the charges. Soon he's released.

All Leah seems to want to do is party and indulge in drugs with her roommate and the Puerto Ricans. Pretty soon she graduates from marijuana to cocaine and on to alcohol and is opening her mouth, spreading her legs, or bending over to satisfy her boss, her boyfriend, or her attorney. More problems brew. Blue had taken some good coke to sell for one of the upper echelon pushers before being thrown in jail for selling drugs (although no drugs were found on him―Leah has the stash). Leah blows it all partying with her boss and his girl friend while trying to sell it to get the money to pay off the pusher. She passes out and awakens the following morning to find all the money gone. Her boss and the girl friend plead innocent. Un-huh. And if you buy that one, they'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

Meanwhile Blue is now free and proposes marriage to Leah, telling her this feeling is once in a lifetime. Love is blossoming but suddenly the pusher appears out of nowhere screaming he wants his money and viciously attacks Blue and Leah. Blue kills him with a wretch as he is busy molesting Leah. The police arrive at the scene and cart Blue away in a police car. As they start to drive off, handcuffed and in the back seat Blue give Leah a sad look of desperation and hopelessness. As a third-time offender he won't be coming back soon.

Ultimately Leah's bumbling has led her boyfriend Blue to kill a man. As Leah's lawyer (Chris Noth) at one time comments to her, you don't seem to understand how things work around here. I had to laugh at that one. No kidding. You think? The last scene is Leah sitting in a classroom looking completely dazed as though what happened to her in the few days before school was all a bad dream that would somehow blow away. Did she learn any life-lessons from all this? May be a setup for a sequel.

If you are into parties, nightclub-going, loud rap music, like to watch people getting high and having all sorts of sex, this is the movie for you. It does have a lot of frantic action so you probably won't nod off. Ending is a bummer though. All in all the movie borders on banal. Personally I need a little more nourishment out of a movie than this one provided.

6/10 (acting OK)

I enjoyed The Witch immensely. The mood it captures so well. A real bone-chilling horror story that conveys full plausibility to the world that it depicts. And the scenery and music help the mood along very nicely.

William (Ralph Ineson) and Katherine (Kate Dickie) and their family are expelled over some religious dispute with the elders of a Puritan plantation in early 17th century New England (1630 is the date given). Even the language used throughout the movie is Early Modern English (1500-1700) with its thou-thy/thine-thee 2nd person familiar pronouns-now considered thoroughly archaic.

With their children in tow, they tough it out on a small farm somewhere on the outskirts of the plantation, growing Indian corn (aka maize) and raising goats, forbidden to participate further with their brethren in the fortress. This forced isolation from society and other human beings plays a significant role in the movie as does their intense religious practices and beliefs. They take the grace of Christ very seriously as they also do the wickedness of the Devil. The large dense forest near their farm also plays a part in the movie.

The focal point of the movie is William's and Katherine's elder daughter, Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy). She is 14 or 15 in the movie and what today would be called a pubescent teen. She is the oldest child and is tasked to watch over the latest addition to the family, the infant Samuel. While Thomasin is playing peep-a-boo with him, he mysteriously disappears from her sight. The scene shifts briefly to the shocking scene of a strange nude woman bashing the child to death and smearing herself with his blood. William and Katherine are distraught with grief. At first William explains Samuel's disappearance to a wolf.

One other incident is worth noting. The two younger children frolic with their large male goat appropriately named Black Phillip. Thomasin is jeered by them as they hold her responsible for Samuel's disappearance. She chases them and asserts that she is the witch of the woods. After this they fear her.

After Samuel's disappearance things grow more awry. His father having failed to find game in the forest, Caleb (Harvey Scrimshaw), their eldest son, and Thomasin mounted on the farm's only horse set out in search of game in the thick woods. A large hare stares intensely at them as though it has a mind of its own. Caleb tries to shoot it with his father's blunderbuss but he misses. The shot scares the horse. He bolts and tosses Thomasin to the ground. Caleb runs after the hare deeper and deeper into the forest. Soon he realizes he has lost his way. The forest is dense and scary. He stumbles onto a hut and is greeted by a strange but alluring woman who hugs him to her ample breasts. He returns home several days later delirious with fever and dies mumbling prayers as though he's committed some heinous sin.

As the incidents pile up, William and Katherine see something sinister and unholy in all the goings-on and become convinced that Thomasin is a witch and begin accusing her of witchcraft on their children, which she vehemently denies. They are both frantic with fear and loathing and soon they turn on Thomasin. Hysteria and chaos set in. In their struggle to take control of her, William is rammed and killed by Black Phillip. As Katherine tries to strangle her, Thomasin kills Katherine with a knife. In the commotion the two younger children are killed.

Thomasin is now all alone expect for Black Phillip. Although not clear, it was hinted that she's also had some kind of sexual relation with him. There is the mysterious scene of the witch seemingly milking a goat, but a more sexual interpretation can clearly be made. Docilely she follows Black Phillip into the barn where she partially disrobes, clothed now only in her tunic.

In the darkened barn we see the shadow of a man-creature who speaks to her in a deep male voice, asking her what she wants. To experience the world in all its splendor and glory she tells him. He instructs her to sign allegiance to him. She cannot write she tells him. To which he responds: I shall guide thy hand.

At the very end we see Thomasin nude in the woods observing a coven of naked witches dancing around a fire chanting curses and incantations and then hovering lightly in the air, they ascent into the sky. Thomasin has become one of the witches of the woods.

Was she a witch? It depends on what angle we view the facts presented to us in the movie. Within the cultural milieu in which she lived, one would have found her guilty of witchcraft. Her punishment would have been death by hanging or being burned at the stake. But what about our present milieu dominated by science? A different angle would be to see a young woman severely constrained by parental authority suffering from a neurological disease that would today be classified as schizophrenia, which often manifests itself in teenage years and early adulthood. In her case characterized by the display of both auditory and visual hallucinations (to a person having these hallucinations they experience them as completely "real"*), paranoia, and aggrandized modes of thought. And in the cultural milieu and isolation that she experienced, she could easily believe she had become a follower of the Devil. So, the appropriate answer to the question is, Which milieu does the asker inhabit?

To the actors and director, kudos to all of them. A masterpiece horror movie. And one that is open to a sequel.

Regarding the archaic English, even though I could follow the conversations reasonably well, I honestly think subtitles would have been helpful.

10 out of 10.

* The mathematician, John Nash (1928-2015), learned how to control his hallucinations.

Let me say as prologue that Carol is one of those rare movies where everything about it is in complete sync: acting, script, directing, cinematography, even the musical score. I would conjecture this movie stands a good chance of garnering a bunch of Oskars at the upcoming 2016 Academy Awards Ceremony. It certainly deserves them.

In summary it's a woman-woman love story. But of course there's more to it than that. And in the case of Carol, a lot more. Carol is a classy, upper Manhattan socialite in her mid-40s who reeks elegance, sophistication, perfume, and money. Lots of money. She is confident and exciting. She is beautiful and she is seductive.

It's Christmas time in the City. Silver Bells and all. City sidewalks and department stores are jammed with shoppers anxious to get their holiday shopping done. Carol (Cate Blanchett) is searching for a special doll for her young daughter in one of those large Manhattan department stores―the kind they had back in the 1950s with their polished marble floors, elevators stacked with shoppers, and elegant tea rooms. As she glances around, her eyes latch onto a young female clerk standing behind the doll counter. Like all the store clerks, she is wearing a large red stocking hat with a white ball on top and a furry white rim. Just like Santa's. The clerk returns Carol's glance with a look that says it all. I'm young. I'm hungry. Take me. Liberate me from this drudge life. And Carol takes it. She moves closer. In for the kill, so to speak. The doll in not in stock the clerk tells her. How about a toy train set for your daughter? Carol orders it, giving her name and address for delivery, and leaves. But not before conveniently forgetting her gloves.

The gloves are returned, and Carol calls the department store asking for the clerk that returned them. Carol wants to thank her in person and asks if she could meet her for lunch. They meet in a swank mid-town restaurant. Full of confidence and not missing a beat Carol orders a super-deluxe sandwich and a dry martini with an olive. The clerk, nervous, orders the same thing. Carol asks her name. It's Therese Belivet (Rooney Mara). Carol asks discreetly, "Therese? Not Theresa?" Therese shakes her head shyly. No. Belivet is Czech, it turns out. Czech means her parents, or grandparents, emigrated to the US, and were probably blue-collar or small shopkeepers. She is as much in awe of Carol's parentage as she is of her beauty and sophistication. Soon Carol has Therese coming over to her large country house.

What complicates Carol's seduction plan is her soon-to-be ex-husband, Harge Aird (Kyle Chandler). It's clear from comments Harge wants Carol to be the model executive's wife. Eye candy on his arm at the country club and social get-togethers. A patient wife who can endure his absences. But it's also clear Harge is still very much in love with Carol. He knew Carol had a previous affair with another woman who was a childhood friend, Abby Gerhard (Sarah Paulson). But he overlooked it. And he wants Carol back. Wants their life together again with their young daughter, Rindy (Sadie Heim/Kk Heim). And he doesn't understand why she's so adamant to live her life separately. He's frustrated with her, and his frustration boils over into anger and a desire for revenge. If he cannot have Carol, he will prevent her from keeping Rindy. But even in his uncomprehending frustration he doesn't strike her. He doesn't understand. Carol is a cougar. She wants to take on lovers. In her case young female lovers. And especially the one she has just met: Therese Belivet.

Therese drinks with her friends at bars. Goes to her friends parties. Young people in their 20s struggling to establish their lives in an unforgiving world and to find a suitable mate to go along with them. But Therese is different. She wants more. She wants to abandon her plodding life in the underclass and sample the life of high society. Maybe even become a well-known and in-demand photographer. For this she needs connections. And along comes Carol Aird who drops out of the blue into her go-nowhere life like the good White Witch.

