Change Your Image
thirdsqurl
Reviews
Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1 (2024)
A Worthy Western
Some of the criticism I've read of Horizon: An American Saga-Chapter 1 is fair. The script jumps around and there are occasional holes. None of that takes away from a film that moves quickly, is filled with drama, and has wonderful cinematography. The actors do a fine job of portraying their characters, particularly the villains, who ooze with Wild West creepiness.
This is not a revisionist story, which I appreciated. The conflicts between the Native Americans and the settlers is shown without trying to whitewash their motives, which too often includes rationalizations or excuses. I found it brave that Costner would do this knowing the pushback he would receive from his politically correct critics. Having grown up watching westerns, reading westerns, and even writing westerns, I know it's difficult in our current times to be honest about this period.
While Kevin Costner plays Kevin Costner (more muted than usual), much of the film belongs to the women. Sienna Miller as Mrs. Kittredge and Georgia MacPhail as her daughter dominate every scene they appear in. Without saying too much, their hardships speak of the challenges, and tragedy, that women faced on the frontier. They did a terrific job of conveying those emotions. Perhaps a bit wilder was Abby Lee as Marigold. Her outgoing character also took over her scenes, though without much attempt at sympathy. Lee's character left room for growth, or maybe not. Which makes her interesting.
Without betraying too much of the plot, we see conflict between the "indigenous" people with the settlers, and amongst themselves. Owen Crow Shoe displays the energy and anger of Pionsenay, a young hot head whose passion will likely lead to tragedy for his people, though that stills lies in the future. Tatanka Means plays the wiser older chief, patiently explaining the repercussions of rash acts. This debate is presented rationally and with a historical basis, which was common in older westerns but rarely seen today. Sadly, but also true, neither the white settlers nor the hostile Apache appear to regret their violence despite the effects it has on others. It's portrayed as a ruthless time with people doing what they needed to.
For the most part, the white male characters are just out there trying to go someplace, build something, stop trouble, or start trouble. Sam Worthington as Lt. Gephart is reliable, though his character is a bit out of his element. Michael Rooker as Sgt. Major Riordan is fully in his element, but just what he's hoping for can be elusive. Charles Halford and Jamie Campbell Bower are wonderfully vicious villains seeking revenge on poor Lucy, played by Jena Malone. But I doubt their hide and seek scenario rings true for the wild west. That storyline is more film noir than 1860s. Still, it does add tension to the plot and leads to further complications.
In another storyline balancing the earlier attack by Pionsenay's band, we find young Russell (Etienne Kellici), who has plenty of reason to hate the Apache, joining a group of scalp hunters stalking the original perpetrators. Or whatever victims they may find. Costner portrays these scalp hunters as rough men with different goals and personalities, not all of them evil, yet drawn together for a cruel task and making no apologies for their merciless profession.
Though finding a wagon train suddenly treading west through Kansas popped up out of nowhere, it was fun seeing Luke Wilson as the bedraggled wagon boss lecturing his annoying charges, Juliette (Ella Hunt) and Hugh (Tom Payne). Though, quite frankly, the writers might have put the wagon trek in the sequel where it more appropriately belongs and saved the audience 45 minutes. As some have mentioned, the montage concluding the film was a bit confusing and entirely unnecessary except as a trailer for the next film.
I will definitely go to see the next chapter, if it makes it to the big screen, and look forward to streaming this chapter again. It's an excellent old-style western, and if it doesn't appeal to all age groups, it should certainly appeal to mine.
A Guy Named Joe (1943)
Themes That Don't Die
There are lots of ways to nitpick this movie made at the height of World War II, and today's audiences may find many of the themes corny. But not me. I was still a youngster when I first saw A Guy Named Joe on late-night TV, and I've never forgotten it. Spencer Tracy is great as the gung-ho bomber pilot who takes big chances, in the air and with his girl, until taking one chance too many. World War II was not abstract history in 1943 when people were going to the movie theaters. Fathers, sons, brothers, and uncles were headed off to war. Irene Dunn is marvelous in her role, representing the hopes and fears of millions of women knowing their men might not come back. The supporting cast is just as good, bringing gravity to the story through Dalton Trumbo's excellent screenplay. And when the brash and arrogant Spencer Tracy returns as an angel to help new pilots survive in the air, he expresses the human side of the conflict in a heartfelt speech, the enduring need for love, dedication, sacrifice, and hope for the future. This film spoke to the spirt of the men and women making those sacrifices to fight a formidable enemy. And it still speaks to those willing to listen.
