Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review

Abandon Ship seems like your type of film, it's a real emotional gut wrencher. I'm betting you'll like it. And I added to my Top 10 Movies.

Dunkirk (2017)

Now THAT, I'd like to see. After about 20 minutes of watching this film, I began to wonder what was the point of its making. My guess is that Nolan's concept was to get together a big studio, cinematographer, music composer, a few veteran actors, and loads of financing to produce a blockbuster, highly profitable film. And in that it was a success, reportedly profiting 5 times the original investment to date.

The cinematography and layout was first rate, which will doubtlessly be studied in film schools. The set design and acting were nicely done, although one of my favorite actors, Mark Rylance, had not much to do. The scope puts one in mind of some of the epics from the early 1960s: Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, El Cid, and the like, although not quite up to their level. Nolan was purportedly also influenced by Griffith's 1916 masterpiece, Intolerance.

It was the editing, sound, and story telling that ruined it for me. The continual switching between the 3 story lines was unnerving, inchoate and perplexing. Were they afraid that people would get bored of linear action? It was if the editor had one too many coffees.

The aerial dog fights were not exciting. One kept waiting for something big to happen. And the final glide landing of the last plane which had been out of fuel was almost banal. Since those planes were quite maneuverable on empty, why couldn't the pilot have landed near his compatriots? Is it because it was more dramatic that he selflessly saved lives, but that he was captured by the Germans?

I don't know which was more jarring: the sounds of war, or Hans Zimmer's mediocre film score, which did manage to obliterate much of the dialogue. Since everyone knew the outcome coming in, it must have been a challenge to portray interesting stories within the major event. Perhaps another approach would have been more effective.

It's as if the proposition were as follows: "Here is a big budget film that portrays a great instance of national British pride, whose citizens intervened to ameliorate one of the biggest military blunders of WWII." The production did what it was supposed to do on that level, even though the final result is not memorable. Most of the individual parts have been done better many times before.

So the blockbuster assignment was achieved. My hope is that Christopher Nolan will get back to making more interesting films, such as Inception.

~Doc

Very well written Doc. Nice to see you too I think I liked the movie a bit more than you, but...I have to agree with most of your points. I too find the music score a little heavy at times. And the time continuity between the 3 different stories did damping the viewing experience for me a bit. I think movies are being done that way as it seems 'artsy'. Sometimes it serves the film well, sometimes not. In Dunkirk I would say I was neutral about it.

Two scenes I didn't like was the sinking fighter plane with the pilot trapped under the canopy. I swear I had just seen that scene in another movie a week ago. And when he ditched his plane at sea, I knew! he was not going to be able to open the cockpit canopy. I actually said to me wife, 'not another stuck canopy'

The other scene I didn't like, you also mentioned...the older fighter pilot who runs out of gas. I thought the CG was pretty good until a long pan of the plane coasting in the air. The shot was so close up and so long I started focusing on the CG which took me out of the moment.

I still liked the movie. Just some comments.


Happy New Year!

Director: Henry Hathaway
Writers: Grover Jones & Dale Van Every (screen play)
Cast: Gary Cooper, George Raft, Frances Dee
Genre: Action, Adventure

Roughly based on the true life incident of a seamen who's ship sunk in 1841 in the North Atlantic, and had to force surviors off the lifeboat into the freezing water...so as to keep from capsizing.

Roughly based is the key! I watched this after watching Abandon Ship (1957) which is also based on the survival at sea incident of 1841. Souls at Sea, mainly focuses on the slave trade of 1842 and a honorable man (Gary Cooper) who works with British agents to help stop the trade.

Gary Cooper was really good in this part, it's like the role was made for him. I'm not so sure about the role George Raft played, and either was he. According to what I read he was unhappy with his role in this movie and ended his contract with Paramount. The leading lady and love interest for Gary Cooper, Frances Dee was quite charming and effect on screen.

The best part was the special effects of the sinking of the ship. I don't think I'd ever seen a little kid blown up before in a 30s film! The entire ship and the sinking of it, was pretty amazing even by today's standards.

If you're a fan of Gary Cooper or a fan of sea voyage movies, give Souls at Sea a watch.

Attachments

 

Director: Allan Dwan
Writers: Sam Hellman (screenplay), Stuart N. Lake (book)
Cast: Randolph Scott, Nancy Kelly, Cesar Romero, Binnie Barnes
Genre: Western

About: The tale of Tombstone is growing fast. From a spot in the desert to a bustling lawless mining town...until Wyatt Earp blows into town and puts on the tin star. As Marshall he takes on the band guys as he meets for the first time Doc Halliday...then comes a shoot out at the O.K. Corral.