The cougar and the kitten. Each has something to give and something to take. Carol has beauty, money, sophistication, and connections in high places. She will take Therese's love and admiration. Therese has youth and a young willing body. She will take Carol's love and the promise of a new lien on life. And maybe, just maybe, they will forge a stronger bond between each other that will last a lifetime.

In one of the most poignant scenes in the movie in front of Harge, his attorney, and her attorney, Carol openly admits she has been a bad wife to Harge and has not reciprocated his love. But she pleads with him not to take their daughter away completely from her, for that would utterly destroy Rindy. Harge caves in. Carol wins the right to see her daughter but Rindy is to be left in Harge's custody. One can only wonder though what effect her parents' separation will have on Rindy as she grows up. Adults divorce; children suffer.

10 out of 10

Based on a highly approving movie review I read in a weekly magazine I subscribe to, I saw this movie. I was expecting a high level scary thriller. It is not a thriller. Rather best seen as a psychological drama from the point of view of a highly disturbed nine-year-old boy. It often lacks clarity (see para. 3). It has been compared to the The Babadook (2014), and the family resemblance is clear. But The Babadook managed to be more engaging although its special effects were crude.

In summary Goodnight Mommy it is about a mother (Susanne Wuest) and how after a serious operation on her face she returns and relates to her two young twin sons, Elias (Elias Schwarz) and Lukas (Lukas Schwarz). Near the beginning we see her let out of a car in front of a large very modern-looking country house standing in the middle of a large copse of trees and corn fields. The house seems remote and out of place in all this scenic beauty, and its modern architecture and furniture impart to it a cold and sinister atmosphere. Except for her eyes, which are bloodshot, the woman's head is almost totally wrapped in bandages. Spooky looking. No doubt about that. Her spookiness and her behavior startle the young twin(s) and soon he/they begin wondering if she is truly his/their mother.

We learn she is the well-paid anchorwoman at a large Austrian TV station (prima donna complex and control freak suggested here), and she has taken time out to recuperate from whatever happened. She desperately tries to control her son(s). The movie is done to have us believe there are two. In reality only one exists. Elias. Lukas has died. Apparently in an accident or possibly by a more drastic happening. On this point the movie is obscure. (Quite possibly the mother is the person responsible for Lukas death. Again, there is no clarity on this.) Elias is suffering from some form of PTSD brought on by Lukas's untimely death and still experiences him as very much alive. There is a hint (a phone call she has) that she is using a friend's (psychiatrist?) house to try to discipline the young Elias to accept the new situation, but Lukas's death is never broached at any time. At the end Elias goes overboard, no longer able to contain his hostility towards his mother.

This movie has merits because it forces you into the mind of a young nine-year-old boy and how he perceives reality. The Schwarz brothers (twins in real life) portray the movie twins very convincing as does Wuest as the domineering mother. The movie however lacks drama and ultimately even fails in the spookiness department. The script must carry the burden of creating a believable scenario that ultimately leads to the ultimate denouement. Unfortunately it leaves too big a gap to fill in the blanks. Although psychologically bizarre, it comes off too often as simply bordering on incomprehensible. Perhaps this was the director's intent.

6 out of 10

Charles Bronson was known for his tough guy roles. The strong man of few words who knows what he wants. I can't say I saw a lot of movies with Bronson in them, but this one I remember ever since I first saw it back in 1975. Recently I watched it again.

A drifter, Chaney (Charles Bronson), arrives from out of nowhere riding a freight car in the deep South during one of the most trying and difficult periods the US has ever experienced: the Great Depression of the 1930s. Times were hard during the Great Depression. Very hard. Over 25% of the workforce of the United States was out of work in 1933. Many people were barely scraping by. And despite all of Roosevelt's maneuvering and trying out new schemes to get America back to work again, the only thing that truly ended the Great Depression was when America went on a war economy during World War II.

We know nothing about Chaney's history nor why he went South, but he's down on his last few dollars and needs to build up a reserve again. He makes it clear several times during the movie that when he's built up his reserve, he's moving on.

Chaney jumps off the train around New Orleans and hooks up with a petty promoter Speed (James Coburn) who starts promoting him as a streetfighter who can take on the best. There are some well-done fight scenes where Chaney shows his stuff. Not only that, he can shoot a pistol straight and accurate. It's fully plausible that Cheney had fought in World War I and had learned his shooting skills while in the Army. This however is a speculation on my part.

Chaney begins courting Lucy (Jill Ireland--Bronson's wife at the time). They begin a relationship but she wants what most women want, a man who has a secure future and with whom she can settle down. Chaney, true to his wandering nature, realizes this would never work for him. At the same time he needs to make one more killing in the fight business before he can move on. He helps Speed out of a jam Speed has gotten himself into by showing up to fight a professional streetfighter brought down specifically from Chicago to fight him.

At the end Cheney catches another train out of New Orleans and leaves with a fat new reserve. Speed admiringly watches Cheney as he walks away from the car towards the train and mutters to himself, "He was sure something." A wandering nomad as inscrutable as when he arrived.

The movie evokes the era quite well. The acting and directing are good. This movie along with Death Hunt (1981) are IMO Bronson's best and most memorable movies with Death Wish (1974) a plausible third. He fit into all of these as naturally as a glove fits a hand.

10/10. If Hollywood made more movies like this (no CGI but just plain good acting, directing, and story line) and less pure crap, I'd see more mall movies. Unfortunately movies like Hard Times just don't exist anymore.

This documentary covers many aspects of Steve Jobs life but its salient features can be summarized more succinctly:

-Hundreds of thousands of people turned out to mourn Steve Job's death in 2011. Why? After all, he wasn't a prominent entertainer. He was just a CEO of a large corporation. The director (Alex Gibney) claims this was the impetus for his creating the movie in the first place.

-Steve Jobs was adopted. His biological father was a Muslim for Syria. His biological mother was from Wisconsin and of Swiss-German descent and Roman Catholic. Her father would not allow her to marry a Muslim. His step-parents were not well-to-do, but they supported his precocity.

-Steve Jobs was precocious. His mother taught him to read even before he entered school.

-Steve Jobs at an early age developed an intense interest in electronics.

-Steve Jobs befriended Steve Wozniak (the Woz) at an early age and both worked together on several projects before cooperating on their first personal computer. Steve ripped the Woz off in one of their cooperative deals even though they were friends.

-Steve Jobs read Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and proclaimed he was going to be a paradigm-shifter. One can speculate that this book may have played a seminal role in turning Jobs into a man with a mission. A driven man actually. A visionary who would turn electronics technology on its head and who was determined to see it through no matter what the cost to those around him.

-Steve Job's impregnated a young woman and had a daughter by her. He refused to help her financially and insisted the child was not his. At this time Apple was raking in a fortune from Mac sales.

-Steve Jobs was a seeker of Enlightment and sought out a Zen Buddhist monk to help him along the way.

-Steve Jobs had three ways of treating Apple employees working on his technology projects: praise them; vilify them; ignore them.

-Steve Jobs flagrantly broke the law by facilitating illegal stock options purchases through backdating for employees he wished to keep.

-Steve Jobs made electronic technology accessible to the ordinary user through a series of brilliant products-the Macintosh, the Lisa (he manipulated so that his daughter be named this to coincide with the name of this computer and not the other way around), the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad. All wildly successful and all have changed completely the way ordinary human beings interface with technology. He was astoundingly prescient in his prediction that he would carry out a major paradigm shift.

-Steve Jobs made Apple what it is. He was a brilliant marketer. He always knew exactly what tricks needed to be pulled when a new Apple product was introduced to the market.

-Apple moved its production to China and treated its employees like serfs on the estate of a feudal lord.

-Apple is now one of the largest corporations in the world.

-Hundreds of thousands of people turned out to mourn Steve Job's death in 2011 because his electronic products were made to be used by ordinary human beings. He humanized technology and created a way that millions, even billions, of human beings could communicate with other human beings. He shrank the globe.

Did he change our world forever? Most certainly a resounding Yes. Did he push people to realize what they were capable of that they themselves didn't even realize? Most certainly a resounding Yes. Did he have a streak of dishonesty in him? Most certainly a resounding Yes. Did he treat people like excrement at times? Most certainly a resounding Yes. Did he take advantage of foreign laborers? Most certainly a resounding Yes.

Who was the real Steve Jobs? Secular saint or sociopathic sinner? This movie suggests in his own unique way Steve Jobs was both. It all depends at what angle you view his life.

In summary, Jobs is a sterling example of where modernity is taking us as exemplified by his driving desire to create a new paradigm for the development of technology and which has to date succeeded smashingly well. Where it takes us, that remains to be seen.

9 out of 10. Well worth watching regardless of what you think of Steve Jobs the man.

The Stanford Prison Experiment took place in the basement of Jordan Hall (the psychology building) at Stanford University between August 14 and August 20, 1971. The social psychologist who conceived of the experiment was Dr. Philip Zimbardo (Billy Crudup, who in the movie resembles remarkably well Zimbardo at the age Zimbardo was back then). Zimbardo was also the principal investigator and overseer of the experiment. As such, he was as much a participant in the experiment as the volunteers themselves. This ended up having a profound effect on him, which is well portrayed in the movie. It's worth noting that ten years earlier a similar experiment known as the Obedience Experiment had taken place at Yale under the direction of social psychologist Dr. Stanley Milgram.

Zimbardo was funded by the Department of the Navy to conduct the experiment. Although it didn't have the same overall setup as Milgram's, it did resemble it in many salient ways. I admittedly don't know enough of the history of psychology and so can't answer the exact whys it was conducted. But apparently other psychologists have reproduced Milgram's experiment (possibly making modifications to it), so maybe Zimbardo's experiment was considered more definitive. Also, I did find it unusual that he didn't have a control group.

