openminded1313 Reviews

Star Trek: Tomorrow Is Yesterday (1967) Season 1, Episode 19

Great episode!; and is based on a true life incident.

[8/10 · 11 September 2023]

The Enterprise goes back, by accident, to the "present time" (late 1960s, when this episode was aired). The starship is damaged and in a very low orbit; in fact, low and slow enough for a fighter jet to possibly intercept it. A fighter jet is sent up to investigate the sighting The F-104 jet is "contemporary" for the late 1960s and, did, in fact, sometimes carry nuclear weapons ( air to air missiles with a "low" yield that were still quite capable of damaging Enterprise; as Mr. Spock correctly surmises). Such is the beginning of this episode and I believe D. C. Fontana, the writer, based the beginning on a an actual incident (the "Mantell case";; where a USAF fighter plane may actually have been shot down by a U. F. O.).

It occurred on January 7, 1948 and involved three F-51 aircraft (P-51 Mustangs as they were known in WWII). The commander of Godman Air Force Base (now closed) in Kentucky was notified of a U. F. O. Near his base. Three F-51s were on a routine ferry flight that happened to be in the air were requested to investigate this. Two of them went to the highest level they were able to (no oxygen equipment in them due to it being a routine ferry mission) and turned around. One F-51, piloted by Captain Thomas Mantell, continued to climb and chase the U. F. O. ; much like the pilot of the F-104 in this episode does. And, as the F-104 in this episode does, the F-51 disintegrated in flight.

Captain Thomas Mantell was found, dead, in the wreckage of his P-51 the next day. This DID happen; a military fighter plane chased a UFO and disintegrated. What happens in the Star Trek episode based on this? Watch it and find out.

Anthropoid (2016)

Great historical period film with, surprisingly, strong ties to "2001: A Space Odyssey" as well as "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy"

[9/10 · 7 September 2022]

First off, this review contains spoilers though this is one film where, if you do not already know the end, you probably should not bother watching--until you read up on the ending.

The previous reviewers have done a find job with their reviews; mostly concentrating on the psychological aspects of this real life WWII mission. I do not believe I could do as well as some of these reviews but, do wish to add a few points that I believe are not mentioned and should be.

First, obviously nuclear weapons would have been an ideal way to deal with Reinhard Heydrich; aka "The Butcher of Prague". (Actually they would not have been; more about that later). And, just as obviously, nuclear weapons were not available in 1942 (tie in here to the documentary/movie "Trinity & Beyond" if one is not already familiar with that timeline). However, one can, and should ask, why did they (Allies) not simply bomb, by air with conventional bombs, the Headquarters and/or home of this monster? The answer is that the bombers in that era simply did not have the range to reach Prague. Which is why it is one of the few cities of Europe still with its original buildings. Still quite charming (I have been there a few times myself in the 21st century). Which is why nuclear weapon use would have been a terrible thing (of course not in WWII but later, in the Cold War); the entire city would have been reduced to rubble along with everybody vaporized. The solution to that problem would have been worse than the problem itself.

Which seems to be a recurring thread in the review as well as in the movie. Killing Heydrich was, even then, regarded as questionable. Not only for reprisals but also for the one, sometimes, overlooked statement from Marie to the effect that if Heydrich were killed, then simply another evil man would be put into his place. The main problem with this movie is that it seems to show the final decision to proceed with the assassination being done "at the last minute" along with the concern expressed by Kubis that they did not have their escape or return plans set up. In reality the decision had been before the mission began and both men were aware of this being a "one-way" mission.

In the book/movie "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" the primary operative, Jim Prideux, is also sent into Czechoslovakia on a very dangerous mission that could be a one-way mission. Control tells Jim that before he goes into hiding, or worse, that somehow he is to sent a message with the one codeword; even if it means chalking in onto the door of the embassy. In the book "2001: A Space Odyssey" the fact that the Discovery mission to Jupiter is one-way is dwelt upon; the movie does not mention that but the actors seemed to, indirectly, view the mission as a likely one way mission-which, in fact, it did become. The authors (David Cornwall, Arthur C. Clark) who wrote those books were in British Intelligence and had probably dealt with these sort of missions in some way (certainly Clark in WWII and probably Cornwall during the Cold War) so they were familiar with the psychological nuances of the "doomed men" on such missions.

