Reviews

1,019 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: Vicious Circle (1957)
Season 2, Episode 29
10/10
Excellent episode dealing with important themes
22 November 2018
Excellent episode featuring Dick York in a non-comedic role. George Macready also stars in this chilling story about a weak man who cannot say no to his boss, in this case, a criminal. In a way, it is study of the mentality of those who will commit murder on command. Now, Dick York's character has misgivings and even warns his next victim, in this case his own fiancé, but that does not stop him from obeying orders. The story has larger political implications. History is replete with those who will do the most awful things, commit the most heinous crimes, if ordered to do so. They will act without hesitation or regrets, based on the belief that they do not bear final responsibility. Well, that just does not wash. What goes around comes around, as the saying goes. Today the executioner, tomorrow the executed, while those in charge keep control. As this episode so explicitly dramatizes, the hitman is merely the agent and is not indispensable. Just the opposite is the case. The episode leaves us asking this question: why do such awful work?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Beautiful story
22 November 2018
Such a beautiful story, and so well acted. It's about life as theater and about living in the present and not be stuck on the past. The mind can play tricks on us, especially when it comes to recalling the past. We are traveling on a continuum of time. This continuum is divided into discreet moments, each one separate. Together they form our life. Booth Templeton (played by Brian Aherne who gives a masterful performance),mixes those discreet moments, thus disrupting his life. Once he returns to the present, all is well again and he can go on with his life, secure in the knowledge that the past is gone and not to be relived but only to be remembered.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
77 Sunset Strip: The Affairs of Adam Gallante (1960)
Season 3, Episode 13
10/10
When black-and-white was the norm
17 November 2018
The plot is farfetched but amusing. It is noteworthy for who is in the cast. Sue Randall played the elementary school teacher in the classic sitcom Leave It to Beaver. This episode is perfect for those who study the history of television or are invested in nostalgia for a bygone era when shows were in back-and-white and plots were straightforward and devoid, at least overtly, of political spin. Also impressive is Louis Quinn's performance. He would have been perfect as Columbo. Timing.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Wyatt Earp - victim of fake news.
16 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Fake News is nothing new. This episode deals squarely with the problem. A woman tries to extract money from the local newspaper by claiming that Wyatt Earp takes bribes. Without fully vetting the story, the local newspaper editor publishes the story. Earp responds by threatening to sue the paper for libel and slander. Things finally settle down when the woman, whose late husband was a leader of a gang, leaves town. While in town she was nothing but trouble for Earp and for the newspaper reporters who sucked up to her in return for a story. The most irresponsible is Ned Buntline who lets himself become emotionally involved with the woman, who attempts to use that to her advantage, namely, to get Buntline to pay her way to New York City. Luckily, Wyatt Earp remains steadfast and matters are satisfactorily resolved, with Earp's reputation still intact. This episode is remarkable in its depiction of the damage caused by irresponsible journalists whose poor judgement almost ruin Wyatt Earp.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Office: Dwight's Speech (2006)
Season 2, Episode 17
10/10
Michael is an enabler with human flaws
16 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This episode is a take-off on Mussolini. Dwight is being recognized as salesman of the year and is invited to make a speech at a sales person convention. Michael feels upstaged and offers to "coach" Dwight in order to instill in Dwight self-doubt about delivering a speech. Yet, Dwight surprises Michael and delivers a speech by borrowing from Mussolini. It works! Dwight's speech is received with tumultuous applause from everyone, except Michael, who, consumed by jealousy, sulks. Michael comes off as petty and insecure. He puts his personal feelings ahead of that of the interest of the company. He is selfish, manipulative and insecure. But he is the boss, and it is because of Michael that Dwight succeeds because Michael is an enabler, albeit one with human flaws.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Office: Andy's Play (2010)
Season 7, Episode 3
10/10
Andy at his most desperate