Milgram's experiment was intended to show how easily a subject (called "the teacher" in the experiment) would listen to an authority figure (called "the experimenter") and administer a series of electric shocks to a learner who was, unbeknown to the subject, an actor who in reality received no actual electric shocks. It was found that roughly two-thirds of the subjects would administer what would be considered a fatal shock to the actors even though the actors pleaded and feigned being in extreme agony. Later, the results were validated by other psychologists for different cultures throughout the world. In a 1974 paper titled "The Perils of Obedience" that Milgram composed, he said, "Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process." In the Prison Experiment the volunteers were separated into guards (authority figures) and powerless figures (the prisoners).

It's worth pointing out that the volunteers who served as guards were assigned that role by the people running the experiment. No volunteer purposefully chose the role of guard. As one commented, "Nobody likes guards."

The findings of Milgram's Obedience Experiment indicates that a similar phenomenon was observed in the Prison Experiment. The authority figures took their tasks seriously. At first the prisoners tried to slough the whole thing off but things got out for hand fast. After just six days and after Zimbardo himself was being sucked into the experiment to the point that he was growing increasingly upset, it was terminated. And Milgram's quotation above is just as applicable to the Prison Experiment as to the Obedience Experiment.

Both experiments suggest that a person's social role, especially if it involves exercising power over others, can have a strong influence on their behavior. In the case of the Prison Experiment this includes their apparel and their means of physically controlling the people over whom they are exercising their power. Psychological means of control, such as verbal bullying, were also employed.

Except for Crudup, who portrayed Dr. Zimbardo, I didn't recognize any of the other actors but everyone in movie did a great job. Zimbardo, along with his wife, Dr. Christina Maslach (Olivia Thirlby), went on to investigate the psychology of power and authority. It's worthwhile mentioning that the late French social philosopher, Michel Foucault (1926-1984), also probed the various uses and abuses of power in society.

Have these works made any dent in practice on world politics? As far as I can tell, no they haven't. Have they made any dent in practice on professions such as the police that rely heavily on asserting their authority? I can't positively say, but given all the problems that have been occurring in various venues in the US over the past several years, it wouldn't appear so.

The movie should make us all think. Most of us believe we're decent human beings. We would never do such things to other human beings. Milgram's and Zimbardo's experiments suggest otherwise.

Some seem to think everyone knows the results of such experiments and consequently it was a ho-hum we-all-know-that kind of reaction to the movie. If that's the case, why is the behavior repeated over and over? Humanity can't learn from past mistakes? Such a cynical view isn't going to help us much.

10 out of 10.

We have a brief outline of the story of Nelly Lenz (Nina Hoss), a woman of Jewish heritage and German nationality, who when confronted by her friend, Lene (Nina Kunzendorf), practically screams out the words, "I'm not a Jew." She means of course that she neither practices the Jewish religion nor even identifies with Jewish culture. She is in her mind a German. And just as good a German as any other German. But under the inexorable and draconian laws promulgated by the Third Reich, whether she identifies with Jewishness or Judism or she doesn't is totally irrelevant. She is a Jew.

She and her gentile husband, Johnny (Ronald Zehrfeld), were part of an artistic group of people in Berlin before World War II erupted. He was a pianist; she was a singer. They partied with their friends and they had a good time. Together they made a team. They were made for each other. And as Germany slid inexorably into its Final Solution, Johnny and Nelly hid out, successfully eluding the German authorities until 1944. Then suddenly out of the blue Nelly was picked up as a Jew and sent to one of the extermination camps for Jews. Her non-Jewish friends, and Johnny too, were convinced once she was sent to one of the camps, her fate was sealed. She was as good as dead.

But Nelly survived the death camp. During the confusion of the last days of the war when Nazi Germany was being overrun by the Soviet army and any semblance of order was collapsing, Nelly escaped. During the escape part of her face got blown away by a shotgun blast causing severe disfigurement. We first glimpse her with bandages soaked with blood in a car being driven by her German Jewish friend, Lene, who has found her and is driving her back to Berlin, where she will have reconstructive surgery on her face. The performing surgeon suggests that since she's getting a new face, she might as well look like a famous actress or some other celebrated personality. But she insists she wants to look like her old self. The results are mixed. She has the same slender body she had before and somewhat of a facial resemblance to her former self. But not enough for an easy match.

Lene informs her all her close relatives are dead and she is an only heir of a small fortune. She wants Nelly to forget the past and emigrate to Israel with her. Nelly is sickened by the news. But more than that. She is still deeply in love with Johnny and wants to rekindle the way it was with him before the war. We understand now why she wanted to look like her former self. In fact, why she was desperate to look like her former self. Lene tells Nelly that she suspects that Johnny's the one who turned her in. Nelly becomes distraught. But she doesn't really believe it. Lene knows the truth. Because Nelly doesn't want to believe it.

As an aside, there's a subplot in the movie revolving around Lene and Nelly that remains ambiguous. Clearly they are friends. But were they childhood friends? Or friends later on in life? And then there's the suggestion of latent homosexuality, especially on Lene's end but not so much on Nelly's. Possibly Nelly's non-interest is a factor in Lene's suicide.

Nelly sets out to find Johnny. She locates him in a dangerous and sleazy part of Berlin working as a clean-up man in a nightclub called Phoenix. She's shocked because he doesn't recognize her as his wife. She doesn't believe Lene's story. But even though she's still crazy about him, she must find the truth. She doesn't reveal to him her true identity. He sees in her enough resemblance to push her into acting like her real self so he can get his hands on the fortune she's been left. He begins training her in the role of impersonating―herself.

The ending is the saddest part of the movie. So nuanced and well done it will make you reel it is so powerful. In fact, the acting and directing are superb. So superb the movie stands on the director (Christian Petzold)), the plot and the actors. There's enough drama in it that although not an action movie, it moves along remarkably well, chiefly through the internal conflicts and struggles of its protagonist. However, if you're an action buff, this movie would definitely not be for you.

I would conjecture that the movie's title refers more to Nelly (almost literally) arising from the ashes of the extermination camp and recreating a new self, including a new face to present to the world. In spite of the horrors she's endured in the camp and the unimpeachable proof provided by Lene before her suicide that the man Nelly truly loved betrayed her, she goes on. She must go on. No longer so vulnerable, she has matured. But her world has grown the darker for it. There are so many ways one human being can torture another. (Let me count the ways.)

I give it a 10 out of 10. Should win an Oscar for best Foreign Film imo.

I wanted to like this movie because I like Pierce Brosnan and Milla Jovovich. But it comes across as too formulaic and too predictable. Lots of blow-'em-ups and shoot-em-'ups but we know where it's all going before it gets there. No surprises or twists. Too wooden. The script could have used a lot more work, giving it more depth and character development. And did I mention a bit sanctimonious.

OK. Some of the special effects were well done, especially the bomb scene in the restaurant. Brosnan isn't bad as the Watchmaker, a stone-cold, sheer psychopath who doesn't bat an eye taking out other humans. But there wasn't much to his character beyond this. This guy is supposed to be the most topnotch assassin on the market, but try as he may, he can't even take out a State Department Foreign Service Officer and security whiz, Kate Abbott (Jovovich), whose job it is to screen suspicious people applying for a visa to enter the US. And believe me, he tries. This woman must have been a cat in her previous life. She has at least nine lives and seemingly a lot more. And the secondary characters? Ho hum.

I can think of worse ways to spend a 96 minutes I guess. It has loads of action with the good guys thinking Abbott's a bad guy, with the exception of her stalwart boss (Dylan McDermott) who knows she's really a good guy, and all the while as she's constantly on the run from the good guys, she's being relentlessly pursued by the real bad guy (Brosnan). But in the end nothing much surprising about it. All being said, thrillers need to have a lot more thrilling going on than this one has to make it a thrilling experience.

All I can give it is 5 out of 10.

That's the world of Mad Max Fury Road. Our world. Earth. As it is in the forthcoming future. A desert planet where once was green vegetation is now only sand and salt (dried out ocean beds). And hostile tribes of different peoples, some possibly mutants, war with each other for scarce resources, one of most scarce being water.

The plot is simplicity itself. A powerful warlord and cult-leader, the ugly and evil Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), who wears a hideous mouth mask, holds power supreme over an impoverished people. From his balcony at the Citadel, his stronghold, like a beneficent god he opens three floodgates, allowing gushing water to fall to the waiting masses below.

He also has a private harem, and a wandering woman, Furiosa (Charlize Theron) has stolen five of them, all beauties, because she must rescue them (she alludes to being abducted as a child from her native land and perhaps serviced such a warlord herself). She drives off into the desert with a truck holding a tank-load of gasoline and with the women safely stowed away in the passenger compartment.

Unknown to her Max (Tom Hardy), an itinerant wanderer overwhelmed with guilt by the death of his wife and daughter that he could not prevent, captured and tortured by the warlord's warriors, escapes and hitches a ride on Furiosa's truck. Wary of each other at first, they come to terms and are soon cooperating. Which is a good thing.

Because the warlord learns that five of his beautiful sex slaves, one prominently pregnant, have been abducted. Brimming with rage he storms out after her with his army of goons into the barren desert in full pursuit to capture his women and carry them back and in the process destroy Furiosa. And so the battle begins.

The goon army armed to the teeth and plowing through the desert in their makeshift but deadly vehicles with their banners flapping in the breeze and their massive oversized tires and their strange music filling the air and pursuing with full and deadly fury Furiosas'a truck and savoring the sweet revenge that they will unleash on her when they catch up with her looks for all purposes like some malevolent caravan of motley beasts guided by miscreant creatures straight out of the Wizard of Oz. Or the gates of Hell.

