JayDee's Movie Musings

Hey it only took me 4 years to get you to see it, hk. Maybe I can get JD to do it in 3 or fewer.

__________________

Plot - The true story of the ill-fated Apollo 13 space mission. In 1970, NASA has scheduled its third lunar landing on the moon. The crew selected are astronauts Jim Lovell (Hanks), Ken Mattingly (Sinise) and Fred Haise (Paxton). When Mattingly is removed by the flight surgeon after being exposed to measles, he is replaced by back-up Jack Swigert (Bacon). The initial shuttle launch is successful but a mechanical fault causes an explosion which leaves their mission scrubbed and their hopes of returning home slim. Back at Mission Control, Mattingly, flight director Gene Kranz (Harris) and the ground crew pull out all the stops to ensure the men can return home. A mission which was almost completely ignored by the American public suddenly becomes the biggest story in the world.

Ron Howard brings history to life with this commendable film. The whole event is remarkably recreated, particularly taking into account the fact that there is not a single piece of documentary or archival footage to be found in Apollo 13. This is all original material. So the special effects; the models, CGI etc that go into recreating the events, especially the shuttle launch itself are highly effective. With some sweeping camerawork and a stirring piece of music it's quite a grand, triumphant scene. While to recreate the effects of zero gravity the actors were flown in an airplane which can create the sensation of being weightless for 23 seconds at a time. And with Howard really concentrating on the minutiae of the whole operation the film really does have quite a docudrama feel to it.

The acting is very solid across the board. Though as a result of what is required of the characters I didn't feel there were really any big, attention-grabbing performances. Taking its cue from the real events which unfolded they are never really asked to perform in a showy or grandstanding manner. If this were a piece of fiction I imagine that the film would have given them ample occasions to show off; characters panicking and freaking out, fights between the crew etc. So while they are admirable in their own ways it's not a great surprise that none of the cast portraying members of the shuttle crew were nominated for any awards at the time. And as a result perhaps the most impressive aspect of the acting on show is the chemistry and camaraderie that the performers build between the cabin crew. Star turn amongst them for me would still belong to Tom Hanks however. And I think that's largely down to just what a perfect piece of casting it is. To become an astronaut has got to be just about the most American of pursuits, so who better to cast than Tom Hanks; the all-American everyman, the man of the people. Also very impressive to me were Gary Sinise, Ed Harris and Kathleen Quinlan as Lovell's wife.

Film Trivia Snippets - NASA regulations dictate that Tom Hanks could not actually become an astronaut in real life. The maximum height for an astronaut if exactly six feet, while Tom Hanks is 6'1”. /// Due to his portrayal of Jim Lovell in the film, Tom Hanks was honoured by having an asteroid named after him; “12818 Tomhanks” /// Before Tom Hanks came on board John Travolate turned down the role of Lovell, while Brad Pitt also turned down an offer to star in the film to make Se7en instead. /// There's a scene in the film where the NASA engineers are challenged to come up with an improvised solution to a problem on the shuttle using only items that the astronauts have on board. This scene proved the inspiration for Cathy Rogers to create the TV shows Scrapheap Challenge and Junkyard Wars.

I felt that the film accomplished a few nuances rather nicely. I think it captured the boyish sense of wonder very well when it comes to space and astronauts, the moon etc. There's a great little moment just after the shuttle has been launched and they've entered zero gravity. The crew begin to remove pieces of their equipment and allow them to float around the cabin, knocking them up into the air and laughing, really taken by the whole childlike novelty of it. Another thing I felt it handled well was the apathy that quickly set in when it came to space exploration. I think I touched on this a while back when I reviewed Capricorn One, but I'm absolutely amazed at how quickly people, particularly Americans, got bored with NASA and the moon and space shuttles etc. In 1969 when man landed on the moon it was one of the biggest events the world had ever seen. And yet just one year later and the launch of Apollo 13 generated barely no interest whatsoever, at least not until it was in peril that is. In the film, even one of the employees at NASA is more interested in watching a baseball game on the TV than experiencing the adventure of the crew. After I watched and reviewed the film I had a little look around at some other reviews for the film and really loved this little bit that Roger Ebert wrote on this phenomenon of indifference - “When I was a kid, they used to predict that by the year 2000, you'd be able to go to the moon. Nobody ever thought to predict that you'd be able to, but nobody would bother.”

