A Night At The Movies CXXXVIII: The Four Feathers (2002)

A historical drama based (loosely) upon the book by the same name, and I have mixed feelings about this film.  I enjoyed the central premise of the film that the main character, when labeled a coward because he did not want to go to war and die, was effectively shamed/driven to become the bravest of the bunch by going back to those four people who gave him the feathers (a sign of cowardice), saving each of their lives in a way that was highly dangerous to himself, and returning the feather to them, thus satisfying his honor.  However, I was not as crazy about the acting, and I felt that the wartime situation the British were in for most of the film wasn’t quite right.  I can’t put my finger on it exactly – maybe a little too staged?   Also, one of the main characters, an African who comes across as part “noble savage” and perhaps the smartest/most capable warrior of the bunch came out as a bit too stereotypical in how he was portrayed, especially since without him, the main character would not have survived long enough to repay his debts.  Why was this man here, what was really driving him?   That bugged me a bit, but oh well, maybe this character was also minor in the book as well.  So in the end, an okay film.

A Night At The Movies CXXXVII: Kagemusha

This Kurasawa film is based upon events that led up to the battle of Nagashino and the end of the Takeda Clan in 1575 is an epic film in length, visuals, and content.  It’s a 3 hour film, so plan on watching for awhile or breaking it up into pieces if you can.  For a 3 hour film I didn’t lose interest although I did pause it and take a break or two as needed.  Visually speaking, seeing Medieval Japan in all its finery was really something to see.  The scenes of the castles, the samurai armor, and the large units of armor clad soldiers moving back and forth was indeed awesome in spectacle.  Interestingly, you really never saw the soldiers fighting.  You would watch them charge and run back and forth, but you never saw them fight, only the aftermath.  For content though, the movie is as much about the historical end of the Takeda clan as it is about a man who must act to save his life and how that role can take you over.  The man who would be this actor is a petty thief who looks like the exact double of the Takeda clan Daimyo (Shingen Takeda), and when Takeda suddenly dies (I won’t tell you how) the double must step in and act as Shingen to keep up the ruse that the Daimyo is still alive.  Ultimately, he must do some really good acting to seem like he Lord Shingen, and, in the end, he does so, but also becomes obsessed the role which leads to his downfall when he makes a mistake that reveals him for an imposter.  When this happens everything falls apart and the new head of the Takeda clan gets aggressive and this leads to the battle of Nagashino.  At the end, the man who was freed from this very challenging rule cannot stay away from the fake life he lived for almost 3 years and follows to the battle and sees the horror of his adopted clan’s armies being mowed down by musket fire.  He cannot take it and tries to charge the lines himself but is also cut down.  The film ends with him staggering away from the battle and seeing the fallen standard of Clan Takeda, at which point he dies.  So for a historical movie, I think the movie is really about the acting of roles, taking that over, and what was once foreign becomes the familiar and worth dying for.  A very good movie.

A Night At The Movies CXXXVI: Ghostbusters II

Hmmm – well, I’m sorry to say that this movie doesn’t hold up versus time like the first one did.  It has its good moments, and has something quite realistic for all the superhero movies out there.  Specifically the heroes don’t do well after their big save in the last movie as they got sued beyond belief for all the mess that was made during their “rescue” of the city.  If you think about, someone is going to get sued if most of a major building gets blown up and there is marshmallow goo everywhere after you do your job.

So what did I like?   The characters again, although all the characters were a bit muted this time around.  I also enjoyed the pace of the movie – just right.  What did I not enjoy?   At times some of the storyline seemed forced along, and the music was annoying.  Good for 1987, but it did not hold up with time.  So while I have fond memories of this movie from when I saw it originally, after watching it again it’s just okay and the first movie is much better.