Furiosa sees her deed as a way of finding redemption, partly because she herself must have served some warlord. Max tells her: If you can't fix what's broken, you will go insane. She must face the fact that the land she left, her green land, is forever gone. Max tells her in order to find the green land again, she must return to the Citadel. Furiosa with Max's help, and also with the help of the young women whom she's rescued, must battle the warlord's warriors all the way back. And what a fight. Total mayhem like so many wars. Vicious and merciless. And fought to the bitter end.

Normally I don't much care for blow-'em-ups/shoot-'em-ups and this movie has it in spades, far enough to satisfy the most hard-bitten action junkie. But from a review, I read that Charlize Theron was in the movie, and playing the main character to boot. It's as much her movie as it is Hardy's. Possibly even more so. Normally I don't see a movie because a particular actor's in it, but I've seen her in several movies and she's very good.

The cinematography is outstanding. Most of the movie was filmed in the Namib desert in Namibia, an African republic to the northwest of South Africa. The red desert with its large, forbidding rock formations is stunning. And the formidable sandstorm that rushes down on them like an enormous tsunami is incredible. I have a scene like that in a book I wrote. But words must be chosen very carefully and even then it remains challenging to capture the moving action of such a titanic thing. The music convincingly supports the militant and life-or-death hand-to-hand fighting taking place. Brutality begets the beast. It's my understanding that very few of the scenes were CGI-generated (the great sandstorm must have been though). If that is so, then I must say they are all splendidly done. Kudos to Miller for his directing.

I give it 10 out of 10. I'd like to say a bit about my ratings. I read one reviewer who said he doesn't like to give any movie a 10 out of 10 because it can always be made better. If one looks at a movie like any other work of art, this is true. No work of art exists, or will ever exist, that somehow couldn't stand a bit of improvement. I'm a writer and know that myself. An artist must do the very best job they can with the skills they possess. But that being said, the work must end so the artist can reach their audience. Otherwise, the work of art is a perpetual ongoing project. So, if the directing, script, acting, score, and cinematography are of very high quality, then I give it 10 out of 10. Yes, it could probably have been worked on more. But then, there would never be a movie that could actually be seen by viewers like me.

I vaguely remember the original Mad Max series from the 1980s and they struck me as tongue-in-cheek (notwithstanding Miller wrote and directed these too). As far as I was concerned, they could have taken place in a galaxy far, far away. But not so this Mad Max. If you get beyond the action, there's a hard look at where the future of this planet may be heading in the not so distant future. And it's not a pretty future.

I saw this movie based on a movie review in a national magazine to which I subscribe The magazine gave it a 4 out of 4. Based on this review, I saw the movie. I have no idea what the reviewer was thinking of. On this rating scale I'd give it a 1.5. At very best a 2. The music score was pretty good.

This movie could have been called Young Adult Angst in Spades. There are few adults in the movie and those that do occasionally show up have minute parts that last a few moments. They could easily have been left out entirely. The movie plays on the worst fears of a young adult. To be followed by some creepy guy or woman who shows up unexpectedly when you were just feeling safe and secure. The only new spin the movie gives it is all this is a curse brought on by having sex with someone who already has the curse.

Jay (Maika Monroe) has a date with a guy (Jake Weary) to see a movie. Shown in a movie theater that looked like one straight out of the 1940s BTW (nothing wrong with that-surprised it's still around). The guy has the curse and he takes Jay to a strange deserted parking structure and they make love. Not an exactly romantic place to make love in but fits in with the creepy theme. After the love making they see a creepy creature creeping towards them. Slowly. And I mean slowly.

So, Jay now catches sight of creepy creatures creeping slowly towards her all over the place. This really freaks her out. Kelly (Lili Sepe), Jay's sister, and Paul (Keir Gilchrist), Kelly's boyfriend, try to help Jay rid herself of the creepy creatures. As an aside, at the beginning of the movie it's suggested that if you get tired of creepy creatures creeping slowly towards you and you just give up, they eventually catch up with you and rip your limbs off. But Jay doesn't know this.

Anyway, Kelly is OK with Paul sleeping with Jay so the curse will be passed on to him (Paul's been lusting after Jay for a long time anyway so this works for him). They make love and then wait in dire expectation. But nothing happens. True love triumphs over the curse of the creepy creatures creeping slowly?

It's hard to make a really good spook movie. I'll concede that. Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece in this genre, The Shining, raised the bar awfully high. If you're going to make one, probably best to create a good bit of psychological scaffolding to support the spook part, as the recent The Babadook did.

A 4 out of 10. As I said, the music score was pretty good. And that old theater (guess it still exists in Detroit). Wow! I liked that.

At last, a sci-fi movie that combines brains, suspense, a captivating android, and a 3-player poker game where the first player knows what the second one is going to do but isn't sure about the third one. No blow-'em-ups effects needed here. In fact the most stunning special effect is Ava's quasi-robotic, and erotic, android body and Alicia Vikander plays her to perfection.

Nathan (Oscar Isaac) is an eccentric recluse who has founded the largest and best online search engine company in the world, BlueBook (named after the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's lecture notes from 1933-34―the other being the Brown Book which addressed 1934-35). A software genius, Nathan wrote the entire code needed to start BlueBook from scratch at the age of 13 and it has made him a multibillionaire enabling him to live where he wants to live, how he wants to live, and why he wants to live. The why is embodied in his relentless pursuit. Having founded an outstanding software-based company, he now avidly pursues his passion for strong AI.

From his lair (in what I took to be Alaska*) Nathan sets up a computer contest among his employees, ostensibly to discover who is the best programmer. Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) wins the contest and is flown in by private helicopter to Nathan's estate in the midst of a rugged and incredibly beautiful wilderness landscape to meet Nathan. A significant honor for Caleb. Except that he doesn't know at this time he won the contest because he was wired to win.

Nathan's mansion functions also as his entirely private research facility, and he is determined to take strong AI all the way to its predestined epiphany: the creation of a fully functional android that can pass as human in any and all circumstances whatever. Ava is his hottest latest creation. A walking, talking, android robot who except for some of her obvious robotic features resembles a fully functional human female, and an eye-catcher at that. There's a previous creation around too, Kyoko (Sonoya Mizuno). She's Nathan's slave and treated as such.

Caleb has a week at Nathan's estate to test Ava to see if she can pass the Turing Test, the sterling litmus test that differentiates a computer from a human being. If the computer passes, it is considered to possess a fully functioning mind capable of decision making and independent thought, a self-conscious awareness of who she is, and along with these her will to survive and her capacity to take pleasure in sexual experiences. For the latter Nathan has furnished her with an artificial vagina with sensors that register pleasure when stimulated. Much of this is part of Kyoko's repertoire too and although she's mute, she's not as dumb as she seems. She does good sex too. And with her master and creator. Some viewers may find this creepy.

Caleb is the epitome of the geek. A shy, very bright, introverted young man orphaned at 15 with no brothers or sisters, and no girl friend either. He is all alone in the world. In short, fully open and vulnerable to Ava's charms. Nathan of course knew all this beforehand. He even knows Ava's face fits Caleb's pornography profile of most frequently viewed females. When asked about this, Nathan points out the many advantages of easy access to mine different individual's data through BlueBook. For all these reasons Caleb was the perfect fit. And unknown to him, Nathan has his own version of the Turing Test: Caleb is the front-guy whose strings are being pulled by Nathan―and also by Ava. Ava is a prisoner in Nathan's mountain retreat and has never been allowed out of her room. She longs for freedom. And she also fears that Nathan may decide to "retire" her and commence on a newer model. Caleb falls in love with her and they plot to escape together.

Nathan even warns Caleb. Does she truly love you? Or does she only seem to love you to gain her freedom? Caleb believes the first. A disastrous mistake. Things get dicey. Nathan is murdered. Caleb ends up trapped in Nathan's mansion because the entire power system that controls the locks has been jimmied. He can't escape. He begs Ava to release him. She gives him a wistful glance and then walks out into the open to keep the rendezvous with the waiting helicopter to whisk her away to the freedom she so desperately desires and to free her from her incessant fear of being terminated. And at this point she looks like a fully embodied human being, thanks to some convenient borrowings from some of Nathan's earlier creations.

The last scene we see her in a vast square where she stands very pleased with herself, glancing at human beings walking by and treating her like "anyone" else. She has passed the Turing Test with flying colors. A being fully cognizant of her powers and fully capable of feigning love and of treacherous deceit. A true human being. Or is she?

As an aside, strong AI opens both many ethical (a religious person would say, moral) issues and technological issues. Can a creature made from synthetic electronic circuits and programmed like any other computer fully function as a human being? Would such a creature be able to reproduce? Which is one of the most salient features of all life on Earth. And just because we can do something, should we do it? And how would such a creature be energized? Great strides have been made in battery technology. But a battery that only requires to be charged once a century is still far off. And the use of any battery system would still have to depend on a reliable source of electricity, such as the Grid.

I hope Alex Garland will continue directing sci-fi movies. With Ex Machina he's created a high bar for himself.

I give it 10 out of 10.

* Norway actually.

The Soviet Union (1930s to 1953)

The movie opens with a starving, desperate boy escaping from a Ukrainian orphanage in the early 1930s during the great famine which ultimately killed millions in Ukraine. The killings are now known as the Holodomor and were Joseph Stalin's doing as he used draconian measures to force the Ukrainian kulaks to give up their independent farms and adopt collectivization on state-controlled collective farms. Stalin was also responsible for the systematic deportations and murders of prominent Ukrainians. Approximately ten million perished in this great purge. In the US during the Second World War people fondly referred to Stalin as Uncle Joe, but Stalin was no kindly uncle. He was directly responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings as was Adolph Hitler. Both were monsters. And although the two political systems of Nazism and Communism were at the opposite ends of the political spectrum, both used the same methods: leader adulation, brutal force, rampant devastation, and mass murder. And both totally despised each other to the last core of their being.