.
Legends & Lies: George Custer: A General's Reckoning (2015)
Lies is a good Description
No one expects too much from documentaries these last few years, but sometimes they just need to be called out for their absurdity. The Custer episode of Legends & Lies: the Real West, well qualifies for this treatment, for it is nearly all lies.
This is not to say that General George Custer wasn't a controversial figure with many personal flaws. There is plenty of material on that. So it's a wonder that this documentary, narrated by Kelsey Grammar and featuring several prominent historians, felt a need to tell lie after lie about it's subject.
Not to get crazy, but it shows Custer ordering Major Elliot to pursue fleeing Indians at the Washita battle. Never happened. It shows Captain Benteen warning Custer not to split his troops at the Little Big Horn. Never happened. It tells of Custer's expedition to Montana without ever hinting that General Alfred Terry was in command, not Custer. The list goes on. One factual error after another.
I am reluctant to blame the historians. I once had a conversation with historian Paul Hutton, who is featured in this documentary. I asked him why he claimed Custer wanted a victory at the Little Big Horn so he could run for president, when he knows that isn't true (this was a different program, Robert Redford's The West). Paul told me he didn't say that, but the film editors had recut his interview to deliberately give the opposite impression of what he actually said. Is it possible that happened here?
The production values of this show are fine. Horses. Soldiers. Uniforms. Action scenes. Wide open spaces. It has a good look. Though I doubt the reenactors who put so much of their time and energy into recreating history appreciate their work being turned into a sham.
The West, the Wild West, the Frontier, or whatever someone wants to call it, is full of fascinating stories. And many of them are well documented, particularly the battle at the Little Big Horn. There is really no reason to invent false narratives as this show as done.
A League of Their Own (2022)
A League Lost
As a big fan of the 1992 movie, I was looking forward to this new series. Though not terrible, it is disappointing. Like so many politically correct film projects, the script has been subverted to the messaging, and not in a good way. Few of characters come across as real people, but as cyphers representing stereotypical ideals. And half of the series involves a Black woman ballplayer who has nothing to do with the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. There is nothing wrong with the Black woman's plotline or acting, it's generally well-done, but the only purpose of its inclusion is to let the filmmakers brag about their diversity. Sadly, when such diversity is so artificial and completely political, it becomes a distraction rather than an asset. Her story would have been better told as a separate series.
Other aspects of the show are quite good. The costumes, sets, and art direction are effective. The athleticism of the ballplayers provides authenticity. The actors are skilled, doing the best they can with the dry dialog. The direction is straightforward. Not especially creative, but it doesn't get in the way. The cinematography could be better. But by the end, it's clear that none of the show is about the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League at all. It's a vehicle made to shine a modern perspective on closeted female athletes and the racial discrimination that was prevalent in 1940s America. The time period, locations, and baseball, are largely irrelevant to the story.
I appreciate that people in the LGBTQ community want to be represented in media, and as such efforts go, this could be a lot worse. It's just that good storytelling with appropriate situations would do that better than carefully crafted artifice.
The Fearmakers (1958)
Little Here to Recommend
Other than the enjoyment of watching Dana Andrews, the Fearmakers is a shallow, trite, and sloppily written film that spends more time lecturing than entertaining. A relic of the Cold War, the characters drone on about how wrong it is for agencies to manipulate public opinion, while manipulating public opinion is the whole purpose of the film. The movie does well enough on some basics. Led by Dick Foran, the villains are sly and ruthless. Good-girl Marilee Earle is naïve and pretty. Dana Andrews is Dana Andrews, not particularly acting but keeping the story moving. For the rest, the sets look cheap, and costumes are off the rack, and the plot becomes entirely predictable as the hero "exposes" the evil communists in our midst. Little effort is made to create clever dialog or even build-up suspense, as it's obvious from the early scenes what has already happened and where the story is going. If someone is looking for the kind of political moralizing that would have made Joe McCarthy happy, this film has it. Otherwise it's just a lot of speeches.