There is a lot of factual material in this movie yet one wonders how the movie makers knew how to film some scenes showing interactions among people who did not survive to tell their tale. Obviously there was some guesswork involved but this was always advertised as a movie; not a documentary.

Anyway, to fully appreciate the actions of these men and women one must take into account they had no way to know about the upcoming developments. The fabled 8th Army Air Force did not even begin operations until about the time of Heydrich's killing and then those bombing operations were relatively minor, bombing railroad facilities in occupied France. So, all of the aerial daylight bombing in the movies that one sees had hardly started at the setting of this movie. D-Day and other Allied landings were all in the future and nobody knew if they would be successful or if, instead, a "Greater Germania" would arise from the success of the Reich. Actually, it is amazing that the Axis powers were defeated as soon and sounding as they were. Which brings up the last point.

Would the resistance fighters take such suicidal risks if they knew that German occupation would be replace with Soviet occupation instead? I don't know. I suspect they probably would not have done anything if they knew that the only difference in the future would be that German occupation would be replaced by Soviet occupation. But, that is not important. What they dealt with at that time (a brutal and still very dangerous Nazi empire) makes their story nothing short of incredible. And this very accurate (period wise at least) portrayal of their heroism is quite worth seeing.

The Dropout (2022)

VERY good presentation of an actually dreadful occurrence

[9/10 · 6 July 2022]

Everybody with any interest in this series certainl already knows the story but I will play "it straight" and admit that my review contains spoilers.

Amanda Seyfried gives a very good (not perfect but good enough) portrayal of the actual (historical) Elizabeth Holmes. Somewhat terrifying, in fact, that a person could change that much to portray a character (having just seen her in "Monk", where she portrayed the historical Marion Davies- an all together different persona.) Off course I do not know the "real" Amanda Seyfried so perhaps her real life character is more malevolent than one expects......

Anyway, this is a great show. I did not realize George Schultz was at odds with his grandson over this matter. What is so fascinating is how it shows the WSJ breaking down the legal counsel of Theranos during a meeting.

In summary, I suppose the entire show is about how a person could claim to do something that knowledgeable experts knew was impossible (range of diagnostic tests on a single drop of blood); and get away with it for some time. How were knowledgeable people brought into that to begin with? Early on in this series a funding source that she attempted to solicit funds from asked her about her PH. D. (thinking that she had one due to the nature of her presentation) and when she admitted (one of the few times she admitted anything) that she was a dropout they tossed her out of the office. Too bad that other people did not do the same and too bad she did not take their advice and stop her "quest". The series does show, in considerable clarity, others falling into the "trap"; and why they did that. And, how she was able to fool them for so long.

Khartoum (1966)

One of the greatest movies ever made; and then forgotten

[10/10 · 13 May 2022]

This is a great movie with a cast of actors who were "the dream team" of movie actors. Charlton Heston, Laurence Olivier, Ralph Richardson....the list goes on. It does not get any better than this. Great script; great camera work.

And, it failed. If it had been made in the 1930s, I believe the American audience (the primary audience for this movie; despite the British acting legends Charlton Heston, American actor, was used in the lead role for that very reason) would have been much more receptive to this film. In that time (as I learned from my Dad, who was in school then) the American kids were taught about the "sun not setting on the British Empire", Ruyard Kipling, and other aspects of the fabled British Empire. But, by the 1960s, U. S. schools generally passed on these matters. After all, WWII had taken place and it was the U. S.; not England, that led the free world. So, most people were unaware of things that were important to know to appreciate this movie.