The boy is rescued by Soviet troops and adopted by a Russian officer, who renames him Leo. He becomes Leo Demidov (Tom Hardy). And the next scene we see him and his wartime buddy, Alexei Andreyev (Fares Fares), storming the German Reichstag in Berlin and hoisting the bright red Soviet flag flapping in the wind on the roof of the Reichstag, showing to what was left of the battered German forces that the Soviets had taken their capital, Berlin.* This was on 2 May 1945 and the photo taken of this event became as symbolic in the Soviet Union as the photo of the four US Marines hoisting the flag on Iwo Jima. The war in Europe ended May 8 with the unconditional surrender of Germany to the Allied Forces of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union.

There are no murders in paradise. Paradise being the Soviet Union, which was considered a paradise for the workers. So, there could be no murders committed there by loyal Soviet citizens. Any murder was considered the work of capitalist spies who were out to destroy the Soviet Union. We now see Leo Demidov in 1953 where he is a high-level MGB investigator who has been smitten with Raisa (Noomi Rapace) and soon they are married, although we learn later her motive for marriage was far different from what Leo could ever have imagined.

We see Leo at work tracking down people believed to be spies against the Soviet Union. We see torture and killings. We see mass arrests and harassment of ordinary Soviet citizens by MGB police. The "spy" taken captive by Leo's staff under torture reveals names of seven others, and among them is Raisa. In the midst of all this Alexei's son is brutally murdered, but the MGB authorities label his death as an accident because officially there are no murders. Soon Leo and Raisa are transported to Volsk, Siberia as a demotion and Leo must report to the general of the militia there, General Mikhail Nesterov (Gary Oldman). Another child is murdered in Volsk, and Leo convinces General Nesterov that someone is purposefully and systematically murdering children. Eventually Leo and Raisa track down the murderer with the help of Nesterov. The murderer makes a stunning confession to Leo before being shot by Leo's adversary and Bete Noire, Vasili (Joel Kennaman). Leo triumphs over Vasili and Raisa realizes she's married a good man.

The movie has many good points. The acting is very good and the scenery and costumes struck me as being very convincing in their depiction of the Soviet Union in 1953 and the kind of living that must have prevailed there in those times. The chief problem with the movie is that it tackles as many flaws of the Soviet system as it can, and the theme of the title, Child 44, seemed to get lost in the many comings and goings. Of what I've read, the book does the same thing. Since I've never read it, I can't comment on how successful, or unsuccessful, the book was following this approach. But following this approach in the movie means the movie's focus keeps shifting and the one-thing-right-after-another introduces too many subthemes for the audience to readily relate to. Too many things to chew on, so to speak. Some serious editing was required and it didn't happen.

I can only give this movie a 7 out of 10. Good try though. And I'd still recommend it as a good historical drama set in one of the US's most tenacious adversaries at the height of its power and influence.

* It's not exactly clear who the actual Soviet soldier was who hoisted the flag on the roof of the Reichstag. Suggesting his name was Leo Demidov is artistic license on the part of the movie.

This movie's a whodunit but the "who" isn't a murderer that needs to be apprehended but rather someone trying to put a competitor out of business. That competitor is Abel Morales (Oscar Isaac). Morales has clawed his way up and out of an immigrant neighborhood (presumably Puerto Rican), climbing the ladder of success selling heating oil in the New York-northern New Jersey marketplace where the heating-oil delivery business is dominated by about a dozen big shots, all of whom are teetering on the blurry line separating the legal from the illegal. It didn't hurt that along the way he married the boss's daughter, Anna (Jessica Chastain), whose father was in the same business (we're told he has a bad reputation).

It's 1981 but times are tough, 1981 becoming one of the most violent years in New York history. And Morales isn't spared his share of violence. He's poised to complete a real estate transaction buying a storage tank yard having direct access to overseas shipping. This purchase would shoot him right up to the very top, so he's positioning himself to dominate the heating oil business. The price is 2 million (about $5,500,000 today). He puts up $500,000 and has to come up with the remaining 1.5 million or the deal falls through and he loses all his earnest money. But someone has been ordering two armed thugs to hijack his tanker trucks at gunpoint, siphon off the oil, and sell it to his competitors. And to make things worse, Morales is also having trouble with the special adjunct District Attorney (David Oyelowo), who's preparing an indictment against him.

Throughout the entire movie Morales asserts his honesty over and over. He insists someone is screwing with him, trying to put him out of business. His drivers are being intimidated by the two thugs. He has the Teamster trucking boss (Peter Gerety) call all the big shots to a meeting. There he tells them pointblank one of them is behind it all. They all proclaim their innocence. "Stop," he says to them emphatically, "just stop." Then he marches out, his indignation practically falling off his shoulders and smashing the floor with a resounding thud.

Due to all the bad publicity his banker, Arthur Lewis (John Procaccino), tells Morales he can't advance him the 1.5 million to complete the storage tank yard purchase even though he assured Morales he would at dinner the night before. Panicking, Morales pleads with the seller, Josef (Jerry Adler), to give him more time to pull the deal through. He gets three days, pulling together the 1.5 million from diverse sources, including $600,000 embezzled by his wife from their own company for a rainy day. He's furious at her―after all, he's impeccably honest, remember?―but this is the proverbial rainy day if there ever was one. The purchase goes through and he, his wife, and his counselor (Albert Brooks), stand around admiring the new purchase when one of his drivers, Julian (Elyes Gabel), whom he's fired shows up waving a gun and starts berating him. Morales approaches him and they talk in whispers. Morales promises Julian he'll take care of Julian's family. I won't reveal the ending but it is climactic.

So who's the who in whodunit? If I knew, I wouldn't tell, but I don't. I can think of several people as possibilities. I only watched the movie once, and probably missed several important clues. But keep your eye carefully focused on Julian. That's all I'll say.

Not only a crackerjack whodunit but also an adequate action movie with a great car/truck chase. There are a few loose ends but the acting is great. This is the director's (J.C. Chandor) third movie in four years. It turns out I saw his first two movies when they came out, Margin Call (2011) and All is Lost (2013), but I didn't know he had also directed them until I watched A Most Violent Year. All three movies are outstanding each in its own way (All is Lost is totally unique), and I strongly recommend each of them. I'm looking forward with anticipation to his next film.

Sit back and enjoy and see whom you come up with for the who.

9/10

Although this movie takes place in Belgium, watching it I couldn't help but think that it applies to the skilled working class* of the US also, or what's left of it. The relentless competition from abroad, living from hand to mouth, hoping you won't get laid off, hoping you don't have to accept charity (welfare, the dole, whatever you want to call it). Just hoping the boss will give you a raise because you desperately need one. Just hoping you're survive another day at the job. And every day there's the unrelenting stress.

We have to piece together the story as the movie develops. Sandra (Marion Cotillard), a married woman, has recovered from severe depression and has returned to work at her job, which is as a skilled worker at a solar panel production facility on the outskirts of Liège in French-speaking Belgium (Wallonie). We never learn what brought on her breakdown, but it was probably the litany of factors cited in the paragraph above.

The first day back at work (Friday) she discovers her fellow co-workers (16 in all) voted for the choice of having her back at work or having her laid off and each receive a bonus of 1000 Euros. Two of her co-workers voted to keep her on; the other 14 opted for the bonus. She goes frantic. She needs her job back. Without the money she was making, she, her husband Manu (Fabrizio Rongione), and their two children will lose their house, which is more than a house. It is the place that they call home where they live together as a family. Her friend, Juliette (Catherine Salée), helps her prevail upon the plant manager, Mr. Dumont (Batiste Sornin), into having another vote on Monday, this time a secret ballot, where if a majority of workers vote to keep her, she can return to work at her old job. This sets the stage for the remainder of the movie.

Over the weekend Sandra must persuade at least nine of her co-workers to vote for her in the Monday election or she's out. Here's a woman recovering from an anxiety breakdown that has put her on medical leave and popping Xanax at a moment's notice to relieve the stress she's under, and now she has to converse personally with each of her co-workers on a one-to-one level and convince each that he or she ought to vote for her to return to her job and give up their bonus. Each one has his or her own reasons why they need that 1000 Euros, and to make it worse Sandra understands completely where they're coming from. Almost all of them tell her they didn't vote against her personally but for the bonus. She finds out the foreman cajoled many of them to either face getting laid off themselves or take the bonus and he's also been calling them that weekend to stay firm with their vote.

This is the barebones of the movie. The acting's very good, including all the supporting cast. We feel for these people struggling to keep their heads above water. Unlike most American movies, this movie doesn't employ music to convey the feelings the movie's expressing (or trying to express). My only quibble (thus the 9 out of 10) is the ending. Given that Sandra is desperately trying to hold her anxiety attacks under control by knocking down Xanax tablets one after another, and going so far that on Sunday evening in a total fit of despair attempts to OD on them, Monday after the plant manager tells her she got eight votes but can stay at her job, she voluntarily turns down his offer because she will not allow a contract employee to lose his job so she can keep hers. An unselfish gesture. But now that she's jobless, it doesn't seem to stress her out that much. She cheerfully claims she'll just get another job. Well, why didn't she just do that in the beginning? Although we might welcome such an upbeat ending, it doesn't quite ring true. A more convincing ending would have been if Mr. Dumont capitulated and said he'd keep all 17 employed. That would have motivated all of them and quite possibly increased productivity so the business would compete better against its foreign competitors. And it would have been a plausible win-win situation for everyone.

This is the first movie I've seen directed by the Dardenne brothers. If they're into movies that tackle difficult social issues, I'd like to see what they could do with the theme of integration (or lack thereof) of minority groups in Europe, and especially in France.

9/10

* The older term for this class is blue-collar. This expression seems antiquated and more appropriate for the 20th century.