16 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Such a sad episode. The saga of Andy Bernard continues. He is the ultimate loser. Nothing he does pans out. Even good things, like being in a play, for Andy turns into mud. He is pursuing Meredith and failing. He is doing everything to get her to like him, but is failing and is too stupid to know when to stop. Watching Andy fail becomes excruciating. He is such a goof up. he is the Barney Fife of the 2000s. he is one of the most unattractive characters in the history of television sitcoms. he's not even good at sucking up. He inspires pity. His pursuit of Meredith is pathological. Meredith has rejected Andy. Yet Andy is determined to get her back. When she would rather babysit for Pam than go watch Andy in his play is an unmistakably clear message of her lack of interest in him, yet he does not get the message. She is merely polite to Andy, but Andy misinterprets that as interest in him. He is a dullard, a foil, and a fool.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Office: New Leads (2010)
Season 6, Episode 20
10/10
Great episode - never cross the boss
15 November 2018
The sales staff become uppity and attempt to impose their control on the office. This is a direct challenge to Michael's authority. If Michael does not act he will be reduced to a figure head and destroy the team spirit that Michael has spent years building. The sales staff fee, empowered by the corporate office, and so believe that they can now take charge. However, what they forget is that Michael is still the manager. What is at stake is Michael's job and personal credibility. But most important, what is at risk is the survival of Dunder Mifflin. Michael acts, and does so decisively and with some comic effect. In taking action, Michael re-asserts his authority, puts the sales staff in their place, and teaches all a lesson about respecting the boss.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Office: Happy Hour (2010)
Season 6, Episode 21
10/10
Attempt to manipulate Michael Scott backfires
15 November 2018
Great episode. Astute depiction of a man who refuses to be manipulated by others who want to take advantage of his good nature to make social points at his expense. Once Michael learns that he is on a date, he takes decisive action to discredit Pam and Jim, who did not inform Michael of their plan to hook him up with one of Pam's girl friends. This takes place at an office Happy Hour organized by one of the employees who wants to use the event to try to establish a gay connection with another employee. Office politics run rampant as everyone is using a social event to promote their personal, sand selfish, goals. All except Michael. This episode depicts the characters of the Office at their most ridiculous, except for Michael, whose acting out is a form of passive -aggressive behavior that completely thwart Pam and Jim's attempt to use Michael to score points at Michael's expense.. Instead of being open and honest with Michael, they give Michael cause to act out. In this respect, Pam and Jim totally misjudged Michael. Michael does not need their help to meet women nor did he ask for their help. Sadly, although a spoof, this episode, and the series in general, provide an accurate depiction of the more negative and reprehensible aspects of human nature.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A movie that showcases Denzel Washington at the story's expense.
19 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie has enough action and good acting to keep your interest. This despite a contrived story line that reduces the movie to almost a parody. Now, this graphically depicts a lot of ugly and vicious acts; shootings, high speed auto collisions, profane language, people being humiliated and terrorized, all set in a dysfunctional and ugly urban landscape. The problem is that in this movie even the good guys are bad. Everyone has different degrees of badness. So, it is unclear as to ho to root for and against. Denzel Washington plays Garber, the hero of movie. Yet, Garber's character is so flawed (we learn that he is under investigation for having taken bribes and has been demoted) that he's not even an ant-hero. He's a failed city bureaucrat. Accepting him as hero, or even liking him, is a real stretch. Then there is the role of the police. After the train is hijacked, there is a massive police response. Hundreds of police are deployed to the scene in the tunnel, and then ... do nothing. The after the head hijacker, played by John Travolta, shoots a hostage the police still do ... nothing. Now the movie is absurd. Then the movie resorts to all kinds of contrived action to build tension. All ridiculous. Instead Garber, who is a civilian, takes charge of the situation. After he delivers millions of dollars in cash to the hijackers (that scene itself borders on the absurd), he then eludes the hijackers, and finally, confronts the ringleader on the Manhattan Bridge while the police (no surprise) are cringing in fear. An especially interesting part of movie is its depiction of how the city manages to collect $20 million IN CASH in a half hour and how the police are reduced to being delivery boys, while Garber, who is actually an ex-motorman, engages in complex negotiations with the hijackers. It is apparent that this movie was made to showcase Denzel Washington. It certainly wasn't made to applaud the police. The movie shows police officers on motorcycles transporting sacks containing millions of dollars. Why one or more of the officers didn't abscond with the dough is not explained. But it certainly would have made for a more interesting and plausible movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Leave It to Beaver: Beaver's Accordion (1960)
Season 4, Episode 13
10/10
This episode is about ID theft.