Things like...."Where is Khartoum?" Person looks it up on a globe and says, "Oh, it is in Africa. Well, this takes place in Africa; why are they using a general who served in China?" Believe it or not, most Americans are still not familiar with the Taiping Rebellion; the third (perhaps second) deadly war in history (in terms of people killed). So, the knowledge of Gordon and his role in history (when he is selected to go to Khartoum) is rather.....limited, to say the least. "Gordon was asked by Prime Minister Gladstone to go to Khartoum". The reply by most Americans is then "Who is Gladstone? What is a Prime Minister? Is he the same as a President?" Also, "Who is Woolsey? What did he do?" Also, "Who is Kitchner? Sounds likes he works in a restaurant". Don't laugh, too hard, as that is actually what most American thought then (and today).

In other words, this move was made primarily for an audience that did not understand it. In some respects, this was good as the ending is (was) a matter of suspense (I am not going to say in my review how this movie ends) so it keeps the attention of the viewer. Presuming the viewer has bothered to watch this to begin with. The main problem is this movie is set during our "Old West" and a movie set in 1885 should have cowboys and Indians in it. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this movie and appreciate the effort and work that went into making it!! However, the marketing expert who thought Americans would care about what went on down the Nile was in a "state of denial" about whether this movie would succeed financially.

The Turn of the Screw (2009 TV Movie)

Pretty Good adaptation

[7/10 · 17 April 2022]

Probably the best adaptation of this was done in 1961 with Deborah Kerr as the governess. The time frame presented there was turn of the 20th century (1896~1901); in keeping with the date of publication of this novella (1898) . The time frame for this version is instead the immediate post "Great War"; the father of the children being killed in the war, (the mother's death seems to have been just after childbirth of the younger child-the girl). The shortage of men in the United Kingdom, at that time, is emphasized in the beginning with the insinuation that a lot of young women, such as the governess, are lonely. This theme echos through the story. The new governess meets the guardian of the children before she departs for the estate where the little girl stays with the staff (all of whom are women due to the shortage of men). The guardian is the children's uncle; a handsome, young bachelor whom she is immediately infatuated with; but he does not return the interest. Nor is he particularly interested in visiting the estate anytime soon. Michelle. Dockery, as the governess, is presented as very plain young woman in this version; in order to enhance the frustration her character is feeling. Later, in the story, the older (though still a kid) brother of the girl arrives at the estate. All during this time disturbing things are occurring there, but what is actually happening? Can such things actually occur? Is her sexual frustration a part of this?

This story is told by the governess, confined to a mental institute recounting this to a psychiatrist; who happens to be another handsome young man. Though she initially is in a catatonic state in the institute she does respond eventually to his questioning. The story we see is her story; what we see happening and how it happened is presented through her recollection. And, this recollection is by a person who is definitely mentally ill. Or, is she? This departs from the original story somewhat which implied the possibility of mental illness by the governess but not was not explicitly as this version does.

A good adaptation though a little "too modern" (early 20th century versus late 19th century setting) IMHO.

The Conqueror (1956)

A terrible film

[1/10 · 29 March 2022]

Thought I would never say this about a John Wayne movie, but this is a TERRIBLE film! What, in Heaven's name, was he thinking when he took on this role. What was EVERYBODY thinking when they made this movie?! Howard Hughes was the producer of this travesty and considering how much of a nutcase he had become by then; well, that at least makes some sense as to why this movie is so bad. There is no reason to have a "goofs" section on IMBD for this film as this ENTIRE FILM is a "goof".

Lifeforce (1985)

Interesting mix of genres

[6/10 · 13 December 2021]