The film really does help you to understand just how heroic these guys were, and perhaps just how insane they were! At one point Tom Hanks' character extols the computer at NASA which “fits in one room”; a computer which probably had the same amount of power as this little laptop I'm typing away on right this moment. And then there's the makeshift, ramshackle repairs that the men have to implicate if they are to make it home alive. It's like a damn arts and craft project from primary school. To willingly volunteer to take part in such an undertaking is an incredible feat of bravery and derring-do; really pioneering stuff.

While I admired the numerous qualities of the film it struggled to really involve me to a great degree. I think the fact it's such an enclosed and contained story certainly played a part in that, giving the film quite a stuffy atmosphere. As a result the scenes set in Mission Control or at Lovell's home provide a nice break. It's also a touch on the patriotic and sentimental side of things which you'd probably expect given the subject and Howard's involvement, but it does a decent job of just about keeping it in check.

Conclusion - This is certainly a prime example of fine film-making when it comes to creating a crowd pleaser, but one that just did not quite get my juices flowing like I hoped it would. With an excellent story as its source it had the potential to be something special, but personally I just felt that it was sabotaged a touch by its sentimental side and occasionally too obvious sense of storytelling. Though I do feel I'm perhaps being a touch harsh on it. Perhaps I was in a bit of a grumpy mood when I watched it. It wouldn't exactly be a rare occurrence.

__________________

Good review JayDee though I hold it in higher esteem than you I certainly understand your criticisms. One of my 100 faves

__________________
Letterboxd

I can understand having problems with a review of Apollo 13 because it's a film that does absolutely everything really well. But that's it. It's not a criticism, but it makes finding an 'in' into a review difficult, I'm sure.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Aww just good? Is that because I dared to level any criticisms at one your absolute favourites.

And I can see why someone could love it. As I said it is very well made and if you form a real connection on top of that then I can see loving it

It's not just the Apollo 13 review though, in general I'm just struggling at the moment. Been watching a lot of 90s flicks and most of them unable to come up with a review; struggling even for micro musings.

As I said however I've got a huge backload of reviews which will keep me going for a good while.

Take a break and start with the backlog, JD. Just watch for fun until you feel it again.

Not every movie "wants" to be written up and reviewed. That's how I feel with movie reviews. Maybe you need to watch it again some other time first.

Or just write a bitchier movie review. Pleasantries get too boring.

I have never seen this film so I just read your conclusion. Your conclusion is really what I expected of this film and the reason I never went out of my way to watch it.

I can see why a review of Apollo 13 would be tough. Certain films are easier to talk about. Especially the movies you love, and the movies you hate. An excellent review regardless. Feel free to take a break if you need to dude.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

Great reviews Jaydee, sorry for replying to your thread this late. As i said i'm only at the start of your thread and you probably don't remember making these reviews, that i have responded to . . +1 for page 4 Brick,Cruel Intentions and An Education. Great movies

4 reps for Apollo 13 people?!!! That's disgraceful! Falling Down had 10 in the same timeframe. Just not good enough. I'm going to hold the rest of my reviews hostage until it gets sorted out!

I was actually going to post a little batch of micro musings but photobucket is acting up for me so can't get the posters at the moment

Oh there's little point in me trying that Sexy. My bitchiness pales in comparison to yours.

Thanks Camo. We'll see you when you've caught up in about a year or two!

I can understand that, JD. After watching Apollo 13, how interested in reading a review of it would be you? I only skimmed it and read the conclusion and I only did that because it's you.

If it's written by me a hell of a lot!

Awww HK! That's so nice of you. Don't worry, those are happy tears

This one wasn't really what I was expecting, and as such it took me a long while to get into it. Part of that was done to the style the film unfolded in. Since the advent of the talkies has there ever been a film whose main character said less than Kowalski? He hardly utters a word throughout the whole film so it's hard to identify with him, at least initially. Instead it is left to a series of informative flashbacks to flesh out the character as we witness the dark times of his past. While to fill the void of silence Kowalski creates, there is a radio DJ who details the journey of the character in a move similar to Lynne Thigpen's character in The Warriors. The film's minimal plot (if you can even call it that) is basically a device to explore American society at the time, the movements and sentiments that were prevailing. Through his meetings with various individuals we are given insights into the drug culture, the hippie movement and religion at the time, whilst also detailing troubles the country faced such as racism. The film also feels very reminiscent of Dog Day Afternoon in that the public rally behind Kowalski, seeing him as an example of taking on 'the man.' Very much playing into the anti-establishment emotions of the 60s and 70s that I frequently came across during my 70s thriller season. The film also features some beautiful, expansive cinematography of America's backroads and some fantastic stunt driving. While the film goes quite deep and existential as it nears its conclusion. As I said it really wasn't what I was expecting (and I'm not sure I fully 'got it') but one that I will definitely need to give a rewatch to someday.