A Night At The Movies CXXXV: Ghostbusters

Normally I wouldn’t review movies that I’ve seen before but this one I think should be an exception.  I believe I saw it in theaters, but if not, I know I definitely saw it during the 80s at some point and again sometime in the 90s.  So does it hold up after all these years?   The answer is most definitely yes.  It’s still funny with wise-ass comments from Venkman (Murray), dead-pan from Spengler (Ramis), sight-gags and innocence from Stantz (Akroyd), and Zeddemore (Hudson) along for the ride but very much part of the team.  It’s funny to watch it again now with they way special effects have changed because I have this image in my head of the graphics being better than I saw them the other night, but as you get spoiled  by new special effects and digital work, well, things are going to show their age.  Despite the special effects showing their tech level from when it was made (I’m surprised someone hasn’t tried to remaster the movie a la Lucas by now), the rest of the movie still has it all.  So indeed, I’m excited about this movie and glad to have been a part of it.

The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man is still absurdity at it’s finest though.  That not only brought a smile to my face to see it again, it made the kids who had never seen the movie burst out laughing as well.

A Night At The Movies CXXXIV: True Grit (2010)

After watching the original 1969 film earlier and the remake recently, I can say that the remake is the superior film and much more enjoyable to watch.  That being said, it was good that I saw the original, as some of the scenes were almost shot-for-shot the same as the 1969 film and having that to compare to was fun to think about as I watched this one.  My synopsis of the film is the same – the person with True Grit is really the girl, but the characters are different this time.  The girl is much tougher and determined, Mr. LeBouef is still a bit of a jerk, but he’s a bit more honorable and dependable in the end, and then there is Rooster Cogburn.  In the 1969 movie he’s rough and a lot of swagger, but in this film, he’s not only rough, he’s a lot meaner as well.  Sure, he has his heroic aspects to him, and some bits of honor, but at points, he can be mean, scary, and frightening when it’s time to kill.  So overall, a very good movie.  Well done, good scenery and costumes, very good acting, and a good story to boot.  I highly recommend.

A Night At The Movies CXXXIII: The Last Wave

This movie was an interesting supernatural thriller set in Australia involving the Aboriginal culture and their mythology of Dreamtime and new beginnings after apocalypses.  The movie left me guessing a bit, although I did figure some things out.  The movie is open-ended in that you don’t exactly know how the movie ended – was it truly a major end for everything, or just a possibility?   I will say that after I dwelled on it a bit, it was clear that the movie had a theme, and that theme was that if one is doomed to do something, it’s awfully hard to get out of that doom no matter what you do.

Although the movie had some very dry spells in it (ironic given the movie had so much water in it) it was a good one.  Unusual in how it would do suspense, but good.

Our Very Plausible Future

If you get a chance and have some time to kill, go and listen to this story on NPR (I think it’s 20-30 minutes) about the predictions for 2100 as made by a very high brain power physicist.  In general, I think I agree with the man, except for a few issues.

1) He claims that the early adapters of contacts that act as heads-up displays will be students.  I fully disagree – it will be businessfolk who need to have that information at their fingertips to make better deals faster.  Indeed, that drive to make money will push the adaption of this technology faster than students.  The technology he describes would enable you to completely dominate the competition that doesn’t have it.

2) The bit on recorded memory is really something profound.  Why?   Because if you can truly record a memory and give it to someone else, why stop at using it for learning?   Prof. Kaku should read more science fiction, because recorded memories will be used for more than just quick skill learning.  They will be used for planting memories, crime and punishment, and the ultimate in entertainment, both life-changing and profane.   However, I suspect what works with a mouse won’t translate as easily to humanity, since it could be that each recording of memory must be tailor made to that person and it may not translate to each complex individual mind, as I would bet that everyone’s hippocampus is wired just differently enough such that the memories can’t slip over so easily.

3) Self-driving cars….perhaps, but it will involve a larger cultural shift for this to happen.  If enough people start to hate driving, then this will come to pass.  But if enough people like being in control, then those cars won’t be given up.

4) The portion of the interview on String Field Theory I thought was very well explained, and I think I really like the idea that the mind of God is the symphony of music in the universe in 11 dimensions.

A Night At The Movies CXXXII: The Muppets

This 2011 movie is such a movie for the children of the 80s, but with some things thrown in for those in the modern era.  It’s a classic Muppet movie – the whole gang, song and dance routines, goofy puppets, moments of absurd humor, and so on.  I’m not sure I can describe it much more than that.  You’ve got the theme of paying attention to what is important in life, picking your path in life, and of course, going where you belong in the end.  In a way…I think it may be a retelling of the original Muppet Movie almost entirely, even if the gags were lots and lots of pop culture references.  Sure, it was a walk down nostalgia lane as well, but as the Mrs. put it best – “That’s what a Muppet movie should be.”