Quite a few reviews have already been published concerning this "unique" (for lack of a better adjective) movie. It "catches" at points in the movie and at other times it seems to ......."not catch" (Best I can think of) and "suspension of disbelief" is lost. "Sci Fiction" or "Horror" or "Pornography"? As science fiction it took the premise of the return of Halley's Comet (that was in the news when the movie was being made) as a means of us relating to some dreadful event. BTW, very annoyingly, the name of the comet is mispronounced all throughout the movie. How do you pronounce V A L L E Y? Well, then how should you pronounce H A L L E Y? Ok, see??? Anyway, the appearance of comets, in the past, were associated with dread and horror; which was a good point to make in this movie (not mentioning the previous appearance of comet Halley was in 1910 and no particular problems appeared as a result of it; but, hey, this is only a movie!) . Now, concerning the "pornography"; usually in reference to the lead actress in this movie who mainly appears nude. Though, as a man, I "appreciate" her appearance it should also be mentioned that two male actors also appear nude in this movie. They are "male models" or, in the common term, "studs" and, I suppose, were added in for the gratification of the female audience. And, it they were "eye candy" to the women, then more power to them. Anyway, back to the girl. Nudity (of either gender) was pretty much prohibited in movies after 1934; even for artistic purposes. After a ~30 year pause, beginning in the mid 1960s, it started to be allowed back. But, the scenes that included nudity were fairly brief. This movie was somewhat ground breaking in that it extended the time of nudity to almost the entire film. The lead actress was totally nude in most of her scenes; not a pornographic nude (there was only one scene were she was in anything considered "loving"; the other scenes had her in anything but a sexual role ) but rather an artistic nude. This was before the practice was common, as was done later in the movie "La Belle Noiseuse" with Emmanuelle Beart; where she had even more screen time nude. That movie was filmed about 5 years later and Lifeforce can be considered as a pioneer in that manner and to "La Belle Noiseuse" in particular. Most amazing about Lifeforce was the interview with the lead actress some 28 years later. Though she did not know any English in 1985, when the movie was filmed, she was VERY fluent in English in 2013. She stated that she learned English during the 6 months she was in London for the filming of this movie and she certainly learned it very well!! So, though the amazing events shown in the movie may be hard to believe given how difficult it is to "suspend disbelief"; her real life "transformation" is certainly beyond question!!! P. S. If you saw the classic BBC presentation of "Dracula"; starring Louie Jordan you will undoubtedly appreciate Frank Finley appearing again in his "Professor Abraham Van Helsing" role (though the Lifeforce character is not named Van Helsing, he is undoubtedly modeled after Finley's portrayal in the 1977 Dracula version). A true professional by any definition!

Stowaway (I) (2021)

An updated "Marooned" but not as good

[4/10 · 2 May 2021]

The movie "Marooned" came out in 1969 and was set in the near future (1970s) real life program Skylab. It's premise was an Apollo spacecraft not being able to fire the service module (SM) engine after being in space for a few months (the astronauts having been in Skylab for the duration); not being able to activate the SM engine kept the astronauts from reentry; and as they had already detached from the station they were unable to redock with it So, the astronauts were "Marooned" and when their oxygen runs out that is curtains for them. Is their any way to save them? And, when a way develops it turns out that there is only enough oxygen to save 2 out of the 3 men. So, that leads to an interesting plot development.

That actually came close to happening a few years later on Skylab 4- the last mission to Skylab. The astronauts were in Skylab for three months and during that time some problems developed with the Apollo spacecraft that was supposed to take them back to Earth. Basically, after they had entered the Apollo spacecraft and had detached from Skylab the SM engine did not fire when the firing signal was transmitted to it. Same as in the movie. And, as in the movie they tried different ways to get the engine to fire and, as in the movie, these failed to start the engine. Not a good situation. The movie shows them, at that point, going to some sort of "direct signal" control (I guess where the most basic signal is sent and which should have worked to at least fire the engine) and that also did not work. So, they were "marooned". In real life, in 1974, this "last ditch" effort was tried by the Skylab 4 crew, and I imagine they had big smiles when it worked! And, they came down with a great deal of relief. So, the movie "Marooned" predicted, as some science fiction does, the actual future.

This movie does not reach the standards of "Marooned" even though it is based on the same premise (which, in turn, actually comes from the pre-aviation age; there is a lifeboat and the supplies are limited in that lifeboat and rescue won't come for some time, if ever, so somebody needs to leave). In this situation there is a "stowaway"; somebody who was working on the spacecraft prior to launch and was inadvertently left on board after being knocked unconscious. An impossibility but we are asked to believe that could happen on a state of the art mission. "Suspension of disbelief" is a poor term for what the audience is asked to do; this goes far beyond that! Then, we are asked to believe that due to damage to the carbon dioxide removal unit that the newly enlarged crew gets into a supply problem. Notwithstanding this unit being so important that it is unconceivable a backup is not carried; the solution to this seems a little dubious (their plan is to obtain additional oxygen from a nearby source but how would that help with carbon dioxide buildup?) Anyone, the proposal of the stowaway committing suicide in order to save the crew is a point in the movie. Does it happen? I will not say any more as I do not like to put in a spoiler but I would like to mention something that needs to be mentioned that the movie somehow misses. And, that is:

