Change Your Image
blairskids
Reviews
Hanover Street (1979)
Incredibly banal and loaded with clichés
I am not sure why I endured to the end, The first part chronicles a very contrived meeting and the next long period is a series of WWII bomber mission briefs interspersed with hotel sex scenes (no naughty bits shown). The bomber scenes are somewhat relieved by the bomb aimer's soliloquies over the plane intercom - good bit of writing. Just when you think that you have to turn this off (about an hour in) they do get into an improbable scenario for bringing the two principle men together and there are some pretty standard shoot-em-up car chases (Spoiler alert - Harrison Ford jumps a motor cycle) and an attempt at a 20 kleenex ending which fails only because I was so desensitized from higher feelings by the preceding hour and a half.
Black Donnellys (2017)
Too short to do justice to the subject
This movie is too ambitious, it tries to tell the story in 45 minutes and fails; the result is a choppy rather confusing series of disconnected short scenes. It presented the Donnellys in a favourable light, as victims of prejudice rather than as the violent instigators of trouble that I had understood from my (rather poor) prior knowledge; this view has been born out by my research on line this evening. I am therefore glad I went to see it and am inspired to read further.
I was very surprised at the great turn out at the Port Elgin cinema; two full houses on a Saturday afternoon is very unusual and highlights the grip this Ontario story has on us, seeming more like a story from the Wild West of America than nice gentle Canada!!! If you are intrigued by the Donnelly story go and see it, the scenery, costumes, and settings struck me as authentic, and the sympathetic view of the family was a revelation for me.
The Eagle (2011)
Don't bother - they've turned a good book into a third rate movie
Rosemary Sutcliff must be turning in her grave; her carefully crafted novel has been hacked into a superhero movie with little resemblance to the original. The opening story to set up the main character is in the movie more or less as written which initially gave me hope. However I realised they could use it because it contains violence and could be bent to a "superman saves the day" episode.
The "quest" portion – heading north to get the eagle – was a total travesty. Whereas the novel invents a plausible mechanism for a crippled ex soldier to penetrate the wilds of Scotland, the movie relies on a super hero to fight warrior tribes with just his trusty side kick.
Save your money. If you want to see movies of super heroes fighting the world there are better ones.
If you want a great yarn set in Roman Britain read the book, and it's sequels. The book is aimed at the teenage market, but most adults will thoroughly enjoy an exciting and plausible story.
Two stars, not one, because it has the redeeming quality that it might generate interest in the book.
Religulous (2008)
Annoying, uninformative, and on the whole not funny
I was very disappointed in this movie. I live in the deep fringe of TV hinterland and so had seen Bill Maher only briefly. I had formed the impression that he was intelligent, well informed, and amusing, and so I was looking forward to some enlightenment and humour.
As an atheist, I agree with almost all of the conclusions. Unfortunately Mr. Maher's arrogant, smug, flippant, bombastic, and patronising style robbed him of all credibility. Thinking atheists will be, like me, appalled at his superficial and dismissive treatment. Devout persons will dismiss him as unworthy of notice.
His style aside, errors in fact undermine his conclusions. For example, he states that no eyewitnesses wrote books of the present bible. I was taught that two of the gospel writers, Mathew and John, were apostles and so accompanied Jesus through much or all of his ministry. Another gospel writer, Mark, probably followed Jesus closely. Several writers of epistles (Peter, James, John) were also apostles.
In his discussion of Islam Bill implied that the Kaaba was a rock in Mecca. No, it is a building attributed by the faithful to Abraham. There is an odd black rock, possibly a meteorite, in one corner that is regarded by some as originating in the time of Adam and Eve. The building once contained hundreds of idols of several tribes, these were destroyed by the Prophet Muhammad in 630AD since which time Islam has considered the building its most holy site.
So, with appalling style, wrong information, bigoted interviews, Bill has produced a movie that is uninformative, annoying, superficial, and not even funny. It is not worth anyone's time of money.
W. (2008)
A disappointment. I had expected more from Oliver Stone.
I am a Michael Moore fan and a person with no respect for George W. Bush, so I went to "W" for a good laugh at his ineptitude and ignorance; I was disappointed. Bush is portrayed as inept and ignorant, yes, but the film leaves me asking how did he manage to get ahead in a tough political system? I love movies such as "The Sting", and TV shows such as "Hustle", which portray clever people taking advantage of wealthy victims. I enjoyed "Forest Gump" which shows an intellectually challenged individual propelled by serendipitous strokes of fate to great wealth. "W" appealed in neither of these ways. It showed a fool elected to high public office and running the country, but didn't show any mechanism for his success. It therefore sank to the level of portraying a clown in second rate situation comedy.
Successful caricature depends on exaggerating real or perceived traits, and the film had mixed success in its portrayal of real people. Portraying Dick Cheney super evil is brilliant; portraying George W. Bush as stupid is hackneyed but expected; portraying George H. W. Bush as an over dominating and unfeeling father figure is novel to me, but within the bounds of my limited knowledge. These characters work. We can identify with these characteristics being assigned to the real people.
Portraying Condoleezza Rice as a simpering witless sycophant was so far from our perception of her proved qualities that the character lacked any purpose in the movie and I found it annoying. The character was not funny, and it didn't serve to emphasize any point. Her involvement could have been shown as that of a misguided intellectual without straining our identification with the real person.
Overall I wish I had spent my money seeing something else. The film has no power to sway an undecided voter in the 2008 presidential election and is not really funny because the audience feels more sorry for G.W.B. for being so unwittingly out of his depth than amused at his behavior. It has no documentary value, and without showing a plausible mechanism for GWB's success, and it has no teaching value.
America is no safer from the people who put GWB into the White House.
Connie and Carla (2004)
Relax and have fun
OK. I happened on this while surfing, depressed.
Maybe too many bevvies.
But I loved it.
It is silly, non-intellectual, non cerebral, and has no redeeming qualities except that it is fun. The pace never slackens, and the musical performances, if not great art, are good enough to enjoy. If you need to cheer up, and are not sitting with any kind of movie snob, watch this and feel better about life, the universe, and everything. If you are with a movie snob then dump him/her and enjoy it on your own.
Nia Vardalos has to be one of God's gifts to the comedy world. Perhaps it is easy to do "ugly" when you are gorgeous, she certainly seems to have fun laughing at herself and all pretensions. Wouldn't it be great to see her try a straight part (like Jim Carrey in "The Majestic")? How about Desdemona? I feel that with a push to stop making fun of herself she could prove to be one of the century's great actresses as well as a comedy queen.
Ben Hur (1907)
Watch it. It is short and an interesting insight to the capabilities of the era.
I saw the first (1907) Ben Hur about 25 years ago in a film society back to back double feature with the Charlton Heston version. My memories are therefore fragmentary.
The film should be called "Illustrated scenes from the life of Ben Hur" as it really doesn't try to tell the story in the time available. If you hadn't read the book you wouldn't know what was going on. One of my recollections is my wife nudging me and saying "there's the tile that's going to fall". Above the rather pathetic and bored looking extras (showing off their knees in Roman army costume) one roof tile was very different from the rest - it wasn't painted onto the set!! Sure enough, Ben Hur leaned rather obviously on this brick.
The chariot race sticks in my mind too. A bunch of extras starts jumping up and down and two chariots race by the camera. The extras calm down and look bored for a while then start jumping up and down for the next rapid pass of two chariots. I can't remember how many times this was repeated, we were all laughing so hard that tears were running down my face.
It is mercifully short, and interesting to compare with the 1925 big budget spectacular (also silent of course) which foreshadows the third version with amazing special effects.