My thoughts: A pretty decent little western, but don't look for actual history here. Yes Wyatt Earp really existed and he was at Tombstone during the infamous O.K. Corral shootout...but he was never the town's Marshal, that job was held by his brother Virgil, Wyatt was his Deputy. And yes, Doc Halliday was a friend of Wyatt's and was at Tombstone, but his last name was Holliday, not Halliday as shown in the film. And he wasn't killed before the shootout and he sure wasn't buried in Boot Hill the famous Tombstone cemetery. I know I visited Boot Hill and it's a neat historical place...but...Doc Holliday was no where to be found.

The movie is based on Stuart Lake's novel of 1931 called Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal. Lake updated his novel in 1946 which then led to John Ford's movie My Darling Clementine.


Frontier Marshall has Randolph Scott as Wyatt Earp. Scott is like a poorman's Gary Cooper. He's good, but he seemed a lot like Cooper in this. My favorite part was Doc Halliday played very well by Caesar Romero. In this version we learn that Doc is a skilled surgeon and in one scene he is called upon to perform surgery to save a wounded boy. I really liked Nancy Kelly in this as well as Binnie Barnes.

Attachments

   

I thought this was a very good movie, but I thought it was so depressing. I don't know if I would ever want to watch it again. Like I said, it is good, though. I wouldn't discourage anyone from watching it.

I will be watching this tonight. My mom wanted to see this one so bad. She thought it looked so good. As she would say "A good old-fashioned war film". So we will see what I think about it tonight. I offered my brother the chance to watch it, but he has to make up his mind soon because it is a library film. I know he was always into the real story of it. I would be curious to hear his opinion, too.

In a way, you can't really blame these people. I mean, you CAN, but you can't. When you watch something like TOTW, you can see how Hitler is so obviously taking advantage of the citizens of Germany. When people feel as though they are desperate, someone comes along and says just what they want to hear. And, unfortunately, when someone feels that they are in a desperate situation, I think they become gullible and they fall for what is being said. They fall for the "it's too good to be true" offer. I won't go on about something in particular with someone from my family (and I won't compare a financial situation to Nazi Germany), but I knew from that that when a person was desperate enough, they want to believe that someone will help them make it right again. I said it wasn't going to help this person, but I wasn't listened to and it actually made the situation worse. So we all know there were people who said that they should watch out for Hitler, and that he is just, essentially, playing all of them, but there are going to be more people who hope that what he was saying is true. And I think they wanted to believe that more than what the truth really was.

Actually, the scene where they are in that hall? I don't really remember details anymore except that I laughed to myself because the names were shown on screen like they were neon lights or something like that. Anyway, they pan over the audience when they are all standing and applauding after the speech. And there is one guy that is just sitting there with his arms folded (I am pretty sure there was only one). I actually went back and watched that moment again. And you could see he wasn't too impressed with anything. I thought that was pretty bold of him to not stand considering he was wearing the uniform!

__________________
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity - Edgar Allan Poe

dying to see Dunkirk. Aggravated about missing it at the theater.

And agree how your comments about how people want things to get better and, when desperate will follow someone claiming to do just that.
That's how I always perceived Germany to see Hitler at the beginning. The larger crowd going "but he's going to make it BETTER" even though, like Silent remarked about the one guy scowling, there were those who didn't.

Curious to hear your thoughts on it. Enjoy!

Hell, people voted for Trump, so yeah I can see Germans in the mid 30s voting for Hitler, after all they don't have a crystal ball so they can't know he will turn into a monster. And he was a pretty rousing speaker and the country was in desperate situation with the world wide depression...and the previous government in Germany had been ineffectual.

I missed that, darn.

The guy is sitting along the aisle, which is why he gets captured on film still sitting. It seems to move by, if I remember correctly, at a good pace. That is why I ended up rewinding it to see if I actually saw that guy just sitting there looking like he wasn't enthusiastic about any of it.

A few years back I saw a film (or perhaps a made for tv special or short) that contained a number of interviews with people who legitimately believed in Hitler, and there was one woman in particular who was incredibly passionate. If I ever remember what it was called, I'll let you know in case you find it interesting.

__________________

People fell for Hitler because he promised to make Germany great again!

That would be interesting. I've not seen anything like that. Well if you remember what it's called give me a jingle

I was impressed by the soulfulness of this film, especially by Mercedes Ruehl's performance as a mentally slow adult. Her character arch was so rich in hope and yet, heart breaking too. Such a great performance and a very memorable one.

Lost In Yonkers is based on the hugely successful stage play by Neil Simon. Simon also wrote the screenplay for the movie, which keeps the film true to his original vision.

Tony Award winners Mercedes Ruehl and Irene Worth reprise their roles as a dutiful daughter who at 36 still lives at home and her mother a sour, hardened woman who has no love to give her daughter.