The idea of somebody having to take a one way walk into space to save the rest of the crew is not new. The science fiction writer Issac Asimov wrote a story about this in the 1950s. In that story there is a two man crew, and there is an undetected oxygen lead that is not detected until it is too late; there is only enough oxygen left for one man to survive until rescue-which is a couple of months away. Somebody has to leave and eventually, in that story, somebody does. The remaining crew member is eventually rescued, but even he knows that his reputation is ruined (no, he did not kill the other crew member but he will always be remembered for pushing that crew member to suicide). I do not believe that aspect of having a crew member committing suicide is covered very well in this movie. Something to consider.

There are other factors in this movie that make it quite implausible and make suspension of disbelief" difficult. Other reviewers mention them and I am sure they are totally correct in what they point out. Which is unfortunate as the movie is well filmed and one can see the improvements in motion picture technology since "Marooned" was literally filmed in 1969 (movie production generally does not use photographic film anymore nowadays. We use the term "film" but a movie now is actually a video production). I wonder about having a commander from Australia (her accent is quite noticeable) but I presume that could happen as it is not clear if this is strictly a U. S. mission. The motion sickness after launch of one character is, unfortunately, all so typical (within a few minutes after engine cutoff about 50% of the astronauts vomit; 25% are deeply nauseated and the other 25% are considered quite lucky). As to whether or not a female astronaut, "Zoe" (played by Anna Kendrick) would wear makeup during launch is definitely questionable (Of course, I doubt sincerely that a male astronaut would either). Also of question is whether an astronaut would wear a medal above the "neck dam" of their pressure suit; thereby risking the medal chocking them (when inhaling) or otherwise getting in the way of their vision. I know the floating medal was used to depict weightlessness (probably by using the old "black thread" technique); and it was probably the cheapest, as well as the most effective way to do so, therefore I won't dwell any further on it except to point it out to our technical minded viewers.

The situation in Marooned was believable. The dramatic story line of a rescue mission in that movie was also believable. The emotional letdown in that when the rescue had to be called off due to a hurricane is virtually visceral. The subsequent plot development that raises the viewer's emotions is nothing sort of brilliant. This movie (Stowaway) tries to do this but, IMHO, fails. There are too many technical implausibilities that even a non-technical person would catch. But, I am not through just yet with my review. If I have sounded a little bit like a preacher up to this point then perhaps I should deliver a sermon.

And, now for my "sermon"; while I am on this posting. In real life, in 1969, a panel of experts (most of them from the Air Force and the Navy) considered what humans could do in space. They used the experience of manned spaceflight up to that date as well as the developments in electronics since the development of integrated circuits. The panel recommended the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program be cancelled and it was in June of that year. They also eventually recommended cancelling the Manned Space Program altogether after the Apollo flights were over; they considered these flights to be basically "planting the flag" missions with science coming in second (which, in fact, they were). A leading figure of this panel was Lewis Allen; then a high ranking military office who later (in 1978) became Chief of Staff of the US. Air Force. In fact, as Chief of Staff he told some shuttle astronauts there was "no use for humans in space, none what so ever" and that had it been up to him there would have been no shuttle program. Experience has shown him to have been basically correct (some manned activity could be useful but only rarely; such as in the repair of the normally unmanned Hubble Space Telescope). This movie used a manned mission to Mars as the basic premise for the plot development. Yet looking at what the unmanned (robotic) rovers accomplish, it seems doubtful a manned mission would accomplish much more than what the rovers are doing. Incidentally, for whatever it is worth, after General Allen retired from the Air Force he became director of Jet Propulsion Laboratory- which is where the U. S. robotic exploration missions are managed.