10 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Great episode. Thoughtful story. Strong acting. Ward receives a flyer for a $270 accordion; he tosses it into the garbage can. Beaver finds the flyer. Now he wants the accordion. Beaver talks to Eddie Haskell who encourages Beaver to order the accordion; it has a five-day free trail period, so if he doesn't want it he can return it. No problem (so far). So, without asking permission from his parents, Beaver mails the order and shortly after receives a box containing the accordion. Beaver cannot play the accordion and now wants to return it. He goes to the post office to ship the accordion, but can't afford the ten-dollar postage. Beaver asks Wally for help Wally can't help him. Beaver and Wally decide to hide the accordion in a closet. In the meantime, a man from the accordion company visits the home and speaks with Ward. The man demands payment of $270 for accordion and shows ward the paperwork proving that he ordered the product. Ward, of course, is put off by the man and is about to throw him out when June goes upstairs to fetch something from the closet and down the stairs comes the accordion. Ward is now totally confused. However, Beaver admits that he ordered the accordion. Ward is angry but controls his temper. He arrives at an agreement with the accordion company. He will not pay for the accordion but will pay for the cost of repairs, which totals $43.

This episode shows the havoc that can occur when one party makes a purchase and another party is stuck with the bill. In this episode Beaver steals his father's identity to make a purchase. The salesman demands payment from Ward, not Beaver. Being 11 years old, Beaver cannot be held responsible for his actions, and indeed did not act out of malice. Yet, through his irresponsible conduct, he put his father in a bad spot. If this episode was set today, the damage Beaver could have caused could have been exponentially greater.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A coherent story about a tragic event.
8 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is structured in the form of a documentary that dramatizes the events associated with the Challenger disaster that occurred on January 28, 1986. The movie recounts the events that led to the decision to launch the rocket. Everything that could go wrong went wrong. it was as if the mission was fated to fail. NASA had so many opportunities to abort the mission but did not. The same can be said for the contractor, Morton Thiokol, which designed and manufactured the boosters. The movie argues that both NASA and Morton Thiokol knew about the problem with the O-rings, yet chose to base their decision to launch on factors other than safety. Everyone shares the blame. No one person or organization bore total responsibility for the decision to launch. It was a team decision. The issue was not one of risk. All understood that the shuttle was an experimental vehicle and that things could go wrong. Rather, the problem was that the O-rings were going to flown under conditions that had not yet been tested. So nobody knew for certain whether the O-rings would fail. As the movie points out, NASA had been flying the shuttle for four years without a failure. This record of success made it more difficult to support a decision to abort the mission over a possibly defective item which to date had not failed. The climax of the movie is the scene in which Morton Thiokol, Marshall Space Flight Center and NASA decide to launch. Although the Morton Thiokol engineers had told their managers not to launch, when NASA asked if anyone at Morton Thiokol disagreed with the decision to launch, no one expresses disagreement, including the engineers who were sounding the alarm. Instead of speaking up, they say nothing. So NASA decides to launch and the next day The rest is history. As for the scenes that cover the subsequent investigation of the disaster, the movie losses much of its dramatic power. There are no good guys or bad guys. No one individual is assigned blame. That is, there are no scape goats. The movie provides no dramatic catharsis because there is none to be delivered. Yet, the movie does succeed as a semi-documentary that provides a coherent account of a truly tragic event.

Ultimately, this movie is not about the flaws in the design of a rocket engine, but rather about flaws in a decision-making process that produced a tragic outcome. One can only speculate as to why the engineers at Morton Thiokol, who had spoken out so strongly against launching the rocket, remained silent at the call conference.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Office: Goodbye, Toby (2008)
Season 4, Episode 14
10/10
One of the best episodes of the series. The two office wise guys are upstaged by the office fool.