After Darkness (2014)
Makes You Wonder
Sometimes you just have to wonder how bad movies get made. Having an interest in 'end of the world' movie themes, the plot of After Darkness sounded intriguing. And the premise still is, it's everything else that went wrong. The film starts off very slow and dry. The dialog is flat. The acting rises a touch above mediocre, but not by much. There is no energy or vitality to the story-telling. Throughout the film, I kept hoping, and expecting, it would get better but it never did.
Star Trek Beyond (2016)
A Tired Attempt
At first I thought the premise for this Star Trek entry was promising, but I was disappointed. The villain was just another megalomaniac out to destroy the universe with a gadget he found on a deserted planet. To make matters worse, the screenplay was fairly awful, with trite predictable dialog that struggled to find any sort of characterization. It was not helped by the actors, who seemed to be calling in their performances. There was no real chemistry to be had, and what chemistry was attempted generally fell flat. If the producers thought overloading the movie with action, such as Kirk riding around on a motorcycle, and heavy metal music destroying the alien horde (shades of Mars Attacks!), then they were sadly mistaken. It just added extra layers of silliness to an already damaged film.
His Double Life (2016)
Gosh This Was Bad
I watched this movie because I like Brian Krause and thought the plot might be interesting. Boy was I wrong. This movie is populated by the stupidest characters and worst writing of anything I've ever seen on the LMN Channel. Scarlett (aka Cristine Prosperi) suspects her step-father is a murderer, and even sees him with a woman found dead the next morning. Does she tell the police? No, she tells her best friend and asks her to do a background check. The best friend discovers dark secrets. Does the best friend call the police? No, she runs over to the murderer's house so he can kill her. Now the step-daughter has gobs of proof her step-father is both a killer and spy. Does she call the FBI? No, she tells her comic book store friend instead. Finally, as the body count has been growing, the FBI gets called and given all the details that a critical national security breach is in progress. Do they rush over to gather the evidence? No, the FBI tells the step-daughter to go home, where the killer is, and bring the evidence to their office. Meanwhile, the killer kidnaps the mother, step-daughter, and comic book guy, intending to murder all the surviving witnesses. In the end, just as the killer is strangling the daughter, Mom shows up out of nowhere and shoots him. Who would have thought?
I think the actors did the best they could with the material. The direction showed no imagination but wasn't bad. The production values were professional. But the characters in this movie were so brainless and inept that I found myself cheering that Brain Krause's over-the-top evil killer would prevail.
The American West (2016)
Entertaining but Bad History
I'm watching tonight's episode of the American West TV series Blood & Gold on AMC, and though it's entertaining, it's proving to be bad history.
The murder of Pinkerton agent Joseph Whicher (supposedly by Jesse James) was 1874, not 1876. Jesse James and his gang were not patriots continuing the fight for the Southern Cause, they were bank robbers who kept the money they stole. Pinkerton agents threw a smoke bomb into the James family house that unexpectedly exploded (possibly in the fireplace), not a fire bomb as the show asserts, and the house was damaged, not burned to the ground. President Grant's efforts to buy the Black Hill was 1875, not 1876. President's Grant's order to the Sioux to report to reservations was 1875, not 1876. Sitting Bull gathered about 2500 warriors in the spring of 1876, not 4000. The "tribe" of Arapahos at the Little Big Horn were five hunters previously held prisoner by the Sioux (Waterman, Sage, Left Hand, Yellow Eagle, and Little Bird). George Custer was not removed from 7th Cavalry command because he led the Black Hills Expedition of 1875, he was removed for calling President Grant's brother Orville Grant a crook. Custer's so-called presidential ambitions in 1876 are an old canard that has been disproved over and over again. The program even quotes historian Paul Hutton supporting this lie, when in fact Hutton has explicitly rejected it. The show's editors deliberately re-cut Hutton's interview to provide a false narrative. Custer did not "lead" one of three cavalry columns into Montana, General Alfred Terry was in command and Custer was his subordinate. It was not Custer's order to move out against the Sioux on June 22nd, it was General Terry's order, and they didn't know the Native tribes were on the Little Big Horn until days later. Custer took 650 men with him, not "less than 500." These are only a few errors, there are lots more, major and minor.
