Reviews written by registered user
|5 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This was a metaphysical metaphor and probably if you aren't of
metaphysical phase, you will have trouble with it. The guilt Janet
expressed as being the cause of the loss of her husband is universal:
"I didn't allow him his dreams," "I kept him in a job he didn't like,"
"I didn't want children when he did," and all the rest. These are
feelings -- true or not -- that every loving widow thinks hoping to
bring him back, (how to bring him back is in "A Course In Miracles" --
a metaphysical treasure).
After Janet finds her truth, she turns to do the same for her "healer companion" Smitty, and the movie ends with that happening with the same gentle thoughts that she was healed by. It's a tear-jerker with redemption because it heals the troubled mind of guilt by looking at situations in a way that exalts human love for humanity.
Every time this 1995 version of Joseph's profound story is on TV again,
I watch it. I'm mesmerized by the beautiful Soul of Joseph as depicted
by the really likable Paul Mercurio. He brings Joseph's kind and
courageous spirit to life.
Also excellent is Ben Kingsley, Martin Landau, Leslie A. Warren. This film is thoughtful, beautifully photographed and directed. For me it is essential viewing for audiences who want accurate Biblical stories, as well as for those who simply like well-produced movies.
Joseph truly has a character to aspire to as followers of the deeper nature of humanity, and his characterization is both believable and amazing in this rendition. Because it isn't certain who really made this story work, I have to give everyone in the production credit.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The original 1957 "3:10 to Yuma" film with Glenn Ford (Ben Wade) and
Van Heflin (Dan Evans) was one of my favorite movies -- just about the
only Western film I cared about. The denouement (what else are you
going to call the defining scene) where Glenn Ford did a reversal of
his character and helped Van Heflin escape his (Wade's) gang was heart
rendering and surprising. That's what a reversal in a story should be.
Puts faith back into life -- yes people have real feelings and writers
could pay attention to them.
It was the current writers, we presume, that changed the ending in the 2007 remake. It is my earnest want that you don't kill off the good guy in a movie like 3:10 because then there's no point to the reversal.
One of the main purposes of the original film was to do the impossible and have bad guy Wade save Dan Evans to live on because bad guy (Wade) had a human moment and for a myriad of reasons -- perhaps he realized what decency was like in the experience of being taken through dangerous ground unharmed by good guy Evans -- helped the both of them escape the gang.
This kind of storytelling is more than a shoot it up western, it's about man's humanity to man -- something we will see more of soon. The only westerns that have been loved well enough to survive are those that do show man's mental inner workings and occasional humanity to man.
Yet there's plenty to like in the 2007 film, but the ending spoils it for those in the audience who identify with the good guys. Wade was going to be able to escape anyway, so he could have saved Dan without too much self-sacrifice.
Oh, and the close-up on Wade's pistol that had a pretty crucifix -- was that supposed to allude to Wade's conversion to 'humanity.' -- Didn't work. Or to Dan's self-sacrifice? Let us pray. And there's was no satisfaction by that time in Wade's gunning his gang because Dan was already gone. Quel dommage.
Perhaps this remake went astray because it was too ambitious -- the father-son relation theme was played more heavily in 2007 than the 1957 movie, and the torture of Wade was outlandish -- Could be this was supposed to prove that Wade could feel pain. Also noticeable is that the bungling Potter was not played as much (that's okay though). All in all, very ambitious for a young team.
This story was done with skill and heart. The audience that loves
family will love this haunting movie. Ernie Hudson played the kind of
character he should play more often, revered and revering husband and
The subject matter was family and dealt with issues across the board including American family, nuclear family, family in-laws, and family of man. If you want to see difficult American cultural family issues dealt with using real dialog without using four letter words, this is your movie.
Because of the profound sincerity of the acting the movie is close to the heart, and will be remembered.
The cast was outstanding. The dialog was warm and honest. Kudos to everyone, including the writers.
As someone working on creative and interesting plotting, I saw this
intrigue movie as outstanding. I had to stay and watch just to find out
who the 2-way spy was: was it Turner, was it Mature, oh my could it be
Clark? I had no problem with the directing; I thought the last scene
with Turner looking at Gable, searching his face for signs of hate or
love was good.
I had a problem with the one word title, although it was relevant; it did seem to point to one character as the good guy, so it was misleading if that was the intent. (I don't think this is a spoiler, let me know).
I was glad the movie was in color; usually I prefer black and white on the older movies, however, the scenery et all was great in color.