The Midnight Sky (2020)

Fantastic visuals; fails as a story though

[5/10 · 8 April 2021]

This movie seems to be part of a loose trilogy of George Clooney movies; with a classic thrown in as a tribute. Basically, Clooney seems to be combining the stories of Solaris and Tomorrow Land into this late-in-career end-of-world effort. The classic that I am referring to (and snippets of it are included within this movie) is the original "On The Beach". THAT movie (made a couple of years before Clooney was born) seems to be the iconic "end-of-world" movie. "On The Beach" looked at the lives of a group of people who had a short reprieve from the fatal after effects of a worldwide nuclear war. This one does the same; though the actual reason for the end of the world is not specified. It seems that the optimism shown at the end of Tomorrowland is misplaced and the world indeed has collapsed. As in Solaris there is an outer space aspect and that is the crew of an interplanetary ship returning to earth; they are the only humans who might survive this catastrophe if they return to the habitable Jupiter moon they had just finished exploring. They need to know, though, about the planetary wide catastrophe before they reach Earth on their return. Why they do not know about this already is a plot hole (spacecraft remain in contact with Earth during planetary missions; they do not lose contact when they leave Earth orbit and reach another planet), but George is determined to tell them anyway. Why people are evacuated from a research station in the Arctic when their evacuation site is closer to the fatal catastrophe is another plot hole. Why they would leave a terminally ill cancer patient by himself is a little hard to believe but I guess it could be done.....The visuals are fantastic; can' say the same about the story line. Clooney has stated he has made a lot of movies (he has) with some of them making a lot of money and some loosing a lot. This one belongs in the latter category.

Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012)

Not the greatest but still better to see than most movies today.

[7/10 · 22 March 2021]

This is the 2nd part of the movie that brings bring Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to the big screen. It is certainly better, content wise, than most of the trash that is in the theaters today but this effort seems to not quite totally succeed. I will give my reasons why as such"

1. Gasoline at $40@gallon would not plunge the economy into a depression; rather, it would totally destroy it! There would not be any "background" activities going on that one sees in this movie. The $40@gallon price is so extreme that "suspension of disbelief" is impossible.

2. The cast of this movie is different than in Part 1. This can be explained by the time that has occurred after the events of Part 1; most likely, though, is that the actors who were in Part 1 did not want to be seen again in this rather dubious effort. Samatha Mathis is quite well cast for this role IMHO as she is, as Dagny Taggert, also a never married, childless, middle aged woman who has to deal with life in a way that relatively few women have done before. This casting, at least, makes sense. Other aspects do not.

3. In this movie the middle aged Dagny Taggert has an ongoing affair with married steel tycoon Henry Rearden. That is not surprising; however, the implied endorsement, in the movie, of this affair is awkward and presented poorly. This probably comes from the fact that the author of Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand) was engaged in a real life extra marital affair when she wrote this "magnum opus".

4. Dagny Taggert is also presented as being a quite capable business jet pilot. Well, that is certainly convenient. How did she find time for such training? This was never mentioned before and also makes suspension of disbelief difficult (if she had been flying it when the owner of the plane was demonstrating it for her and they then followed the other aircraft then that perhaps would be more believable).

5. The crash of the trains in the tunnel is actually laughable. Reminds me of the "Get Smart" episode where Smart and the Chief (and a few other assistants) are in the Chief's office with some of their car units on assignment in the city. One assistant says, "I sent Unit A north on that street". The other assistant says "I sent Unit B south on the same street". Smart then says, "I think that street is a one-way street". A third assistant then runs into the office and shouts "Two of our units on such and such street have been in terrible wreck!" Comedy I know but the odds of two trains getting into such a wreck are remote; to say the least. Call this part of the movie the railroad equivalent of "Airplane".

6. The Government really can't force manufacturer's to do business with them. The last time they 'railroaded" (sorry, I could not resist) manufacturers to that was in WWII. Since then, they have had enormous problems. Real life example is the case of the Iowa battleships. Made in WWII, their parts became increasing harder to obtain due to obsolescence and not enough manufacturers were willing to continue to make those parts that by the mid 1990s the entire class of battleships were retired; with no replacements in sight. There are other examples of businesses successfully refusing to work with the government with the fact being the basic premise of this movie is flawed.