This program has good production values and some nice imagery. The narration is done well. However, its unfortunate that the people watching this program are being exposed to so much disinformation.
Supergirl (2015)
An Excellent Adventure for Supergirl
I began reading Supergirl in Action Comics way back in the 1960s and this new show captures the early feeling of the character. Unlike too many shows that believe that brooding leads are what viewers want, Melissa Benois does a wonderful job of portraying an optimistic hero trying to find her way in the world. The characters are fresh, the dialog is clever, and the acting is suitable to the format. Calista Flockhart strikes the right notes as Cat Grant, and the interplay between Kara and Alex (Chyler Leigh) as sisters is something TV has needed for a long time. I am a big fan of Arrow, the Flash, Smallville, and have spent a lifetime following DC characters in all their many incarnations. Supergirl is an excellent addition to this universe. I don't know what the motivations are of those attacking this show, but I see more petulance in their complaints than accuracy. Give this series a chance, it has room to fly.
Elmer Gantry (1960)
A Film You Will Always Remember
Many reviewers have already remarked on this terrific movie far better than I can, so this message is really for younger people interested in serious film. When I was a youngster fascinated by the Batman TV show and Lost in Space, I saw Elmer Gantry for the first time. It's sophisticated script, complex characters, and wonderful acting opened a whole new world for me. The film isn't just about rural religion in the 1920s, or how media is exploited, or how sometimes clever hucksters can outwit themselves. It tells of people in troubled times trying to sort out life's essential challenges. Sit down and take in everything this film is offering, you won't be disappointed.
Forever (2014)
Glad It's Coming Back
This show has many strengths and weaknesses, though given a little time, I believe the weaknesses will gradually disappear. The show's greatest strength is Ioan Gruffudd. I've been a fan since he played Horatio Hornblower a lifetime ago, and he was a great Reed Richards in the Fantastic Four movies. He brings a gravity to Henry Morgan that is very watchable. Alana De La Garza is fairly much the stereotypical female sidekick, but she does it well. Joel Moore was a strong character on Bones and he repeats the performance here with good effect. Donnie Keshawarz reliably plays the required detective role, while Lorraine Toussaint toils as the female department head, something TV has been overdoing lately, but that isn't Toussaint's fault. She does what she can with limited opportunities. If there is a weak spot in the cast, it's Judd Hirsch as Abe. Don't get me wrong, I like Judd Hirsch, but Judd Hirsch is the only character he knows how to play. The show would be stronger with more versatile actor in that role. Someone whose reactions and demeanor are less predicable.
Possibly the show's biggest challenge has been the script writing. The fantasy premise manages to work, but the plots are unimaginative, the mysteries not very mysterious, and the dialog is lazy. Sometimes a really good episode will pop up, only to be followed by something mundane. With such a good cast, it's too bad they haven't gotten better material to work with. Now that the show is renewed, perhaps that will change. On the other scores, such as technical quality, it's clearly a professionally produced program. The action moves well, the sets are suitable, and the character interaction is rewarding. This is a show worth checking out.
Divergent (2014)
A Fun Fim with Serious Flaws
Yes, the concept of this film appears dumb. In a post-apoplectic future, a walled-off Chicago is divided into five societies, called factions, that must live and work together. But one faction decides it wants to take over, forcing the lead character to become a rebel. If you interpret the 'factions' as tribes, and put them in an isolated area, the concept rings a little more true. And it is, after all, a science fiction story.
Sadly, after two hours of fairly entertaining plot development, the movie melts down in a desperate attempt to set up a sequel. Apparently they want to duplicate the success of the Hunger Games, but Hunger Games had a logical ending. In this film, the good guys capture the enemy command center, stop a massacre, and then inexplicably run away. They don't explain to their faction how they've been manipulated, they don't kill off the bad guy leader even though she has just murdered hundreds of innocent people, and they take no steps to prevent the massacre from happening again. It makes no possible sense, other than the writers/producers wanted 'two young lovers on the run' for the next movie. Gosh, we've never seen that plot before.
This film has good acting, good sets, and good costumes. It has an Ender's Game theme, which should appeal to teenage audiences, but be prepared for the cheesy conclusion.
