Change Your Image
jmrlasvegas
Reviews
The X Files: The Field Where I Died (1996)
SEVERELY UNDERRATED
I lifted my caption from another review, done in 2015. That review contained info which might explain why everybody does not share my opinion that this was one of the very best segments of the X-Files.
It seems there was a good deal of extra story filmed, which had to be deleted. From the time I first saw it, 25 years ago, I wished there had been more detail about the seemingly perpetual connection between Scully and Mulder, as comrades in past lives.
I have no memory of ever seeing guest star Kristen Cloke in anything else, but she was excellent and very appealing. That element was not rare in the X-Files. There were many terrific guest performances over the years, but this segment always impressed me and when I dug it up to watch it again, all I could think is that it should have been made as a 2-part story. By doing that, it might have been more widely regarded as one of the best stories the series ever produced.
The X-Files was not, fundamentally, about aliens, monsters, Scully's baby or Mulder's sister. It was about a remarkable partnership, which always happened to involve fantastic cases.
I found the concept that these two FBI agents---who probably should be regarded as the most interesting police partrners TV has ever created---had been reincarnated as comrades through the ages, to be far more interesting than the common plots about saucers, black oil, black magic or mutants.
I must admit that the best ever may have been the one, from the same 4th season, about the origin of the cigarette smoking man. However, The Field Where I Died had the potential to be the next best and is worth going out of your way to watch.
JR.
Greenland (2020)
PRETTY BAD
I must declare, first off, that I like Gerald Butler & that I really like looking at Morena Baccarin. Next, I am a fan of these armageddon-themed films and have probably seen them all.
When I say all of them, I mean going back to the 1950s---When Worlds Collide & the 60s, such as The Last Man on Earth & Panic in the Year Zero. Many, during all the decades since, have been pretty cheesy, but some have been quite good.
Until the genre became flooded with pulpy yarns in the last 15 years, I have probably read all the decent novels with the theme: How do I keep my family safe as the world crumbles? There have been some truly great ones. I really am a fan of these stories and was quite disposed to enjoy watching Greenland.
What I always find appealing is the combination of a truly extentential threat (which even flawed characters had no part in creating), followed by unlimited opportunities for the protaginists to do smart, resourceful and brave things to save themselves and their loved ones.
The threat here is typical---space rock. However, it ranks way below average in the exhibition of problem solving skill. Too much poor decision-making, too much bad luck and too many improbable instances of good luck.
I have also, perhaps unfairly, become irritated with what is becoming the common use of children in these movies. It's perfectly OK for them to be included as an extra burden our heroes must bear, but when a kid starts making viewers wish for an unfortunate accident---to give everybody else a break---then the movie would probabaly have been better without including that short character. Space Rock + Kid = Most of the Drama in this film.
There is not much to admire in Greenland.
JR.
Condor (2018)
PRETTY SLICK
I loved the original film, Three Days of the Condor, from 1975. The story did not, entirely, make sense, but it was a darn good thriller for its day and I have enjoyed seeing it a couple times since. I read the pair of novels about this story later and the movie screenplay was actually better-written than the books. It was hard to beat looking at Faye Dunaway and young Robert Redford in an exciting movie with superb acting by Max Von Sydow, who played a remarkably enigmatic assassin.
I just watched the first two segments of this cable remake and can say the writing is superior to the earlier versions of the story. It's complicated, but makes a little more sense and the dialog is actually very intelligent.
The weakness with Condor is similar to the original film. I hope not to offend, but Robert Redford may have been the coolest guy in Hollywood in 1975 (I sure liked him), but he was just not a very good actor until much later in his career. The kid who has his role in the series is not as cool or handsome as Redford, neither is he a great actor and his character has been given some irritating qualities that make it hard to really like him, which was never an issue with Robert Redford.
The acting bonus here is William Hurt, who is a first-class in everything and has been given a very interesting role that is full of smart lines. We meet Mira Sorvino at the end of episode 2 and I am anxious to see more of her. She is a far more skilled actor than her career arc would suggest (damn Harvey Weinstein). Remember, every time you see her, that she is double smart---compared to everybody else in Hollywood---and won an Oscar while still in her 20s.
I suspect everybody who saw the original movie wished there was more to the tale about the CIA analyst code named Condor. It moves fast and Three Days could only be three days. You can learn more about him if you read the novels published just before and after the film came out. This cable series may allow me to get enough to be satisfied with what was, long ago, an original and exciting plot premise.
BTW, I just discovered that author James Grady seems to have written a third novel, The Last Days of the Condor, forty years after the first in this series.
The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot (2018)
Well Worth Watching
The common criticism is that the film's title accomplishments are too fantastic to be a serious plot premise. We should not listen to such nonsense from critics who will next tell you how much they loved a movie involving superheroes, talking animals, faster than light travel or even one about a waitress marrying a billionaire. Some people are not rational about what they label as "incredible".