7. Actually Ayn Rand's philosophy was pretty much discredited long before her death in 1982. As interesting and thought provoking as it is; Objectivism, as well as "Atlas Shrugged" does not quite "hit the mark". Still, this movie is much better than most movies around today.

The Dirty Dozen (1967)

This movie should be banned; an insult to our military

[1/10 · 24 November 2020]

I remember seeing this movie in its original theatrical release in 1967. At that time the rating system had not been introduced yet; had it been (in the form we have today) I would not have been allowed in as I was under 17-even though I was escorted in by a parent as this is obviously a NC-17 film. That rating keeps kids out of the theater; in this film's case EVERYBODY should have been kept out!!!

This film has a subtle message that dates back to the early days of the anti Vietnam war protests. Though we do not necessary like to acknowledge it the fact was that at that time the war protestors and draft dodgers were seen as lower than common criminals. Hard to imagine today considering how things turned out after this movie came out but most people (WWII vets and people simply old enough to remember WWII), in 1967, viewed the anti war activists as lower than criminal scumbags. With this movie the director seems to have made the statement that even dirt bag criminals who are willing to put their lives on the line can have some value; whereas the anti war forces are lower than that!!

And then this movie is something of a slap to the face to the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment's 101st Airborne Division Demolition Section; who were the basis of this movie. They were not "model soldiers" but they were not felons either. They made a point about that when the movie came out and afterwards into their old age. Interesting group of soldiers; they eschewed military traditions for more practical and functional behavior. Which means they concentrated on preparing for a very dangerous mission instead of appearing "spit and polish"; hence the term "Dirty Dozen". At worst they committed misdemeanors; not felonies. And, their mission (seizing a railroad bridge in France on the evening of June 5, 1944) was justifiable.

Indeed, one wonders about the movie mission; which is killing off (actually murdering) enemy officers at some chateau. Why not simply bomb, using aircraft, the gathering of officers? Sending forces in and murdering (this was not during combat and some of the enemy had surrendered prior to be killed) people (including the wives by pouring gasoline down and shaft into the room they had fled to and then lighting it) was and is not acceptable practice in our military. The Major (played by Lee Marvin) would have been in his rights to turn down such a mission when assigned to him and, in fact, should have. This movie tarnishes the image of our military so much that I am surprised it was made.

The actual squad that was sent in to France engaged in combat with enemy forces to seize a railroad bridge and did so, with some loss of life (it was a dangerous mission). They were not low life condemned criminals and they did not kill innocent people in the process. They should be remembered better than what this movie shows.

The Catcher Was a Spy (2018)

Well made movie about a little known but very important part of WWII

[8/10 · 11 February 2019]

This movie provides the major details of the espionage career of Morris "Moe" Burg. The movie is well researched and it is a delight to be seen for viewers who are familiar with part of the story's background; yet, may be a little bit obtuse for others.

Though not mentioned explicitly in the movie, Morris Burg was born in 1902 and was therefore about 40 years of age when the United States entered WWII. Though some men of that age did enlist and serve they were not particularly encouraged to do so; the belief being they probably contributed more to the war effort in their current employement. Nonetheless, Burg wanted to do something more direct for the war effort than coaching a baseball team. This movie gives an overview of how he entered the OSS and started his role in espionage. Here is where it becomes useful to understand the day and age.

In that day and age, if a person was not married by age 25; certainly by 30, it was felt there was something wrong with that individual. Hence, the early scene of the movie where he was suspected of being homosexual (at that time homosexuals were looked down on more than most criminals) and why he beat up the teammate (I do not know whether or not this actually happened). Also, since being a homosexual in that day and age was considered so derogatory such people were denied security clearances due to the blackmail threat they were subject to. That is why the scene of Bill Donovan bluntly asking Berg if he were one was included; something like this DID happen (though not necessarily by Donovan).