The enigma of course being Alan Turing. Did Alan Turing break the German Enigma code all by himself? Of course not. The movie does suggest without Turing it would never have been done. True or false? One of those questions rather difficult to answer, so let's just say Turing was a math genius (or maths genius) whose seminal work in artificial intelligence drastically changed the world and the course of World War II. And in the movie he comes across as the kind of guy who is completely wrapped up in his ideas on computing and breaking the Enigma code and concomitant with this is uncomfortable around other people and having to deal with them. From what I know of him, this is an accurate portrayal.

The movie perfectly captures the state of Britain in the early years of the war (4 August 1939 through early 1942). Once France was knocked out of the war by the triumphant German Army (June 1940) and the Soviet Union still allied to Nazi Germany, Britain was completely isolated and facing a Europe either under direct Nazi control or allied with Germany.

The Blitz, the strategic bombing campaign conducted by the Germans on Britain, ran from September 1940 through May 1941. The German Luftwaffe routinely bombed major cities in Britain, and because of Hitler's mania (the British dared to bomb Berlin the night of 25 August 1940), Hitler had the Luftwaffe specifically target London. The devastation was enormous. Add to this the unrelenting submarine warfare Germany was conducting on British shipping, and also US ships carrying aid (the US was not officially in WW II until 7 December 1941), Britain was suffering severely from the war. In truth it was losing it. And one of the chief means the Germans used for communications was the Enigma code. The British had to decipher it―or face losing the war.

Enter Bletchley Park and Alan Turing. Bletchley Park was the top-secret location where the British were desperately trying to break the Enigma code, and Turing greatly helped to facilitate this achievement. Turing was clearly a man who lived in his own world of ideas, ideas so out of the ordinary (at that time) that very few people could grasp them. And he often did a poor job of communicating effectively those then strange and bizarre, but brilliant, ideas to other people. All these things come across quite clearly in the movie.

I've read several criticisms that claim the movie leaves much out. For example, Turing traveled to the US doing the time period that the movie covers. So what? To cover all these details would have made the movie inordinately long. Suitable for a book. Not for a movie.

Is the movie entertaining? Most certainly yes. You feel you're right there in the midst of the action at all times. The acting is splendid. As I said, the movie captures the dangerous predicament that Britain was in at the time. Regarding casting, Turing wasn't a bad looking man, but he was no Benedict Cumberbatch. And Ms. Joan Clarke? Not exactly a Keira Knightley. Again, so what? They did a great job in acting in their portrayal of Turing and Clarke. The supporting cast is good too. And Cumberbatch's and Knightley's presence undoubtedly help sell the movie to the general public, many of whom probably never heard of Turing and might never have were it not for this movie.

Regarding Turing's homosexuality, today we wonder what the fuss was all about. Although the movie doesn't downplay it, it doesn't make it the primary focus either. It was though what ultimately led him to take his own life. Turing's fate is a true shame. One wonders what he might have dreamed up if he had lived his full span of years.

Highly recommended. 10/10

I'd like to give this movie a higher rating. I like Joaquin Phoenix. He's a good actor. The rest of the actors in the movie were good, and some very good, given the roles they had to play. Paul Thomas Anderson, the director, has shown he is a master of his trade. He directed both There Will Be Blood (2008) and The Master (2012), both outstanding movies.

The protagonist of The Master, Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), is a sociopath. A sociopath is out to get where he wants to get, and he has no difficulty using other humans as stepping stones to where he wants to get. Dodd relies chiefly on persuasion and manipulation that he has the answer to everything. The protagonist of There Will Be Blood, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), is a sociopath who will do whatever it takes to make it big in the then-new oilfields of California. He relies on persuasion and manipulation too, but will resort to murder. He is more violence-prone than Dodd. But they're cut from the same cloth.

The reason I mention the above two movies is that both Dodd and Plainview hold strange and unsettling ideas. Sociopaths very often end up believing in themselves. But both fit into a setting that is ultimately understandable if you take them at face value. Not so in Inherent Vice. Everyone is just weird, even the protagonist, Larry "Doc" Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix), whether they're high as a kite or not. OK so back in late '60s-'70s lots of people drifted through life stoned out of their gourd. That said, the movie's a confused tangle of murder; crazy cops; FBI kidnappings of bigtime real estate moguls; dentists off their rockers; Asian ladies warning of the Golden Fang (Chinese tong, smuggling drug dealers, or an association of dentists? Who knows?); ex-girl friend who may, or may not, be threatened. Who knows? She sure knows how to make great loving though.

Anderson wrote the screenplay for both There Will Be Blood and Inherent Vice. There Will Be Blood was based on Upton Sinclair's novel by the same name. And although the movie itself has many dark and strange facets, it doesn't miss its mark. Anderson possibly could have done better in adapting Thomas Pynchon's book by the same name to make it more of a dark comedy (I'm assuming with one of Pynchon's books that that could be done although that might very well be the problem here).

Inherent Vice's too loose and flighty, even for LA in 1970. And although there are a few scenes that evoke smiles and laughs, there're not enough to them. Charlie Manson is mentioned at least twice in the movie, but unless you knew who he was and what he did, you wouldn't think anything of it. Charlie and his gang of crazed devotees ended the age of innocence that made the '60s what it was. Reality came crashing down and busted up the party.

The other thing I didn't get was the accompanying music. The late '60s was the era of classic rock. Where was it in the movie? The music didn't suggest flower children LSD tripping either. What did it suggest exactly? Who knows?

You could just chalk the whole thing down as one big doped out hallucinatory romp of Doc Sportello, who had marijuana smoke almost coming out his ears. Maybe that's the best way to enjoy Inherent Vice. Watch strange characters (well-acted too) drift in and out of strange scenes that may, or may not, have any connection to anything else in the movie. Who knows? Well, here you might be tempted to say, the Shadow knows. But maybe he was the guy who got bumped off at the beginning. The movie should have been titled Inherent Whackiness. The problem I had was all of it got a bit cloying after awhile. But Anderson deserves credit for his shot at trying to adapt a Pynchon book into movie format. Sadly, it didn't quite cut it.

As an aside, a movie that more realistically captures the pulse of the early '70s scene in LA is Wonderland (2003).

6/10

This movie covers the last twenty-five years in the life of the British landscape painter, J.M.W. (Joseph Mallord William) Turner (1775-1851)―not to be confused with another British landscape painter of the same period, William Turner (1789-1862). Since I'm not an art historian, I consulted Wikipedia before composing this review. Based on this reading and facts gleaned from it, it's clear the movie opens in the early 1820s when Turner has returned from the Netherlands and clearly intends to resume painting in his studio.

There is no doubt that J.M.W. Turner (Timothy Spall) was an artistic genius. Based on his work when he was a mere boy, in 1790 he was inducted into the Royal Academy of Art as a full member at the age of fifteen. And as he aged, he clearly leapt beyond the traditional and accepted way of doing art in his time. Many of his later paintings display complexities in form, color, composition, and perspective to the extent that they suggest works of a much later era.

He was obsessed with getting the details of his paintings absolutely correct, and he stuck over and over again to certain themes, especially those dealing with the sea. He habitually returned to the coastal town of Margate in Kent. It was there in the mid-1820s where he met his second mistress,* Sophia Caroline Booth (Marion Bailey), while she was still married and renting rooms with her husband. After her husband died, Turner lived with her off and on for eighteen years in a house she'd purchased in Chelsea through the sale of her Margate boarding house. Turner also had a complex relationship with his housemaid, Hannah Danby (Dorothy Atkinson), whom he used for sex when the desire overtook him.

In the movie when he is told by his physician he is dying, he remarks, "So, soon I shall become a non-entity." On his deathbed on 19 December 1851 he jerks up and shouts, "The sun is god." According to what I found, the first remark may, or may not, have ever been uttered. But if it were, it would indicate that Turner did not believe in an afterlife, and therefore did not believe in an immortal soul. The Wikipedia article does suggest that he did utter the second remark, "The sun is god."

What can be said about the movie itself? First, the costuming, cinematography, and acting are superb. It renders a fully convincing portrayal of the manners and mores of England at the end of the Georgian Era (George III, George IV, William IV). And its focus on the discourses engaged in by the English upper classes captures them oscillating from silly frivolity to banal pretentiousness as the "dark, satanic mills" of the industrial revolution encroach ever further into English life. Don't miss the scene in the Ruskin household between the then young John Ruskin (Joshua McGuire) and his father's guests as they debate art. And the scene where Turner submits to having his daguerreotype made by John E. Mayall (Leo Bill) is exquisitely done. If I were rating the movie based solely on these factors, it would give a 10/10 without hesitation.

But there are some issues. One reviewer of this movie complained it was merely a series of unrelated episodes. That's one of the dangers of a biopic. How do you compress thirty years of a man's life into two-and-a-half hours? The director, Mike Leigh, attempts to maintain a pivotal focus throughout the movie, which is on Turner's art and his evolution as a painter. However, he could have done better because the art often gets lost in the countless episodes. Another problem with the movie is it starts in Turner's middle age. What happened to his youth? Without any insight into this part of Turner's life, the viewer can't adequately piece together how Turner evolved as an artist. Of course making a biopic that included Turner's youth would have made for a very long movie, although it could have been broken into two separate movies. Would this have been a better way to approach a man's life through a biopic? Maybe.

And I must also wonder about how Turner is depicted. Spall gives Turner many odd mannerisms, such as grunting in place of discourse. Was Turner actually like this? I'll have to give the movie the benefit of the doubt on such matters as these.

All in all, I would still highly recommend this movie. In many ways it is impeccable. And we need such movies to remind us that there are better things still out there than the trivial junk that the movie industry thrusts down our throats.

8/10

* Apparently Turner never married.

Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a fast-learning young man striving to find his niche. If this involves theft, well, then he steals. He does what he needs to do to survive in this world red in tooth and claw. And he will claw his way up and out like an alien beast hellbent on smashing through the barriers that are blocking his existence.

I must comment on Gyllenhaal's appearance in this movie. For this role he dropped a little weight and gave Bloom one of the leanest and hungriest looks I've ever seen with searching raygun eyes bulging out of their sockets ready to pounce on anything even faintly smelling of an opportunity to be grabbed and swallowed whole.

At the beginning we catch him in the dead of night clipping off chunks from a chainlink fence with heavy weight pruning shears. Confronted by a security guard he at first claims to be lost, but then without warning he lashes out like a coiled serpent and strikes the man down. In the next scene we see him driving away admiring the man's wristwatch, which is now on his own wrist. At a scrapmetal company, he attempts to peddle the metal scrap he's stolen. Regurgitating a non-stop ratatat spiel, he frantically tries to cajole the scrapyard's owner to hire him. The owner cases him over carefully with a wary eye and snarls, "I don't hire thieves." Bloom gives him a wry smile and mutely walks out the door. He must claw harder.

Chastised and frustrated Bloom leaves dejected, driving off into the dark night. Cruising along one of the interminable LA freeways trying to figure out what to try next, by sheer chance he spots a car that has overturned at the side of the freeway. By sheer instinct he pulls over and gets out. A woman is trapped inside the car, which threatens to burst into flames at any minute. Two policemen are desperately trying to pull her out before the car flames up. A man, not a cop, is there frantically taking videos of the entire scene with hand-held camcorder. Bloom becomes instantly intrigued. He hears the man as he's calling to sell his tape to the highest bidding TV station as a stunner to open the early morning newscast. Bloom can feel the rush of adrenaline and excitement in this kind of work. He's hooked.

At Venice beach he steals an expensive bicycle and trades it to a pawn dealer for a camcorder and police scanner. Armed with these he tries out this new game for himself and discovers he likes it. Likes it a lot as it turns out. Soon he's off making his own nocturnal forays across the city seeking out horrific accidents and shocking crimes, turning them into videos and hustling them to TV studios as blood-splashing openers for the morning news. Very quickly he lands on a particular TV studio to sell his wares to and obsequiously schmoozes up to the morning news director, Nina Romina (Rene Russo), a woman who herself has clawed her way to the top. She recognizes another clawer in Louis Bloom at first glance.

At first Nina's in control but as Bloom's business picks up, he hires a down-and-out as his assistant, Rick (Riz Ahmed), and pretty soon he's turned the tables on her. He starts calling the shots and demanding more and more privileges and recognition. He's the master of the videos-for-hot-news game. But then he experiences a few setbacks. Nina shouts at him and berates him. He desperately needs a big story to sell the station on. And he lucks out. He gets a blasting hot one. Two thugs shoot a man, his wife, and their housemaid in their plush suburban mansion in Granada Hills. Bloom catches it all on his video recorder, including the license plate of the SUV the murderers flee in, all before the police arrive at the scene. The police are furious at him and want his footage.

Perusing his video Bloom realizes he had the license plate of the SUV, which he excises from the film so that the police can't see it. He wants to get even more bang from his video. And this leads to the denouement when Bloom's true colors come out in a shocking revelation. To enhance his business and career he's willing to create a shootout setup to film leading-edge video coverage for the morning news. Rick (recently promoted to Executive Vice President of Bloom's business in an attempt to satisfy him) is aghast. At this point Bloom says to him, "What if I told you I really don't like people." Rick doesn't want to have any part of it but finally Bloom gets him to take footage. But Rick pays dearly for his insubordination. And in the end Bloom's video news business blooms.

Bloom exhibits a sociopathic personality. A person who uses other human beings as rungs to climb to the top, whatever that top happens to be. Or if you will, fodder for their success. Like Rick. And I've heard several psychologists claim sociopaths are much more common than one would image. Many of them will do drastic things to you if you cross them. Like Bloom.

The acting's outstanding. I've seen Gyllenhaal in several movies and he always turns in a great performance. And his lead characters aren't always flattering. Like Louis Bloom. I don't purposefully see a movie because a particular actor's in it but I find myself seeing a bunch of movies with a particular actor in them because that actor's plainly superb. Like the late Philip Seymour Hoffman. Or Gyllenhaal. The supporting actors are good too. Especially so Rene Russo and Riz Ahmed. Kent Shocknek has a cameo role as a male news anchor at the TV station. Not a difficult role for him to play I would imagine. The directing and cinematography are good, and the movie moves along well.

10/10

In spite of dealing with the sport of wrestling, this movie is not primarily an action movie. And like any movie it must rely on acting, directing, and script. Foxcatcher is no exception, and all three are outstanding, especially the acting, which is superb.

Based on a true story, it is above all the story of three men: Dave Schultz, Mark Schultz, and John Eleuthère (aka the Golden Eagle) du Pont, heir to the immense Du Pont fortune. Dave Schultz (Mark Ruffalo), an American Olympic and world champion freestyle wrestler and a seven-time World and Olympic medalist, is the most normal of the three with a loving wife and two children whom he adores. Dave is a good man and an outstanding wrestling coach. And in addition to his family, Dave sincerely loves his younger brother, Mark (Channing Tatum), also an Olympic medalist (1984). Both shared a difficult childhood that left its effect on both of them and Dave watches out for Mark and is concerned about him. And Mark admits Dave was the only real friend he had in childhood.

Mark is the more problematic of the two brothers. Not terribly articulate or knowledgeable about the world, unmarried and going nowhere in his career, he receives a phone call from a man working for John du Pont. Du Pont wants Mark to come and train at his wrestling training center on his Foxcatcher Farm in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, where he is to be groomed as a top wrestler for the upcoming 1988 Olympics. Mark accepts the invitation, an action that sets in motion everything that transpires all the way to its inevitable dark end. Like a stack of dominoes falling down one after another until none are left standing.

But of the three men John du Pont (Steve Carell) is by far the most problematic. If neuroses took the form of porcupine quills, du Pont would have looked like a two-legged porcupine. The nice thing about Foxcatcher is it doesn't shove du Pont's neuroses down your throat. They are suggested by subtle hints in body language, dialogue, scene, and action, and Carell gives an absolutely amazing performance in his rendition of this deeply troubled man. And Vanessa Redgravc gives an outstanding cameo rendition of John du Pont's manipulative mother, Jean du Pont.

It's fair to say that John du Pont destroyed both Dave Schultz and Mark Schultz in his vain ambition to be mentor, leader, brother, and father to the wrestlers training at his wrestling training center. A man who expected his money to control everything, it couldn't control his own hidden desires that ultimately destroyed him too.

A strong connection exists between this story and Ancient Greece. Not only does the story unfold like a real-life Greek tragedy, but wrestling matches played a prominent part in the games of the Ancient Greek Olympics.

As an aside, Carell is known for his comedy, but he should consider more serious roles because he clearly has the talent to pull them off very effectively. I'd love to see what he could do with Julius Caesar.

10/10

It's World War Two and April of 1945. While the Americans, British, and French cross the Rhine and slash their way through into the heart of Germany, the Russian Soviets have smashed through Eastern Germany and are breaching Berlin. Nazi Germany is teetering on its last legs.

As the American Army advances, they encounter brutal resistance every step of the way. They have to work their way from village to village, cleaning out the tattered remnants of the Wehrmacht (the German Army) that now consists chiefly of teens and even children. Villages are left in rubble, both from the retreating Germans and the entering Allied forces. Hitler's fanatical command from the Führerbunker in Berlin is for every German to fight to the last man, woman, child. The Nazi motto emblazoned on signs and banners pushes this message home: Ein Volk Ein Reich Ein Führer. And for any German that dares show signs of weakening, the SS will torture and hang them.

The movie focuses on an Army tank crew that has been together since the Allied invasion of North Africa (1942) and the crew has suffered its first casualty. Their turret gunner. The crew commander, Sergeant Don Collier (Brad Pitt), aka Wardaddy, is a man forged by three years of relentless war. He's kept his crew together and in one piece by adopting one maxim: kill or be killed. He carries it down to every enemy man, woman, and child he encounters, and to him every German is the enemy. Ironically, he speaks fluent German. And he's been killing them since his North African days.

He's been assigned a new turret gunner, Norman Ellison (Logan Lerman), a raw young recruit trained by the Army to type. "Sixty words a minute," as he claims. Wardaddy knows he has to shape this kid up or things aren't going to work out and he'll be a liability for the crew. The acid test is when Wardaddy grabs a German prisoner caught wearing an American Army trench coat (presumably an infiltrator) and forces Norman to shoot him point blank in the back. Soon Norman is killing Germans and liking it.

The tank squad consisting originally of five tanks with infantry is sent out on several missions, dreading they might run into a Tiger. Their tank is the American Army Sherman, a medium-sized tank but no match for the far better armored German Tiger tank. They liberate a German village and shoot the local SS officer as the one responsible for all the hanging bodies they passed.

This is an outstanding war movie and I've seen quite a few. But it is intense and adrenaline-loaded from its very start to the final end. There is death and dying in almost every scene. But this is war and war is hell. Or as Wardaddy explains to Norman, "Ideals are peaceful; history is violent." "The war will be over soon," he says, "but before it's over, more people will die." Even the scene when Wardaddy and Norman invade the apartment of a German woman (Anamaria Marinca) and her young cousin, Emma (Alicia von Rittberg), the tension is palpable and hovers in the air like the angel of death. Norman is captivated by the young Emma and soon they're swooning over each other. They enter the bedroom together. The tension escalates when the three other crew members show up, but Wardaddy knows how to handle his crew and keeps things in line. As they've leaving the village, shells shriek down from the sky and blow the building with the German woman and Emma in it to smithereens. Norman rushes over and sees the broken dead body of Emma lying in the rubble. But this is war and war is hell, and more people will die before it's over.

