tortply Reviews

Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941)

Charming Story, Full of Holes

[7/10 · 9 December 2023]

After fighter Joe Pendleton is taken before his time, angel Mr. Jordan tries to fix the mistake by finding a new body. Joe picks Farnsworth (a millionaire murdered by his secretary and cheating wife) after realizing that he can not only get the body into shape for another shot at the championship fight, but also help (and get close to) a girl whose father Farnsworth set up.

The obvious dilemma is that the murderers still want Farnsworth dead. Instead of the logical solution (use his heavenly knowledge to keep Joe a step ahead and find evidence to get them arrested) Mr. Jordan lets him die and needs to find another body.

It's this second "twist" that creates all the issues. He puts Joe in the body of contender Murdock, shot for refusing to throw the fight (does no one die of natural causes or accidents?). He wins as he wanted, and helps his old trainer lead the cops to Farnsworth's killers. Then for some reason Jordan wipes Joe's memories so he can live as Murdock (even though Murdock's soul and presumably his memories are in Heaven). "Murdock" and the lady friend meet, see something in each other, and the credits roll as they go off to find love again - except, of course, that no one has dealt with the gangsters who want Murdock dead.

Sisu (2022)

Plot Armor Defined

[7/10 · 7 December 2023]

As is often the case, the main problem is expectation management. Growing up in the 80s, I have enjoyed plenty of unrealistic action movies. "Sisu" is set up (in its own introductory sequence, and also by several reviewers I respect) to be so much deeper and grittier, but in some ways is even more cartoonish.

A captive Finnish girl tells German soldiers "It's not about who's the strongest; it's about refusing to give up." If "Sisu" stuck to that theme, it might have been my all-time favorite movie. On the surface, it's about one old man defying dozens of soldiers who have machine guns, tanks, and planes. The filmmakers could have earned my suspension of disbelief by having him prevail via skill, familiarity with local terrain and culture, exploiting the Nazis' own cruelty and greed, and sheer determination. There are sprinklings here and there, but ultimately it's a bunch of ordinary guys futilely blasting at Superman with no kryptonite.

I want the protagonist to win (especially against Nazis), but I want him to EARN it. Instead, time and again he outright loses, but death bounces off him (or a tin bowl). He is shown gravely wounded, which should heighten the stakes, but never becomes less strong or fast or agile for more than a moment. A scene where he is hanged, but a prior wound hangs up on a nail, COULD be a brutally clever way to show how he survives while enduring more agony - except that it happens AFTER his trachea has already been choked off for hours. Where is the suspense or drama when he's not only nicknamed "The Immortal", but literally IS?

Angel on My Shoulder (1946)

Transcendent in the Middle

[7/10 · 4 December 2023]

I almost stopped watching at first. Eddie Kagle begins as a ridiculous caricature of a gangster - not even sketch-parody bad, more like drunk friends doing imitations at a party. I had to remind myself that it might not yet have been so cliched for 1946 audiences. The entering premise is a little weak too: if the film's Devil has the power to put a soul into a living body, why does he need to choose someone whose (bullet-riddled and decomposing) body resembles the living person? As Eddie and "Nick" the devil make no effort to make him believable as the Judge, why does everyone accept him acting like a completely different person?

Everything changes when Barbara (Anne Baxter) enters. Even as she struggles with the Judge's erratic behavior, her unselfish love slowly begins to transform Eddie. The message is powerful, but subtle and never preachy: Nick's power is all lies, and extends no further than a person's willingness to believe them. Eddie abandons his quest for revenge and even his own happiness with Barbara (leaving her to marry the Judge). In choosing to love her unselfishly, he rejects the Devil and redeems himself.

Or so it seems for a beautiful moment. At the end, on the down-elevator to Hell, he's negotiating with Nick to make him a "trustee". His whole character arc is squandered; he isn't a soul saved by love, over whom the Devil has no power - just a slightly wiser gangster stereotype.

Better Call Saul (2015–2022)

The Challenge of Prequels

[7/10 · 29 January 2023]

On one hand, this show brilliantly ensnares me to follow, and even root for, a "protagonist" who represents the opposite of essentially everything I respect and value in people. OTOH, I was recently watching online reviewers discuss the constraints prequels impose on their developers. I still don't believe it's true across the board, but it's very much the case here.