7 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Great episode. Lots of humor but also has a serious side. Jim pays Phyllis to make an extravagant go away party for Toby. He does this not because he cares about Toby, but because of an ulterior motive: he wants to create a spectacular setting to propose marriage to Pam. The audience is left wondering when will Jim do the deed. The tension builds as Michael develops an infatuation with the new HR person Holly. Finally, the party is going full blast and everybody is having a great time. Of course, complications develop. Michael gets word that Jan is in town. he leaves the party, meets Jan who is pregnant. Believing that he is the father, Michael is flabbergasted and ecstatic until Jan tells him she pregnant by artificial insemination. Michael is devastated. he returns to the party. Holly hints that she wants Michael to leave with her; Michael, now depressed, declines and she leaves with Kevin. Meanwhile, Jim takes out the ring from his pocket but is hesitant about proposing to Pam. While Jim is procrastinating, Andy grabs the mike and publicly proposes marriage to Angela, thus completely upstaging Jim who puts the ring away, completely deflated. All attention shifts to Andy. Andy, who is a buffoon, shows that he has more courage than Jim, and proves it on Jim's dime. What a come down for Jim. He was planning to be the star, and it doesn't happen. The lesson of this episode: he who hesitates pays the price. Andy upstages Dwight as well. Dwight is stunned. His sense of superiority is crushed. He took Angela for granted, and now lost her to an interloper. Later on, Dwight recovers and regroups. He understands his mistake. There is no way he will give up Angela. After the party Phyllis returns to the office and catches Dwight and Angela having sex. As for Jim, the nature of his relationship with Pam is left hanging. There is no question that it is at risk. Pam cares for Jim and sensed that Jim wanted to propose. But if actions speak louder than words, Jim's inaction speaks volumes. Does he really care about her? Even more importantly, does Jim have what it takes to be a leader? His status as the office's star is also at risk. Will he act?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Law & Order: Punk (1998)
Season 9, Episode 8
10/10
Surprisingly strong Law and Order episode.
2 August 2018
At first, in this episode the story seems contrived. A corrections officer is murdered in the community and a female inmate is accused of arranging the murder from inside a prison. The inmate claims that the corrections officer was raping her But the murder is not the main element that drives the story. The assistant DA, Harmon, who is female, is hostile toward the defendant and does not conceal her hostility. The question is: why is this assistant DA so hostile toward this one defendant? No one understands it. Out of all the cases this assistant DA has handled, why is the so focused on this one defendant? This mystery transform a rather unoriginal plot into something that creates interest. Soon, attention shifts away from the defendant to the assistant DA as she continues to fume over what she claims is one of the lowest human beings on the planet. Although the defendant has a checkered past, her rap sheet does not seem to suggest a record that is especially egregious. That means nothing to the assistant DA who is absolutely determined to get a murder conviction, even though the defendant was allegedly being raped. To find out why the assistant DA was so hostile, watch the episode. It contains one of Angie Harmpn's stronger performances.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Excellent action movie.
31 July 2018
The movie presents a story that is absurd. Nevertheless, it is entertaining. The movie takes the players to many different parts of the world. How they get to these places the movie does not explain. At each place people are on the run, traps are being set, communications are tense, as the good guys and bad guys try to outwit the other. The movie is devoid of any overt political content, concentrating its attention on telling the story. Tom Cruise delivers an energetic performance that carries the movie. He is in almost every scene. The movie is never dull. For fans of action movies, this movie will not disappoint.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pretty Woman (1990)
10/10
Perhaps the best love story in the history of cinema
31 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Watched this movie again, for maybe the tenth time since it was first released in 1990, and it is still as fresh as ever. An angry business man who uses his money to destroy businesses, and the in the process hurt people, meets a street hooker, a real slut, and they fall in love. Alone, both are struggling to survive; together they form a bond that nothing can break. On the surface the story seems farfetched, even contrived. A rich guy hooking up with a slutty whore - no way. However, this why this movie is so great. The story is not only believable, but appealing. Despite the huge difference in their social statuses - Edward is loaded with money and spends it, while Vivian is struggling just to pay the rent - both characters have one thing in common - intelligence. In each one's respective circles, they are surrounded by people who are not only vile but stupid. The movie captures how Edward and Vivian immediately connect. It is the key scene in the movie and shapes the entire story. Botch that scene and the whole story collapses. The cast brings this story to life. Richard Gere and Julia Roberts deliver the best performances of their careers. Gere is somber and tense and Roberts is sassy yet a little menacing. Their chemistry is impossible to miss. They become the characters they are playing. The movie depicts the story in a straightforward manner. The movie shows how Edward and Vivian evolve, in the process bringing out aspects of themselves that were lying suppressed. Alone, they were fighting the world; together, the world is theirs. Tremendous story about the power of love.