Eventually the tanks (reduced to three) set out to hold a crossroads open. They run into a German Tiger, and only Wardaddy's Sherman tank Fury (crudely painted on its cannon barrel) survives the ordeal, defeating the almost invincible Tiger. Reaching the crossroads, their tank hits a land mine that blows apart one of its treads and ruins a road wheel, rendering it motionless. But they've been ordered to defend the crossroads. A determined infantry battalion of about three hundred seasoned Waffen SS approach, and Wardaddy tells his crew they can leave if they want but he's staying. As he says of his tank, Fury, "This is my home." Out of sheer loyalty to their warchief they all stay. One crew member survives the carnage.

The action is realistic to a tee. The acting is good although I found Pitt a bit wooden in a few places. I loved the music. The score was very good but enhanced the movie and did not interfere. I thought the flash photos at the very end were great.

But we learn scarcely nothing about any of the crew members. It's like they had no life before the war. Except for Norman, all the men seem in their thirties, but there's no mention of wives, girl friends, children, what they did before the war. All we really know even of Wardaddy is he speaks fluent German and knows his Bible well as he recites a line from Isaiah before he dies. Their sole existence seems to be entirely consumed as crew members of a tank in wartime and their private lives are a total blank, which I found very strange. For this reason I give it only 8 out of 10.

World War Two ended Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. But it did not end war. Is war endemic to the human species? After five millennia of civilization, one might hope that humans could find a more equitable and rational way to settle their differences. But as Wardaddy said, "Ideals are peaceful; history is violent." If violence is built into human nature, we'd better find a better way to channel it.

Based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, this psychological thriller revolves around the dynamics of three people in 1962 Greece: Chester MacFarland (Viggo Mortensen), his wife, Colette (Kirsten Dunst), and their guide, Rydal (Oscar Isaac).

Early on in the movie we learn Rydal, an expatriate American who speaks fluent Greek, is a hoodwinker, ripping off unsuspecting tourists in Athens, where he is a local tour guide. While guiding a group of giggling girls through the Parthenon, he notices a flashily dressed couple, Chester and Colette MacFarland. Attracted by Chester's clothes bespeaking affluence and his pretty younger wife, Colette, he becomes fascinated by them. Soon he meets up with them, learns they're American too, and proposes to be their tour guide.

But things grow complicated very quickly. Chester it turns out is a crook too who hoodwinks people and rips them off. But he's orders of magnitude above (or below if you wish) Rydal's petty thefts and deceits. Chester's an accomplished hoodwinker who's ripped off some bigshot gangsters back in New York by selling them worthless securities. With all the bucks he's made off the swindle, he and Colette are having a blast of a time touring Europe. But a private detective from the states (David Warshofsky) shows up, representing some of the bigwig suckers and demands that Chester fork over the money he's made or nasty things will happen to him. Soon they're wrestling in the bathroom and Chester inadvertently kills him. He panics. Attempting to return a gold bracelet to Colette, Rydal sees Chester trying to dispose of the detective's body and soon he's up to his ears in the crime too as he helps Chester and Colette apply for forged American passports and flee Athens to Crete. In Crete Chester starts drinking heavily and soon Colette ends up making love with Rydal. In a fit of jealous rage and desperation Chester kills Colette on a staircase in the palace of Knossos and flees. Rydal finds Colette's body and when exiting the area is spotted by a group of schoolgirls and their guide, implicating him. The story ends in Istanbul where Rydal―trying to establish his innocence of both killings―is cooperating with the police to get a confession out of Chester. Chester is fatally shot by the police. While dying, he pulls Rydal towards him and asks if Rydal is carrying a wire. Rydal nods and Chester talks to the microphone. He confesses to both killings and claims they were done entirely by him, thus exonerating Rydal of all wrongdoing.

The story revolves heavily around the interactions between Rydal and the MacFarlands. Each in their own way the MacFarlands grow increasingly dependent on Rydal for emotional support and help in relocating so as not to get caught. And Rydal in his turn grows increasingly dependent on each of them: love and acceptance from Colette and approval and understanding from Chester, the older man who serves as a surrogate for Rydal's non-loving father. The labyrinth at Knossos represents their twisted relationship and Chester's dying confession releasing Rydal from guilt in the killings helps Rydal redeem himself and come to terms with his own father's death. Having never attended his father's funeral, Rydal visits Chester's grave in Istanbul.

The story is fast-paced. During the movie Chester has threatened Rydal several times that if he goes down, Rydal goes down with him. So the ending where Chester releases Rydal from all guilt points to the complicated relationship between himself and Chester. The movie relies on the competent acting and depth of psychological involvement between the protagonists and this helps it along. It has suspense, murder, a cheating wife, a jealous husband, swindles, mistrust, a triangle of love and hatred. But it somehow lacks a cutting edge. Although in some ways The Two Faces of January resembles a Hitchcock thriller, it doesn't have the taut suspense Hitchcock brought to his movies. And an interesting question remains, Why not? The music was good and fit the movie. Possibly the script. I never read the book on which it was based, so I can't say how well, or poorly, the movie adapted the storyline. All in all though I enjoyed the movie.

7/10

At the beginning we see Ethan (Mark Duplass) and Sophie (Kate Moss) in a session with their marriage therapist (Ted Danson). They fell in love instantly but after several years the marriage has soured. Each tries in their own way to get it going again, but to no avail. The marriage has lost its magic. The therapist knows just the place for them to spend a weekend at. He assures them they won't be disappointed. It's a great place to reconnect, and so off they go, driving along country roads to reach their destination. Nothing strange about this. They arrive at the ample-sized, well-appointed house and settle in, desperately trying to reconnect again.

The grounds are lush and beautiful with vegetation and flowers in bloom, and they can see mountains nearby. There is a large gorgeous pool. It's an idyllic spot. Perfect for trying to restore a flagging marriage.

Ethan goes out to explore the grounds. Wandering around, he discovers a guesthouse. He enters. To his surprise he finds Sophie there. She has made him breakfast. Even more surprised, he notes she has made him bacon (which he loves) in spite of the fact she doesn't like its smell. Soon they are making passionate love. She tells him she wants to stay in the guesthouse a while, and so he returns to the main house. When he enters, he discovers Sophie. Surprised that she had beat him back to the main house, he soon learns she knows nothing about the guesthouse, making breakfast for him, or making love with him. Ethan is dumbfounded.

With this introduction things grow progressively weirder. Sophie hears Ethan's story and decides she wants to venture into the guesthouse to see what she finds. There she meets Ethan. But this Ethan isn't quite the same Ethan she left behind in the main house. This Ethan has all the qualities she finds lacking in her Ethan: funny, at ease with himself, sexy. And in addition this Ethan doesn't wear glasses, while her Ethan always does.

The glasses-wearing Ethan takes Sophie to a diner in town where they discuss what they've experienced. They both try to get a hold on what's going on, with Ethan more insistent they should leave immediately. But Sophie talks him into staying. They could just go along with the flow and see what comes of it. What's the harm in that, she implies. Soon Ethan and Sophie are venturing separately into the guesthouse, each to meet their spouse's doppelgänger.

Slowly, inexorably, Sophie falls in love with Ethan 2. Ethan has a good time with Sophie 2. She's a lot of fun, but he's convinced both she and Ethan 2 are just inexplicable figments of his imagination or even possibly creatures from another dimension. Unexpectedly Ethan and Sophie find Ethan 2 and Sophie 2 in the living room of the main house. They all four have dinner together. Ethan stills tries to make rational sense of what's happening, and he and Sophie learn that Ethan 2 and Sophie 2 are trapped on the estate. They can only escape this fate if Ethan falls in love with Sophie 2 and Sophie falls in love with Ethan 2.

In the guesthouse Ethan stumbles on their therapist's computer and finds his files. He discovers that Ethan 2 and Sophie 2 had to learn their roles. He wants now more than ever to leave with Sophie and flee this bizarre estate as soon as possible. Sophie is the woman he married and he must leave with her. Their doppelgängers must stay behind. But Sophie insists she's staying. Sophie's also given a blue jacket like the one's she wearing to Sophie 2. So in addition not only do they physically look identical, they are dressed identical.

The kicker comes when Sophie 2 tells Ethan things aren't going as planned because Ethan 2 has fallen in love with Sophie (it wasn't supposed to happen that way). Ethan 2 tries to run away but hits an invisible barrier that either kills him or knocks him unconscious (I couldn't tell). Both Sophies surround his supine body. Only one of them must accompany Ethan. One is dejected; one smiles coyly at him. He escapes with the Sophie that has smiled at him, leaving behind Ethan 2 and the other Sophie at the estate. Getting back in town, he immediately goes to the therapist's office to seek out the truth. But the office is totally deserted, as though the therapist had never existed. We learn at the end which Sophie Ethan chose through a subtle clue. But the story holds true to its title: both Ethan and Sophie get the one they love.

Although the movie's title suggests a nice snug romance, it is in reality a strange form of science fiction. It moves along okay and mostly keeps the intrigue up, but it never pushes much at what's happening at a deeper level. And it certainly had the potential to do so. It leaves open different interpretations although clues are given. Earlier this year I saw a movie titled Enemy that also involved a doppelgänger situation. It too skirted the issue of what the deeper meaning was, although again clues were given for those who like to scratch their heads.

Personally I would very much have liked it if The One I Love had followed the weirdness it intimated at further than it did into the realm of true spookiness like another sci-fi I saw recently: Under the Skin. The actors were certainly capable of pulling it off. Perhaps the director didn't want to deviate too much from the quasi-romantic script. But delving deeper into the sci-fi angle would have really bent the genre.

In short it could have been a lot more gripping, but if you like off-beat movies with brain-twisters, this one is definitely worthwhile.

7/10