This was certainly a film of two halves. I've got to say that for the first half I really struggled to care about the film whatsoever, finding it a bit dull. However the film just explodes into life when the first set of pointed teeth are revealed. When the vampires show up the film turns into a cheesy splatterfest, with numerous creative deaths and awesomely schlocky effects. And the human guitar has got to be one of the greatest things I've ever seen! It's actually got quite a few strong performances. Clooney is very cool in an edgier and more lurid role than he is normally seen in. While as his brother and partner in crime, even Tarantino is pretty decent for once. While Harvey Keitel is a tower of strength as you would expect. Star performer however would have to be Juliette Lewis, really cool in the role of Keitel's daughter. I think the ideal situation would have been to watch this film completely oblivious to its plot and the direction it was going to take. Maybe I will enjoy it more on a rewatch. Perhaps I slightly sabotaged the first half by just waiting for the vampires to turn up. After that it became quite a delightfully nasty little treat of creatures and gore.










Given that neither Death Proof or From Dusk Till Dawn exactly rocked my world I've got to say I was surprised at just how much I enjoyed this one. I just found it to be really good, trashy fun. There were quite a lot of vibrant performances from the cast who just seemed to be having an absolute blast making something so ridiculous. Freddy Rodriguez and Rose McGowan in particular are both pretty bad ass, and I enjoyed the relationship banter they shared even as the whole world was going to hell all around them. There were a lot of fun running gags, from Cherry's missing leg dilemma to Dakota's useless hands and J.T.'s secret sauce. The film's gory effects brought me a good few ghoulish laughs. And for some reason the same techniques that didn't work for me in Death Proof, I enjoyed here; the scratches, the rough condition of the film etc. And I loved the missing reel gag. One thing I was left wondering was how exactly does Cherry fire the gun that is attached to her as a makeshift leg. Look at me, looking for logic in a film like Planet Terror! Going on the words of honeykid (who is more knowledgable on the subject) perhaps Death Proof is a more fitting tribute to the grindhouse genre, but I found this to be a lot more trashily enjoyable.










While it may be a B-level cop thriller when compared with all of the other classics of that genre from the 70s this is still an extremely solid film, and one that almost feels like a French Connection sequel minus Gene Hackman. It's well acted (particularly in the case of Scheider), has a decent enough gritty character and some impressive action. The director, D'Antoni, was a producer on both The French Connection and Bullitt and uses very much the same template as those films. As a result this film features a suitably thrilling car chase which ends in abrupt and brutal fashion. Another chase certainly deserving of being classed as one of the best put on screen. Not one of the must-see cop thrillers of the 70s but worth catching if you've already seen most of those that would fall into that category.

This is exactly how my friend first saw it. We used to go to the cinema most weekends and I'd usually pick the film, as he really didn't care too much. We saw this on the Friday night, midnight showing. Had a great time, the place was only about a quarter full, if that, and on the ride home it became apparent that he had no idea WTF had happened. I remember his words being something like, "... and then they all became vampires and I thought, "Oh, ok then." and watched the film it became." He loved it, but he didn't know anything about it. Not even that there were vampires.

I'm not sure it's a more fitting tribute, but I do think it's much more like a run-of-the-mill grindhouse film, whereas Planet Terror is a neo-grindhouse film and feels more like a 'best of' compilation.

Oh, and I'm really pleased you liked Vanishing Point. I've only seen it once or twice, but I really liked it.

I actually liked the first half of From Dusk Till Dawn better; it went a little downhill for me the second Hayek's fangs came out. Planet Terror was cool.

JayDee I could not agree with you more on From Dusk til Dawn! The first half drags, but once they get to the bar the fun begins! Excellent micro musings!

yep,same with me