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Soviet propoganda, yet warrants serious consideration
11 July 2018
The Fall of Berlin 1950 Get beyond the stagy acting and the cheap special effects, and this movie presents the Soviet version of how and why the Russians wound up in Berlin in April 1945. Although ostensibly a love story between a Soviet factory worker who serves in the Red Army and Soviet school teacher who is kidnapped by the Germans and becomes a slave laborer inside Germany, Stalin and Hitler are the principal characters. The contrast between the two could not more stark. Hitler is portrayed has a megalomania driven fanatic who responded to bad news, meaning the truth, with fits of hysteria while Stalin is portrayed as an all-caring leader who through steadfast leadership guides the Soviet Union to victory. Although the movie glorifies Stalin, it also honors the Red Army soldiers who fought the battles. According to the movie, Stalin decides to invade Berlin to prevent the Germans from giving up the city to the allies and then joining the allies to fight the Russians. Hitler believes that he could still win the war by breaking up the American-Soviet alliance. Stalin knows this and directs his generals to ignore German provocations. Another controversial scene is the Yalta Conference. This scene shows Stalin having taken action to relieve German pressure on the allies in 1944/1945. Other scenes show Hitler scornfully rejecting his generals' warnings not to invade Russia, and becoming increasingly despondent as the bad news keeps piling up. The movie portrays the Nazi leaders as little more than opportunistic thugs and plunderers supported by sycophants who are united by one goal: to crush communism. Those supporting Hitler include American business interests and the Catholic Church. The movie is Soviet propaganda, nonetheless, the movie warrants being taken seriously as a cinematic work. The fact is that Hitler lost and Stalin won. The Russians, and not the allies, defeated the Germans in Berlin. These facts alone give the movie's storyline some credibility. Whether it fairly and accurately portrays the role of the Allies in winning the war is another question.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Manhattan (1979)
10/10
If suffering is supposed to be funny then this movie is hilarious.
12 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie depicts a dark, somber, chilling New York City, a place in which light is starkly offset by shadows. This sets the mood for the story about a man who is wants happiness but fails to find it. Nothing he does brings him joy. He hates his job, gest involved in hopelessly morbid relationships, deceives himself into believing that his so-called friends actually care about him, and is incapable of showing real anger. He feels rage but cannot let it out. Instead he directs his rage against himself by repeatedly putting himself in social situations in which he allows others to humiliate him. Now, what makes this movie so wacky is that it is billed as a comedy. This movie is supposed to be funny, clever, witty and arguably Woody Allen's best movie. This dark movie is anything but funny. The main character, Isaac, played by Allen, is suffering. Isaac is so lacking in self-esteem and so determined to punish himself for wanting to be happy that he gets involved with a high school girl. And the moment the girl indicates she cares for him, he pushes her away. Only belatedly does he realize what he has done, but by that time it is too late. he has lost her. He suffers another rejection from a woman who is the mistress of his married best friend. Isaac deludes himself into believing that this woman, who is fickle and emotionally flighty, cares about him. When he shows that he cares about her, she dumps him. She is utterly incapable of commitment. But the worst blow to Isaac's already shredded ego occurs when he is forced to realize that his best friend, Yale, the one person who Isaac believes really cares about him as a human being, and who Isaac idolizes, is a self-centered narcissist who uses people. And remember: this is supposed to be a comedy. Where is Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and Costello when we need them? The thing about this movie that makes it so unique is that it attempts to present self-loathing as a form of humor. One cannot help but feel sympathy for Isaac who really deserves better treatment. But to call this comedy is a bit of a stretch.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Mother as hero.