A Christmas Wedding Date (2012)
Lazy All the Way Through
Combining various elements of Groundhog Day with other Christmas themes could be a cute idea, but these filmmakers just didn't want to put in the work. The spotty script didn't deliver either a solid plot or clever dialog. And if it had, there is no evidence the actors would have taken advantage of it. The movie is not just miscast, but the director seems to have made no effort to get everyone on board. At times the characters are understated, and at others way over-the-top, giving the film an uneven flow. It is also difficult to invest much feeling in the characters. Marla Sokoloff's Rebecca is generally mean, her would-be boyfriend is a handsome dishrag, and the supporting cast are all caricatures. Catherine Hicks came closest to rising above the foam, but they didn't give her much to play with. The movie in not completely unwatchable, having a few good moments, but for a plot that relies on magic, it has way too little.
Killing Kennedy (2013)
Accurate and Entertaining
Reviews of a historical film can break down into its accuracy and the quality of the production. This movie does fine on both counts. Many will wish to dismiss the movie's narrative as it portrays Oswald as the lone assassin driven by his personal demons and failures. These viewers would rather see a Costner style conspiracy film with grand villains. I myself believed in the multiple shooter theory for many years, and still have a library of conspiracy books larger than any of the reviewers you are likely see read here, but over time it became clear that Oswald did indeed act alone. To believe otherwise is to credit our government with a competency that history proves is utterly lacking.
For the quality of the film, Rob Lowe has captured JFK perfectly. It's sad he didn't win an award for his performance. The talented cast of supporting characters all play well to the known facts, a rare event in the Hollywood culture. The production values, no doubt limited by the film's budget, are adequate for the purpose, and the time period has been recreated well enough not to be distracting.
As a devoted fan of President Kennedy and having seen every Kennedy film, I would place this one above average, and a good basic education for those unfamiliar with the story.
The Great Sioux Massacre (1965)
Custer as Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde
This is a completely ridiculous film with few redeeming qualities, other than fairly competent acting. It begins with Custer as a good guy, defending Indians, opposing corruption, and seeking justice. Then Washington politicians wreck his career and a sinister senator whispers in his ear that, if he will turn evil, he can become president. So Custer turns evil for the rest of the movie. Historically, just about everything else is also nonsense. Reno was not a Confederate general and did not have a daughter in love with Benteen. Benteen never faced a potential death sentence for striking a superior officer (Custer). The Seventh Cavalry did not massacre an "unarmed" Sioux village on its way to the Little Big Horn. Custer's Last Stand was not fought on flat open ground with the Indians riding around him in a circle, and the Sioux warriors were not dressed like Apaches. This movie has so many historical inaccuracies that it would take a dozen pages to list them all, and there doesn't appear to be any reason for them other than laziness by the writers and producers. I love old westerns, especially the TV westerns of the 1950s and early 1960s, but this B-grade exercise is nothing but a disappointment.
They Died with Their Boots On (1941)
Errol Flynn Captures Custer's Charisma
Movie makers in 1941 were not interested in giving history lessons, they wanted good characters and lots of action, and this movie delivers both. Errol Flynn was already a well-established swashbuckler when he made this film for Warner Brothers, the last of eight he made with co-star Olivia de Havilland. Custer's comical arrival at West Point is designed for humor, and his record is still an example of what not to do, but no one ever accused Custer of being stupid. He was undisciplined, a prankster, and inattentive to duty, but whenever he came close to being dismissed from the academy, he would straighten up and have a perfect record the rest of the year. He was also one of the academy's most popular cadets, which the movie does a good job of showing. The movie also shows Custer's aggressiveness and success during the Civil War, where he was rightly considered a national hero at age 23. Unlike most generals, Custer did not lead his men from a headquarters, he rode at the front and shared the dangers with his men, who had universal respect for him. It was not until Custer went west, forced to command troops that refused to obey orders and often deserted, that his reputation suffered, and the movie also reflects this transition though in a fictional manner. The Little Big Horn battle is exciting from a movie point of view but is wildly fictional. None of the complexities, tactics or conflicting personalities that guided the battle are dealt with in the movie. What They Died With Their Boots On does best is show Custer's charismatic personality, which Flynn is perfect for. In his lifetime, Custer was considered a generous, honorable and courageous man. Yes, he could be cantankerous and had an ego (so did General George Patton and General Douglas McArthur), but the vision of him as an Indian-hating egomaniac is really a process of 1960s political revisionism, usually propagated by those who get their history lessons from bad television shows. Custer was an officer of the United States Army, and when he went into the field, it was on the orders of U.S. Government, not because he decided to go out and attack Indians. Errol Flynn does a wonderful job of showing Custer from several different viewpoints: glory seeking soldier, loving husband, loyal friend, and a man with a conscience. What this movie lacks in historical accuracy is made up for by capturing the spirit of its characters.