Another part of the movie that may not be appreciated by most viewers concerned his surreptitious entry into Switzerland. When he came on top of a hill and saw the city lights he immediately knew he was in Switzerland. HOW?, one asks. Simple. All cities that were in a war zone (even within the United States) were under 'blackout" regulations. Outside lights were generally not allowed to be on; interior lights could be on but heavy drapes would be placed on windows so as to not allow the light to be seen from outside. By December 1944 most people had not seen city lights for over three years; therefore when Burg saw the lights he realized he must be out of a war zone and that could only be due to being in Switzerland.

One part of the movie that I have some difficulty accepting as authentic was the information provided to him concerning the Manhattan project. More and very specific information was mentioned in the movie than was probably actually provided to him prior to his mission. Though I have no doubt he was briefed about the possible development of a bomb, using nuclear technology, that could easily destroy a city I doubt if he was given the same specifics that were provided in the movie. The Manhattan project was a very classified effort in 1944 and the US. did not want that information to reach the Germans. Berg picked up bits and pieces of information from other physicists; as the movie shows, but I doubt if he had as much as the movies shows him having. The physicists (from friendly or neutral countries) probably did provide the sentiment (seen in the movie but not quite expounded upon) that if the Germans had developed the atomic bomb or at least were close to developing it then some sort of indication of that would probably have been evident by December 1944.

Finally, the movie, early on, makes it appear that if Berg had killed somebody in Switzerland then it would have been an act of war. IT IS NOT!! Killing an enemy of your country in a neutral country is an act of murder. This has come up at times (the MOSSAD tends to do this a lot) and though one may consider it proper as an act of war, the country where it occurs in will treat it as an illegal killing. That is something that Berg had to consider. Does he or doesn't he?? See the movie and find out.

A Ghost Story (2017)

If there are ghosts then this movie applies

[8/10 · 18 December 2017]

Ghosts probably do not actually exist. Most likely a "ghost" is seen not by the usual aspect of the eye seeing something and projecting the image to the brain but rather by an image being created by the brain; irrespective of something actually being there. Certainly if ghosts existed they would have been detected by now with the precision scientific instruments now used by researchers. Having said all that I must say that IF ghosts exist then their existence would be like what is shown in this movie. It shows how a ghost could be so determined that it stays around and instead of going to that "somewhere else" that all of us are destined to go to. A somewhat philosophical look at an hypothesized afterlife. A great move about such an ill defined subject. Worth seeing.

The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

The literary Tarzan; more or less

[7/10 · 12 February 2017]

This is one of the few movies that show the "literary Tarzan", i.e. the Tarzan that Edgar Rice Burroughs envisioned- "Lord Greystoke". This movie shows has a pretty good character development; which is an absolute necessity in order to believe that he can communicate with the gorillas (how he can communicate with the lions, ostriches, and other animals is not made clear in this movie). The scenery shots are marvelous and give the viewer an idea of how beautiful this part of Africa is and why historical European settlers did go there; despite the hardships involved.

Having praised this movie I must also state that one should remember that it is still a work of fiction that borders on fantasy. Tarzan is shown as a "feral" human; raised by animals. This has happened a few times in reality but the child inevitably grows up mentally disabled; sort of like putting a Stephen Hawking intellect in a freshman class in high school and not allowing him to progress to a higher grade ;-). To get around that suspension of disbelief some critics have pointed out that Lord Greystoke was raised by a group of advanced apes that had a language-so he could develop mentally. Well, perhaps.....

"Jane" -the marvelous actress Margaret Robbie- was never portrayed as a "damsel in distress" to begin with, and in this movie she is no exception. A great performance is given by her; she almost steals the show from Tarzan.

Though the movie shows the Tarzan that Burroughs envisioned; it does not show the Africa Congo as depicted in the novels. Instead the movie shows what is usually referred to as "The Congo Free State"; a still controversial era. Burroughs probably knew about this matter but due to the lack of specific information about this period (a situation that still exists today) he kept the depiction of Africa more "generic". This movie shows the European government as the "bad guy" with Tarzan being the "good guy". Anyway, just remember, it is fiction with even the location being fictitious (filming was actually done in Gabon; not the Congo).