18 April 2018
This movie is good. it has a strong story, with good continuity, good character development, lots of dramatic tension, and most of all, strong acting by the entire cast. The bad guys, which means just about every character in this movie, are reprehensible, J. Paul Getty is depicted as a cynical miser who believes he us being conned by his own grandson. His son is depicted as a drunk and his grandson, a carbon copy of his father. Whether this is a product of literary license is another matter. The only character in this movie who is actually worth caring about is Getty II's mother, played by Michelle Williams. She carries the movie. Without a strong performance from her, this movie would fail as a work of drama, reason: all the other characters are so depraved. Except for the mother, the audience has no one to root for. But for this movie, one hero is enough.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Darkest Hour (2017)
8/10
Churchill as hero.
18 April 2018
This movie contains lots of stagy acting with character depictions that approach the brink of caricature. Gary Oldham's portrayal of Churchill is especially cheesy. Nevertheless, this movie includes some powerfully dramatic scenes showing Churchill's self-doubts and indecisiveness over whether to negotiate with Hitler. Those familiar with the history of World War Two know how Churchill resolves this dilemma, but for those less familiar with the history, the theatrics contain much drama. Will he or won't he cave in? Will Britain become another France? To find out the answer, read a history book about the period or watch the movie. Either way, you will learn something interesting.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Military as a sham.
12 March 2018
This is an excellent movie, for a while. R. Lee Ermey gives a riveting performance as the arch typical drill instructor, Sgt. Hartman. Ermey's performance should have earned him an Academy Award. In fact, it can be argued that Ermey's presence makes this movie special. Out side of that, the movie falters. Sgt. Hartman states clearly at the start that his order is weed out those who cannot hack his beloved Marine Corps. That means finding the bad apples. Yet, despite all his threats and abuse and blustering, nobody gets weeded out. The story line contains huge holes. First, regarding Gomer Pyle. Pyle fails at everything, yet Hartman does not flunk him out. Instead, he employs terror to try to get Pyle, a hapless screw up, to comply. Nothing helps, yet Pyle makes it. Boot camp has taught him only one thing: how to kill Hartman. Second, the story abruptly switches to Vietnam. The troops are cynical, demoralized and dysfunctional. They lack unit cohesion and esprit de corps. However, the story fails to explain the cause of their malaise. Joker, another bad apple from boot camp, is still in the Marines. Third, the character Animal Mother. His presence in the story is seems to make no sense, except that he is yet another bad apple that the Marines never weeded out. He's just more overtly anti-social. This entire movie depicts the military as a sham. Tell that to those who actually serve.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Perhaps David Lean's best movie.
2 February 2018
The British colonial authorities use a contrived incident to stage a show trial to prove Indian inferiority and thereby further justify Britain's continued colonial occupation of India. Through clever directing, this movie appeals to the audience's sense of outrage at the British who are impervious to the loud and widespread demands that they leave India. The tension between the Indians and English soon becomes apparent. it is this tension that becomes the basis for the drama that unfolds. A young woman arrives in India and confronted by her own sexuality has a mental breakdown and accuses her companion, an Indian physician, of attempted rape. This allegation further widens the rift between the Indians and the British, and intensifies calls for the British to leave. This in turn makes the British even more determined to put the doctor on trial and get a conviction. The Indian defense counsel considered the trial a sham, protests get louder, yet the British continue undaunted. This sets the stage for even more dramatics, which will not be discussed here. To find out the exciting conclusion to this story, and how tensions,, get resolved, watch the movie. This movie is a great work of art.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Surprisingly excellent movie.
25 January 2018
What I expected to be just another potboiler western turned out to be a well acted movie with a strong and compelling story. The story deals with issues of loyalty, compassion, ethics, and morality. The main character, a physician played by Robert Francis, has choices to make. Whatever he does, he will make enemies. He is challenged to stay true to his convictions. His only friend is a woman, played by Donna Reed, who provides him moral support. The movie dramatizes the issues that defined the war against the Native Americans. To the US Army, all Native Americans were the enemy, including those who were at peace. When rifles are stolen, the US Army panics and in the process riles up not one but two tribes, who, united, and whose warriors are armed with rifles, comprise a formidable foe that could defeat the Army. Under these conditions the doctor is forced to make certain decisions that could go against his values as a medical professional. But to stay true to his beliefs could put him at risk for being branded a traitor. It makes for strong drama. To find out how it gets resolved, watch the movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It's about a lot more than a holiday.