Back in the Game (2013)
Terrible Show
It's good they hired some people to write favorable reviews of this new show, because that's the only way they're going to get them. I tuned in because I'm a fan of Maggie Lawson, and it seemed like she was doing her best, but the writing is atrocious, the characters are shallow, and even James Caan can't give this program any gravity. In the episode where Maggie's character wants a night out, the actors kept trying to make something happen, but the situations fell flat (when they weren't over-the-top). The so-called clever dialog of the young Little League team isn't the least bit clever (the Bad News Bear they are not), and overall there is a stiffness to the show that offsets its few good moments. This one will not be filling up my DVR.
The Tragedy of Richard III (1983)
The best Richard III on film
As a fan of Richard III, I've seen every version produced. I still do not understand why anyone likes Laurence Olivier's version with its grim, heavy-handed performance. Ron Cook is the perfect Richard, upbeat and energetic, sly and humorous, delighting in his mission until the weight of his crimes begin to trouble his conscience. Jane Powell's direction, as she did with Henry VI parts I, II and III (my favorite of the series), keeps the action moving and the characters in sharp focus, especially King Edward, whose final speech is one you'll always remember. This is the Richard that Shakespeare wanted his audience to see, a man of a courage who loses control of his ambition.
Gentlemen Broncos (2009)
Dumb But Worthwhile
This movie is so bad that its actually good in a weird sort of way. It's a technically solid film,keeps the viewer's interest, and combines well with the soundtrack. Like Napoleon Dynamite, it has a quirky style that takes some getting used to. Several times the movie was dumb enough that I couldn't believe they found the financing for it, yet I still laughed. As a fan of old movies, I found it better than Plan 9 From Outer Space and most of the "deliberately bad" films that have followed the genre. The best elements of the film are the steady performances by the lead actors, a despicable villain, and a coherent plot. The bad special effects are really bad but funny if you're in the mood to be silly.
The Babe (1992)
John Goodman plays Babe Ruth as a clown
Possibly the worst baseball bio-pic ever made. No relation to Ruth's actual career, you'd never guess he started out as a pitching star before graduating to the Sultan of Swat. Every home run Goodman hits goes out of the stadium. Not into the stands, but out of the stadium. When he's not hitting gigantic home runs, he flails around at the plate like a drunken klutz. It's complete nonsense. Ruth was a terrific athlete most of his career with a lifetime .342 batting average, only growing overweight toward the end. Goodman flaunts his bulk with no hint of athleticism and doesn't seem to play any actual baseball, he only shows up to hit the homers. He must be really good, too, because he barely has any teammates worth mentioning. Ruth dominated the Roaring 20s as a larger than life figure. Goodman's Ruth is merely large. If you wish to see Babe Ruth portrayed as a gross clownish moron, this is your chance.
The Prince & Me II: The Royal Wedding (2006)
Another Remake Gone Astray
Once again those doing the remake have ignored the qualities that made the first film successful. Gone is the perky farmer's daughter that everyone loved, replaced by a Las Vegas showgirl with bad make-up dressed like a hooker. Where is the charm in that? This actress does such a bad job of portraying an aspiring doctor that you need to wonder what the writer and director were thinking. Maybe they should stick to movies about cutie pie bimbos instead because they clearly have no idea how to portray an intelligent woman. The young king is still likable but every other character is miscast. They royals aren't royal,the Wisconsin parents look like they've never seen a farm in their life, and the villains are mere clowns. Whatever cleverness the original script may have had was gone by the time it was watered down into a generic formula. This movie is a disappointment from beginning to end.