Drama almost always involves the incredible. The test of plot quality is whether it holds together to gets you somewhere, not whether the premise is realistic. That a brave and extraordinarily talented commando in WWII could have assassinated Hitler is no less credible a plot line than 90% of the stories told in every film or TV show we see. Decades after his war exploits, desperate government agents---praying all the off-the-record legends about this old soldier are true---search him out for another mission they believe is necessary to save the world and that only he has any chance of surviving.
This movie is an opportunity to see good acting by Sam Elliot, whom everybody loves, on screen in every scene. He plays a character who is unusually honest---when he had to flip der Fuhrer a Nazi salute, he reflexively crossed the fingers of his other hand behind his back. Now old, he is haunted by all he did during the war, which he has never been able to discuss, even with his family. The poor guy was such a spook in WWII that he was never allowed to respond to the letters his sweetheart wrote him. The actor who portrays Elliot as a young man in the flash-backs is another actor everybody likes (Aidan Turner, whom we know as Killi & Poldark).
As I said, I find the two plot premises---that the Americans managed to rub Hitler out, forcing the Nazis to afterward use doubles or that Bigfoot is real---less weird than being expected to accept the existence of light sabers, talking cats or any form of aquaman. I was, however, irritated by one genuine weakness in the plot line. Before he ships out for WWII, our hero lives in a very small town and is a mild-mannered and unremarkable shop clerk in a womens' hat store. That he possessed the talents necessary to then become a master of disguise, of hand-to-hand combat, an astounding polyglot, a master tracker and woodsman is never explained and was harder for me to buy than Bigfoot being real.
This is a very low budget movie, but there is nothing wrong with the filming, the costumes, the cars, the sets or the scenery. Those elements are all rather good. It is Robert Krzykowski's first film. He produced it and also wrote the screenplay, which most directors cannot do. Half the extras were family and friends, lending their homes and shops for the interior sets. I think of how an initial, little, film catapulted Robert Rodriguez's career and compared to El Mariachi, this is a masterpiece. Krzykowski may go far and this film is worth seeing.
Legion (2010)
Not so bad....I thought it was fun.
The plot doesn't make much sense and the ending certainly isn't stitched together very well, but I don't know of one of the "Warring Angels" films that's ever accomplished either of those objectives.
I think all the acting criticism can be discounted...it was the script which lacked strength. Most of these films have one decent actor trying to carry a bunch of weak unknowns. Legion has a far better cast than watchers will expect. Every one of the folks in the "alamo" is, at least, a very good TV actor and there are four quality movie actors in this crowd.
The end suggests a sequel, but I'd rather see an extended version which didn't slice out all the plotting which might have made this one hold together better. Meanwhile, it's certainly worth renting.
Saints and Soldiers (2003)
Worth Watching -- Worth Owning
I always enjoy films about the Battle of the Bulge. It was the worst of times for Americans in the entire European war, so this battle always provides special opportunities for extra---but realistic---plot tension. When it's about the Battle of the Bulge, we never know whether our characters will be rubbed out, taken prisoner, taken prisoner, then rubbed out, tangle with clever Germans wearing the wrong uniforms (who also speak perfect English and know who won the World Series) or whether our heroes will just manage to hang on against a terrible whipping in awful weather. All of these elements make this a particularly rich venue for wartime drama.
This movie was apparently shot for less than a million dollars, but it's a far better film than that modest budget would suggest. Even with unknown actors, it takes real skill to put a period piece with special effects on the screen for that amount of money. Nice cinematography. The weapons and the uniforms all look correct and the acting is decent.
I would not be bashful to recommend this film to a stranger and would be happy to watch it again.
Ride the High Country (1962)
New Yorker magazine once called it "The Perfect Western"
After reading that evaluation in a capsule review 30 years ago, it took me a long time to have an opportunity to see the film...and I've never been able to disagree with the evaluation. It really is a first-class movie.
Seeing 20 year old Mariette Hartley in her first film is fun, as is seeing the trusty Virginian, James Drury, playing a baddie.
The real pay-off however, is found in the solid and honest performance by Joel McCrae in a story that has beautiful "over the hill" elements, unrivaled until The Shootist came out in the mid 70's.
It's not Shane, but it just might make your top ten list in this genre.
Colorado Territory (1949)
This is a first class Western film.
Interestingly, Joel McCrea has been in two of the very best Westerns ever made...neither of which have the reputation of the big ones we all know. Colorado Territory & Ride The High Country are both films every fan of the genre should see.
In Colorado Territory, Virginia Mayo definitely takes the cake for the best babe ever in a Western. She's brave, fiercely loyal & can shoot straight. What more could we want?
The script is superior, with some very witty dialog among the gang of crooks and the action scenes are more believable than most. It's worth going out of your way to see.