30 December 2017
This story is told from the vantage point of an ten year old boy. The boy is self-centered, willful, manipulative, in short, obnoxious. Everything in the story is about him. He is the center of his own personal universe. His likes his parents, but to him they are merely means through which to gain gratification. His father is a gruff sounding but caring and responsible working man; his mother is a house wife. The story provides little information about them. All that is known is learned from the boy, and his perceptions are limited. The movie ostensibly is a comedy. However , it pokes fun at the parents, who really aren't subjects who warrant derision. The story also takes shots at the crass materialism associated with Christmas. here, the story is more effective as a satire. It is difficult not to find something about Christmas that cannot be parodied. Already a cynic, the boy knows that it's all a bunch of baloney. All he wants is a certain present. He knows Santa won't be bringing it, so he is forced to use subterfuge to get his way. To find out what happens, watch the movie. But don't be fooled by the title. Although set during Christmas., this story is about a lot more than a holiday.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Two strangers become real friends
30 December 2017
Two men spend time together, ostensibly for business, but each with ulterior motives which are revealed as the story progresses. The two men are David Lipsky, a reporter for Rolling Stone, and David Wallace, a writer who just wrote a critically acclaimed novel. The tension mounts as both men try to gain dominance over the other. In this case the domination is not physical but intellectual and emotional. Each call out the other's failings, fears and hypocrisy. Both become enmeshed in each other's business. Lipsky finds himself answering as many questions as he asks as Wallace finds himself going on the defensive to avoid having to deal with subjects that to him are too personal and off-bounds. Yet, defensive barriers crumble and both men are able to speak to each other with a frankness that is evidence of real friendship. This is a wonderful movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Obsession: Dark Desires: Mad for Teacher (2015)
Season 2, Episode 3
7/10
Another story which exploits the plight of the mentally ill.
25 November 2017
A male student in a high school, Todd, becomes obsessed with a female teacher, Mrs. White, a special needs teacher, after he is told she will not teacher him anymore. Todd has attention deficit and impulse control problems. His behavior is worsening. Mrs.White is assigned to provide him individual teaching. During a teaching session Todd tells Mrs. White that stopped taking his medications. Mrs. White expresses concern that he is off his medications; a narrator explains that the medications prevented Todd from gaining weight at a time when he wanted to gain weight to play football. Neither Mrs. White or anyone else in the school take any decisive action to help Todd with his compliance problem. Unsurprisingly, Todd's behavior worsens. Soon he is stalking Mrs. White and threatens to kill her. Mrs. White is terrified. Her entire family is now placed at risk. Amazingly, so far the police are not involved. Todd then drives his truck into Mrs. White's house. Still no police. The story ends with the narrator informing that Todd was arrested and spends three years and nine months in jail for various offenses. Todd is still obsessed with Mr. White, who moves and hears from him again. This story is excellent example of a Hollywood potboiler. It has a victim, a woman Mrs. White, and a villain, Todd. The villain, Todd, is mean and nasty, and the victim, Mrs. White, is demur and helpless. The story clearly is biased in favor of Mrs. White, who is presented as someone who warrants sympathy. What the story omits is why, as soon as Todd reported that he stopped taking his medications, the school authorities did not decisively and immediately deal with this problem. Why they did not inform Todd's treating physician of Todd's noncompliance nor why Todd's parents were not immediately brought into the picture. Nor does the story inform whether Mrs. White was qualified to teach children with mental disorders. By failing to deal decisively with Todd's noncompliance, the school authorities became enablers, which directly led to Todd's decompensation and criminal acts. The story, which is biased in favor of Mrs. White, puts blame squarely on Todd, when in fact it is the school which should be held culpable for failing to intervene as soon as Todd's non-compliance became known. This story is just another example of how Hollywood will exploit the plight of the mentally for commercial gain. Sad.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed