This 1951 film of Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" is without question the definitive version of this classic book by Charles Dickens. I've seen all the versions that have been made since the first one in 1938, but this version stands out overwhelmingly for two reasons (1) Alistair Sim (2) its accuracy to Dicken's intent and book. I just saw this again, and for some peculiar reason I don't understand, even though this is the best version of them all, it's rarely shown on television. I don't know why. It is peerless. Alistair Sim is so remarkable as Scrooge it's almost hard to believe. The way he shifts his emotions, especially toward the end of the film, literally takes my breath away. The scene in which Scrooge goes to visit his nephew, the son of his beloved sister, Sim shows a personality change from the moment he enters the door, until he's in Fred's home. If you watch Alistair Sim carefully you will see the brilliance of this great actor change a crotchety old despised man, filled with bitterness and cruelty, change before your eyes as he dances with Fred's wife, and becomes a real flesh and blood man. Even his physical presence changes. He seems to be lighter on his feet, taller, elegant. He straightens his body and we realize he's a beautiful dancer, which he once must have been far in the past. The burdens of living a miserly, unexamined life have been lifted. He's free to be a handsome, sensual, and desirable person. The spirits have worked their wonders, but it's Alistair Sim who has truly worked the wonders of changing this morbid old man into a soul whose heart is now filled with gratitude and joy. It's a remarkable transformation I've never seen before in film. This is a ten star film and an absolute must.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Call of Silence Very Moving Episode
27 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This moving episode of NCIS brings forth the wonderful acting of Charles Durning, and a most deserving Emmy nomination for his performance. Mr. Durning plays a World War II veteran who has been suffering in silence because he believes he killed his best friend on Okinawa in 1945. When we meet him, despite having won The Congressional Medal of Honor, he is turning himself in to Investigative Services for murder. He's elderly, drinks too much, and his memory isn't as sharp as it used to be. For these and other reasons Gibbs does not believe his story, or at the very least, believes this soldier probably acted on behalf of his fellow comrades caught in a dangerous war zone surrounded by Japanese. This episode brought tears to my eyes several times. Mr. Durning is so completely convincing as a man in agony. We hear strains of Edward Elgar in the background, and see painful images of what it must have been like for this soldier, as the Japanese slowly crawled toward the Americans on the black sand at night. Watch this for Mr. Durning, and for all the soldiers who didn't come back, for only the dead have seen the end of war.
American Heart
(1992)
Heartbreaking
4 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Jeff Bridges is so good in this film his performance will break your heart. The entire film is beautifully cast and played, with a very strong, and equally heartbreaking performance by Edward Furlong as Bridges' young son. The scenes between the two actors are pivotal and breathtaking. Their relationship is perilous for each of them because they've never known or been a real family, and have never explored their emotional vulnerabilities, or learned how to express love. When Bridges throws a framed photograph of the boy's mother on the floor, smashing the glass, Furlong, in pain and rage, retrieves the photo, and smashes his father's guitar to pieces. Bridges is drunk, but deep inside he truly cannot understand that his son loves his mother. These are characters who have known only the hardest possible life. "American Heart" cuts like the broken pieces of that photograph. This is a terrific film, and Jeff Bridges' finest performance.
Birth
(2004)
Incomprehensible
20 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This film is nearly incomprehensible. I've read some of the glowing reviews by people who loved it, and believe me I was trying to love it. However I cannot recommend it. Nicole Kidman is interesting to watch, and she does form the center and heart of the film, but it's just not enough to save it. In a bewildering sequence of events Nicole Kidman believes a child, who keeps referring to himself as Sean, is a reincarnation of her dead husband Sean, who died ten years before. Just that sentence alone is enough to build a really interesting, eerie film, but the director drops the ball and never picks it up. What is the audience supposed to believe? That this child is really her dead husband? Why? The plot line almost doesn't exist. We see Kidman and her family completely drawn into what looks like a hoax, and even that doesn't make sense. How could a wealthy family in New York City allow a total stranger into their home, to eat their cake, lay on the bed, and nearly move in? This child repeatedly calls in the beginning, utterly disrupting Kidman's life and plans to marry again. Why didn't they ask the kid how he died? If he was really an incarnation wouldn't he have a memory of his own death? Rather than that the family sits around on sofas like cardboard silhouettes frozen into inaction. Far more impossible is that Kidman actually believes the child is her former husband.
What I saw was a woman having a psychotic break brought on by the presence of this child. Kidman's character has never recovered from the death of her husband, and becomes so delusional we see her actually stroking the boy's hair, taking a bath with him, kissing him on the lips, and contemplating a future together as a couple once he grows up.
It's a short film luckily, which puts an end to the viewer's suffering. The final shot shows Kidman presumably trying to drown herself on the beach after her marriage to Joseph, the man "Sean" told her she shouldn't marry. Actually that one point was made clear: she really did make a mistake in marrying him because he's a violent man, which he amply demonstrates in going after the boy in an effort to beat him up, and get him out of the house. I was thinking, oh good, maybe that's why this child has come into Kidman's life, to warn her about a potentially dangerous marriage. Enough said. It's just a bad movie and intensely frustrating to watch.
What I saw was a woman having a psychotic break brought on by the presence of this child. Kidman's character has never recovered from the death of her husband, and becomes so delusional we see her actually stroking the boy's hair, taking a bath with him, kissing him on the lips, and contemplating a future together as a couple once he grows up.
It's a short film luckily, which puts an end to the viewer's suffering. The final shot shows Kidman presumably trying to drown herself on the beach after her marriage to Joseph, the man "Sean" told her she shouldn't marry. Actually that one point was made clear: she really did make a mistake in marrying him because he's a violent man, which he amply demonstrates in going after the boy in an effort to beat him up, and get him out of the house. I was thinking, oh good, maybe that's why this child has come into Kidman's life, to warn her about a potentially dangerous marriage. Enough said. It's just a bad movie and intensely frustrating to watch.
Dahmer
(2002)
A Serious Film
2 May 2009
Dahmer is a disturbing and serious film, surprisingly sympathetic to Jeffrey Dahmer, slow-paced, restrained, and discreet in its depiction of a serial killer. Having only seen the film once, and possessing little knowledge of Dahmer's true life story, I was unprepared, and watched the film perhaps because I expected some kind of explanation as to what turns a person into a monster of this magnitude. And indeed he was that and more. But if you're looking for answers as to how this person developed, or what caused him to become a monster, you won't find any answers in this quiet, deeply focused film.
Once the movie began I was confused because there is no time span regarding the murders, no sequence in months, days, or years. The dreamlike quality of the film removes any historical assistance. Having little knowledge of the places Dahmer was living and killing men, or even the identification of which state he lived in, it became necessary to quietly watch the drama unfold without judgment, and cease searching for clues or guideposts to help me through this dangerous, eerie, dark world of sadism and torture, perversion, and brutality.
"Dahmer" is a pastiche or collage of murders over a period of time. Physically and emotionally we see Dahmer change from a person fearful of cutting through one man's flesh, into a professional killer who had finally found a means of personal expression and satisfaction. His manhood is aroused by the sight and smell of blood, which for him is a powerful, potent source of sexuality leading to orgasmic climax. The murders are ritualistic, sensual experiences of pleasure and gratification.
This is a serious film about a disturbing subject, but if you're looking for footnotes or guidelines to help you through this unfamiliar abyss of hell you won't find them. There's no safety net under this film. And it is not a documentary. The director has splayed open the flesh of a man, just as Dahmer did in real life, and convincingly painted a portrait, in murky shades of red and black, of what an ordinary day in the life of Jeffrey Dahmer was like. If you are patient you will not be disappointed.
Once the movie began I was confused because there is no time span regarding the murders, no sequence in months, days, or years. The dreamlike quality of the film removes any historical assistance. Having little knowledge of the places Dahmer was living and killing men, or even the identification of which state he lived in, it became necessary to quietly watch the drama unfold without judgment, and cease searching for clues or guideposts to help me through this dangerous, eerie, dark world of sadism and torture, perversion, and brutality.
"Dahmer" is a pastiche or collage of murders over a period of time. Physically and emotionally we see Dahmer change from a person fearful of cutting through one man's flesh, into a professional killer who had finally found a means of personal expression and satisfaction. His manhood is aroused by the sight and smell of blood, which for him is a powerful, potent source of sexuality leading to orgasmic climax. The murders are ritualistic, sensual experiences of pleasure and gratification.
This is a serious film about a disturbing subject, but if you're looking for footnotes or guidelines to help you through this unfamiliar abyss of hell you won't find them. There's no safety net under this film. And it is not a documentary. The director has splayed open the flesh of a man, just as Dahmer did in real life, and convincingly painted a portrait, in murky shades of red and black, of what an ordinary day in the life of Jeffrey Dahmer was like. If you are patient you will not be disappointed.
Stunning Episode You Must See
22 June 2008
What a stunning episode for this fine series. This is television excellence at its best. The story takes place in 1968 and it's beautifully filmed in black & white, almost a film noir style with its deep shadows and stark images. This is a story about two men who fall in love, but I don't want to spoil this. It is a rare presentation of what homosexuals faced in the 1960s in America. Written by the superb Tom Pettit, and directed by the great Jeannot Szwarc, we move through their lives, their love for each other, and their tragedy. Taking on such a sensitive issue makes this episode all the more stunning. Our emotions are as torn and on edge as the characters. Chills ran up my spine at the end when they played Bob Dylan's gorgeous, "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now," as sung by the Byrds. This one goes far past a 10 and all the way to the stars. Beautiful.
We Were Soldiers
(2002)
A Film Worth Watching
23 January 2008
This film surprised me because I did not realize it was about the very beginning of our involvement in Vietnam, and it begins with the French being massacred in 1954. We move up in time to 1964 and 1965. Barry Pepper is particularly memorable as a non-combat soldier carrying a camera, taking photographs. It's beautiful to see the black & white shots he's taken in contrast to the fighting behind him in color. The scene with him at the end talking to Mel Gibson is moving and realistic. Gibson's eyes fill with tears because he feels he should have died having lost so many men, and he asks Pepper to write about what happened here in this valley, the la Drang Valley, The Valley of Death.
Another lovely quality to this film is showing the Vietnamese side of the battle, and their Commander making decisions. We see a dead Vietnamese soldier's diary showing a photograph of his wife and pages written in Vietnamese. This is a thoughtful remembrance for all the men who died in Vietnam, not just French and Americans.
This has star quality all over it. The music is uneven sometimes, and I feel it could have been a 10 star film had a stronger musical score been developed. However there's plenty of pathos, sad and terrible battle scenes, and the painful delivery of letters to the wives of dead soldiers back in the States. Definitely a film worth watching.
Another lovely quality to this film is showing the Vietnamese side of the battle, and their Commander making decisions. We see a dead Vietnamese soldier's diary showing a photograph of his wife and pages written in Vietnamese. This is a thoughtful remembrance for all the men who died in Vietnam, not just French and Americans.
This has star quality all over it. The music is uneven sometimes, and I feel it could have been a 10 star film had a stronger musical score been developed. However there's plenty of pathos, sad and terrible battle scenes, and the painful delivery of letters to the wives of dead soldiers back in the States. Definitely a film worth watching.
A Beautiful Mind
(2001)
Review Beautiful Mind
30 November 2007
Just watched "A Beautiful Mind," and am watching again. Ron Howard more than deserved his Academy Awards for Best Film and Best Director. What a truly beautiful movie. This is a dignified, tender, sympathetic portrait of a genius, a true genius. I've always known that genius is a person who can see the answer before the question, and this is perfectly exemplified and shown by Ron Howard. When Nash sees mathematical equations in the prisms of light from drinking glasses that match with a bad tie, to the long shadows cast by glasses forming columns of groups, to the movement and replacement of certain women in the bar, John Nash sees his answer. It's all there in front of him.
Ron Howard created a classic in this film.
This is a tender and accurate portrait of a genius, and a moving portrait of a schizophrenic. Beautiful film. Beautiful Director and great stars. Kudos to all. Love this film.
Ron Howard created a classic in this film.
This is a tender and accurate portrait of a genius, and a moving portrait of a schizophrenic. Beautiful film. Beautiful Director and great stars. Kudos to all. Love this film.
Tell Your Friends