Change Your Image
cwillson
Reviews
Dirigible (1931)
Interesting slice of history (*** Spoilers in last paragraph ***)
For those interested in the history of aviation, the artful integration of old Navy footage of the Los Angeles airship (a German-built Zeppelin which was the 4th aircraft to cross the Atlantic), including footage of the experimental underside mooring mast used for docking an airplane in flight, and the Lakehurst field and hangar, all offer a wonderful slice of history. This footage, and the parts of the film which show the interior of this airship and its mock-ups and use, are wonderful, and many other elements provide a wonderful view of what the world looks like through a 1931 lens. It is interesting to see how some things (parts of the Navy ships), do not look all that dated, while other elements are radically different. This alone makes this film a very worthwhile, and trumps all the issues and complaints below. For many, this alone makes it worthy of a 9 out of 10, although for those without this interest, it is more like a 6.
At the story level, there are a lot of holes. There is an inconsistent and totally unbelievable romance kludged on, with a Fay Wray performance that doesn't work, and will leave you scratching your head. This part is a 1 or 2 out of 10. Like other scripts which take a little bit of current technology and try to extrapolate to spin out a story without really understanding the technology, some parts seems pretty silly today, but this was the view from 1931. The writing seems to be oblivious to the service ceiling of the craft, and the limitations imposed by the large surface area and low speed of the craft when exposed to winds, especially as channeled by terrain. However, in the era shortly before the end of serious airship use, they were losing them at an alarming rate, and the Los Angeles was one of the few that survived to be decommissioned and disassembled.
**** SPOILERS BELOW ****
The plot has issues. Bravado and personal agendas trump planning on important expeditions and military (Navy) ops (a failing shared with Capra's 1929 "Flight", also starring Holt and Graves, which stretched bravado and credulity even further). Here we are to believe that "Frisky", upon successfully reaching the South Pole, but having dropped most critical supplies to lighten the load, decides to chance a landing on an unknown surface, in an area where no rescue would be possible (per their orders). We are then given scenes at the South Pole which do not represent conditions at the pole. (My uncle was at Byrd Station, and it gets pretty cold there, with average summer temps close to -30C, and it appears that the north and south hemispheres are both in summer, so we are also left to wonder if they understood they are reversed south of the equator.) When a rescue does come, instead of sending people down the rescue lines, they parachute in from a very low altitude for dramatic effect, but then get pulled back in by the lines. Okay, you get to see cool parachuting footage from 1931, so I guess its okay. Overall, a great slice of history with contemporary use of (now) archival footage, but the plot and romance drag the ratings down.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)
A plastic cartoon of a movie with 12-year-old gamer's view of the world
This movie is a 12-year-old video-gamer's view of the world. If you can get into that head-space, you may enjoy this, If you are looking for plot which makes sense, or characters you care about, or any kind of logic, you will be disappointed. I was concerned when I heard they refuse to screen this for critics, and knew I had stepped in it when Hasbro got the first screen credit. Yes, it is a plastic cartoon of a movie, where good guys and bad both change their stripes, where the "tip of the spear" of the evil assault force is a hot chick (Sienna Miller) in a tight leather cat suit (and even women's uniforms are tight, and hot), where throwing stars are devastatingly lethal weapons (and every team needs their own Ninja), while bullets don't do much, and where you don't need to know anything about technology, nanotechnology, aircraft, or weapons to write it into the story. Here, unbelievably stupid weapons are the norm, the military isn't competent to protect their most powerful weapon for even 15 minutes, soldiers have beards and go AWOL to join a better unit on their own, the GI Joe military installation is appointed like a luxury spa, impossible aircraft ignore the laws of physics, and are designed with engines on the wingtips, and a soldier (not assigned to a flying MOS) can jump in and fly a cutting edge jet he has never even seen to save the world,
the list is endless. To the pre-teen brain, this probably works. But enjoying a movie involves either a willing suspension of disbelief, or a good yarn embracing its transgressions in good fun. This one simply did not work for me. But if you are a major GI Joe fan who already knows you will like seeing some old friends, this may be a real treat for you, since that seems to be the basis of the positive reviews here. But for the rest of us, this is a very marginal and disappointing movie, and you may loose all interest in the characters long before the half-way point. You may also want toward the back, as the special effects may be too much to take in up close.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
The (2 hour) Torture of the Christ -- gratuitous, sadistic, shallow, and venomous
This is a despicable film. I wanted to walk out 30 minutes in, but decided I needed to stick it out (BIG mistake) to wait for the message, which they never got around to. I went to this movie looking to learn more of the story of the final days of Christ, and to be inspired by His words. I was looking forward to that, but this film was not about the message. Instead, I got 2 hours which was mostly one long GROSSLY sensationalized torture scene, broken up by short sequences which did little to educate or elevate, only to provide a setup for the impossibly exaggerated torture, which was the body of the movie. Don't get me wrong, this movie is technically excellent, well shot and well acted -- it would merit a 10 for that. But it felt hollow -- and toxic. The story was sensationalized beyond belief (e.g.- no one could carry a heavy cross after losing most of their blood supply and going into shock, and the Romans knew this and wanted the death to occur on the cross, not before). When you watch this, you will understand why James Caviezel was actually struck by lightening while on the cross for the actual shooting of the film. Mel should have gotten the message.
For those are trying to decide if they should see it, maybe this will help you decide: if you really enjoyed the torture scene from Braveheart, and would have preferred that the movie had been entirely focused on this torture, so it was made ten times more graphic and more than 20 times longer, but with no regard for what was realistic, then you will love this film. (The Braveheart story was mostly a fabrication, and even where facts were known they were ignored for entertainment value, but at least IT was an entertaining story.)
In summation, there is an important story here, but they never bothered to tell it, or to get around to focusing on the message. That might have made the movie tolerable. When faced with possibly the most weighty historical and moral story of all time, they (as several other reviewers have noted) made a "snuff film" instead. This is the worst kind of film-making -- gratuitous, sadistic, shallow, and toxic. This is a disgusting film you should NEVER expose a child to, or anyone of normal sensitivity -- it is only for the thick skinned and truly jaded. I recommend you get your history from the History Channel, and the many excellent books and shows that get into a deeper discussion of the message. Read the other reviews and you will see similar reviews, or see Time (6/12/04, p. 70) for an excellent discussion of what the reviewer sees as "...potent forms of cultural toxin...". This is one of those films you may wish you had never seen. 3 of 10 for technical merit only.
Secret Window (2004)
Contrived and stupid -- this is not a good film
I won't get into the details, but it doesn't matter if you have a well acted and well shot film if you don't have a story that grabs your interest. I don't want to spoil it for anyone (LOTS of the other reviews contain major spoilers), but much of what goes on in this film just seems stupid, contrived, and totally unbelievable. At no point was I involved in the story. If you can't get to the "willing suspension of disbelief", you are just watching it from the outside as an exercise in film making that just didn't work. This is one of those movies that made all three of us feel like we wished we could have our time and our money back. I gave it a 3 for some good acting, but this was charity. This is not a good film -- save your money.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
Unique, but totally unbelievable
This is a totally unique film which breaks new ground, and has a perhaps two good laughs, but if your enjoyment requires your "willing suspension of disbelief", you may not enjoy this film. I went with a friend because the reviews were favorable, and we were both quite disappointed. I kept expecting something good, but it never came, and I found it tedious. A film does not have to be great to be enjoyable, but I felt this was a total waste of money