Loved the period piece look of the film. The director and art director really went to great lengths to capture the feeling of a small town during the 1940s.

The film is pretty well grounded and despite what the movie posters might look like this is a serious study of a dysfunctional family. Yes it does have some light comic moments, BUT it's a well done drama that starts out promising and ends in an unexpected way, that I found to be quite rewarding.

This is a new favorite movie of mine!

I hated this movie with a red hot passion. I don't recall any other movie that annoyed me more than this 2 1/2 hour long comedy bomb. It was pure torture just setting through this monstrosity.

Just look at that movie poster! now image looking at that much stupid crap for 2 1/2 hours! Ugh....Steven Spielberg made a lot of great movies, but 1941 has got to be the biggest pile of film wasted he ever made. Nothing is funny, but it sure did grate on my nerves. And boy oh boy did he spend the bucks on special effects, he even pushes a house down a cliff. Just think of all the other films he could have made if he hadn't wasted so much money on this albatross!

The movie is loaded with stars from the late 1970s and that's about the only good thing the film has. It's a litteraly who's who of Hollywood at the time, but do we get to see these people shine? Hell no!....Mostly it's people looking into the camera and screaming nonsense all while the director spends untold millions making very large scale expensive shots, just for the sake of doing this piece of Hollywood.

If I had never seen John Belushi on Saturday Night Live or in The Blues Brothers, I would have thought him to be the biggest bore on the planet. Obviously he was talented as was rest of the cast, the fault lays with Spielberg's idea of humor that's geared towards 8 year olds....ugh.

I feel shell shocked after watching this stupidity.

Director: Andrew Niccol
Writers: Andrew Niccol(screenplay), Stephenie Meyer(novel)
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Max Irons, Jake Abel
Genre: Adventure, Romance, Sci-Fi


This is a gentler sci fi film that would be suitable for younger grade school age children. It's more about people coming together to try and build a new community, than it is about trying to fight an alien invasion. I suppose many would consider it boring as it's only PG and is more of a 'nice' movie than a action-adventure flick. Personally I thought it was refreshing to see a sci fi flick where a rising body count wasn't the main goal of the film maker. The cast are mostly portrayed as teens, so that too would work well for a younger person.



In the movie the aliens look just like humans but only their eyes are different, they have a cool looking blue ring around the pupil. And yes the aliens are the protagonist but quite interestingly they are not portrayed as really evil, just as another group of people who are doing they own thing. Which for a sci fi film is a different take.

The Host reminded me of an original Star Trek TV episode as somewhat as it was more about the idea than the actual fight.

Not a bad movie, just don't expect a bunch of fights, or CG stuff.

I've been a Spielberg fan for as long as I can remember, but I have to agree with you that 1941 is his worst movie.

I am so thrilled that you like this one! I don't know if this was one that I ever recommended to you when I suggested that you watch Brighton Beach Memoirs and Radio Days, but this definitely falls into that same category, I think. I just love movies like this and I really liked this one. I actually saw this when it was out in the movie theaters. I think that Mercedes Ruehl deserved a little bit more respect for her performance in this. While I like her in The Fisher King (I just happened to rewatch that recently), I think this is a much stronger performance. And, yeah, TFK was first, but still, comparing the two, I think it is a shame that she couldn't have been recognized for this performance over the other one. I thought she was actually very heartbreaking in the role. She was really good at making you really care about the character. A lot of characters I can take or leave, but I really liked her and really felt for her character.

I hated her mother, by the way.

Quarter of a popcorn less from me, watchable but not great .... and nowhere near a high enough body count

I want to work my way through all of watching Spielberg's movies. What would you say are his other worst films? I'll still watch them, just curious.

You just might have recommended it to me. I have a BIG Movies To Watch list and it was on there for the longest time and I thought I should watch it...and so that could be thanks to you!

I really like films like Lost in Yonkers, Brighton Beach Memoirs and Radio Days...anybody know of any more like them?

But the teens sang, Kumbaya....so well

Keep in mind that this is only my opinion, so you should watch these movies anyway, but my least favorite Spielberg movies are:

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - If you like the first three Indiana Jones movies, just pretend that this movie doesn't even exist.

War of the Worlds - Terrible remake of the old classic.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park - I loved the first movie, but the sequel was pretty bad.

Hook - It has it's moments, but overall it's not very good.

Twilight Zone: The Movie - His segment was "Kick the Can", and IMO, the worst of the 4 segments.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence - I kind of go back and forth on this movie depending on my mood. Sometimes I like it, and sometimes I don't, but I don't hate it.


I haven't seen War Horse and The BFG yet, but I've heard that some people don't like these movies.

Just a note for one of his better movies, (IMO), I've heard that some people didn't like The Adventures of Tintin, but I loved it.