But hey, don’t take my word for it – just go and see it yourself and enjoy the Chickens singing a very special song which I cannot prove, but I think was done by the original artist of said special song, but in “bwwaaak bwaaak” form.  I didn’t see him in the credits, but I would bet it was him.

And I want a poster of the Swedish Chef getting ready to clean out his fridge.

A Night At The Movies CXXXI: True Grit

I had not seen the original 1969 western and I thought I should before I watch the Coen Brothers remake.  A few things about this classic western:

1) The standards of a G movie then and today are quite different. This movie, even with it’s fake blood and lots of shooting, would never make G today with 3 hangings, a man getting his fingers cut off (well, you don’t see it directly, but you see it happening indirectly as the knife comes down fast on the man’s hand), skeletons and rattlesnakes in a pit, and a few other examples.

2) One could be fooled that it was the rough riding sheriff’s deputy, Rooster Cogburn, as the example of true grit, but really, the girl determined to bring her father’s killer to justice, was a better example of true grit…but maybe that was the point.

3) I don’t know if I was supposed to like Glen Campbell’s character or not.  He pulled off saving everyone in the end as the right thing to do, but he was indeed a pompous ass.

I’m not a great fan of John Wayne’s acting, but he seemed a bit more normal and likeable in this film compared to others I’ve seen him in.  His character, plus the scenery, the storyline, and the pluck of the girl (again, I think she was the better example of True Grit, but I could be wrong) made this an enjoyable film to watch.  Now let’s see how the remake is.

A Night At The Movies CXXX: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

A long movie with a long title that I’ll best sum up as a thinking man’s western.  I jokingly called it that prior to watching it based upon what I had heard about the film, but after watching it, I find it an apt summary of the film.  Apparently a fairly historical portrayal of Jesse James and how he met his end I can say the following about what the film is trying to say.  1) Be careful who you associate yourself with, it will come back to haunt you later.  2) Beware of those who idolize you and appear to have a strong need to prove something to themselves and to the world.  3) Even family men can be evil.  4) While it takes great bravery to shoot someone, especially when you know they know you’re going to betray and kill them even after they trusted you, it is fair to call you a coward if you won’t fess up to it immediately after pulling the trigger.

#2 and #4 I feel are the main points of this film.  Robert Ford isn’t exactly a likeable man, but you can sympathize with him to a point.  Here he is with his idol, and he finds his idol is, and is not, everything he thought he was.  Let downs ensue, as well as getting even more wrapped up with his idol such that he will not be able to escape him in the end, and yet, he is resolved to prove to the world that he is something, and so resolves to kill Jesse James.  He succeeds in doing so, but the victory is false in that he never gets that respect.  In the end, Jesse was a fool to trust Bob Ford, but, there is something else here where it appears that Jesse wanted to die, and die with honor, and so set everything in motion to ensure that Bob would kill him.  At least that is what it looks like at times.  Jesse comments on suicide at one point of the film, and appears to show regret about actions while at the same time being his strong non-resentful self.  But in the end, when he deliberately puts down his guns making himself defenseless, and then sets himself up to be shot in the back – makes you wonder that Jesse in the end knew what he was doing.  He wanted out of life, but still on his terms.  If that was indeed his intention, he manipulated Robert Ford right up to the end, in which case Robert wasn’t a full coward when he pulled that trigger and shot Jesse in the back.  Indeed, if Robert knew he was getting pulled into the event and then fired, it took some courage to do what he did.  But, in the end, because Robert Ford did not fess up to killing Jesse when Jesse’s wife came into the room and ask what happened, that is what made him a coward.  She could tell he did it, and he wouldn’t admit it.  After he was out of her presence he admitted it and took full credit…but you see the point, or at least I hope you do.  Shooting a man, even a dangerous man, in the back is one thing, and if you’re going to do it, admit it.

Overall a deep film for one to watch and think about and try to tease out who did what and why.