Like "Breaking Bad", "Better Call Saul" is filled with plot twists, menacing characters, violent felonies, rivalries, etc. - EXCEPT, it's gotta end up with the "Breaking Bad" characters (and ONLY the BB characters) where they are in BB. Thus, the thrills and chills really aren't there. No matter what risks Jimmy / Saul takes, you know he's going to enter the BB timeline OK (and still a member of the Bar), along with supporting characters (even ones targeted by murder plots), which personal and professional relationships aren't going anywhere, etc.

I had read that this is the story of how an idealistic young lawyer becomes the shifty Saul, and that is really not the case; Jimmy has been the exact same grifter since he started skimming from his dad's cash register. As fascinating and well written / acted as this is, it would have been better with more character arc / development.

On that note, one of my biggest pet peeves is when, in lieu of an actual arc, a character immediately and unbelievably flips to behave exactly the opposite from his consistent personality or beliefs. Countless events over six seasons show events that MIGHT reasonably have changed Saul, only to reveal in EVERY case that he has been remorselessly scamming all along. The latest is right before the finale, when his "breakdown" (claiming, in front of Marie, to have been Walt's intimidated victim all along) ends with a cynical threat that he needs to convince just one juror - only to spill his guts on the stand in the finale, annihilating his carefully crafted plea deal.

The Last Don (1997)

Formulaic as a Third Disney Sequel

[4/10 · 1 September 2022]

"Plot" Outline: Acquire another Puzo title, check off the list of favorite "Godfather" series tropes (but with cheaper actors), and you'll make money. The End.

An aging, highly respected Don wants to take the business legit. One of the heirs gets in trouble when he's delegated critical responsibilities despite being impulsively violent. One is level-headed and logical, but reluctant at first. There's treachery in the inner circle, and the anti-hero must avenge his father on the traitors.

It's not just the main plot, either, but all the little details. There's a Senator to be bought, an abusive husband and a dirty cop to whack. The dead sleep with the fishes. The family lives on a Long Island compound, and a member who rejects the old ways lives there against her will. Hollywood studios are just another racket themselves, yet cannot resist the nationwide power of a man whose empire seems to consist of a handful of small crews in New York. The daughter wants nothing to do with the business, but once she needs help she's all about the family. You go to Sicily to hide from trouble (even in the 80s) and recruit. Your right-hand man presents as a typical thug, yet infallibly performs like a Tier One operator. Non-Sicilian women are desirable, but they ask too many questions, see through your lies, hate the family business, and take away your kids.

I, Claudius (1976)

A Soap, Not an Epic

[5/10 · 22 August 2022]

A viewer expecting a faithful adaptation of Graves's novel - a classic epic with great journeys, battles, etc. Woven between dialogue chapters - might be disappointed to find it's twelve hours of people talking on couches. I love history and don't go to movies for skin or special effects, but this was challenging to work through. I much preferred "The Caesars".

Characterization, acting, and dialogue alone made "Twelve Angry Men" a masterpiece because of its brilliant choice to depict a moment - jury deliberation - that naturally and concisely summarizes weeks of events. "I, Claudius" strains the trope too far, reducing decades of exciting history into argument after maudlin argument.

This is particularly detrimental with the character of Germanicus: in the novel his brilliant and noble deeds earn the reverence of Claudius and the Roman people; here, when he shows up dead after having a few chats, it's unclear why anyone should care. Likewise, the novel introduces Caligula as the beloved "mascot" of the legions, instrumental in his father's defusing a mutiny; why would anyone in the miniseries (where he's a bad seed from the beginning) want him to reign? A few brief asides:

The scene where Pollio advises Claudius to exaggerate / hide behind his disabilities mirrors the novel, but loses its impact because his stammer and twitching are so over-the-top from the beginning.

I thought Brian Blessed's commanding presence might be perfect for Arminius or Vercingetorix, but out of place for Augustus (usually depicted as slight and introspective). Without the beard, Blessed looks like Dawn French in a toga. Petty as it sounds, it's actually off-putting to see that voice booming out of those jowls.

Sound mixing is very poor. With the volume adjusted for dialogue, music is jarringly loud and Claudius's narration inaudible.

Why is Jacobi wearing heavy rubber old-age makeup even when playing his own age?

Why is the Emperor's seductive young niece / wife leathery and mannish? Oh, because she's the director's wife.

The Longest Day (1962)

Shows Both Sides, But Not Really

[7/10 · 17 April 2021]

I might have enjoyed this more if I hadn't recently seen "Tora! Tora! Tora!" The latter presents a balanced and interesting perspective of the Japanese, whereas "The Longest Day" portrays nearly all the Germans as buffoonish, complacent "Bad Guys".

It's not that I think the Nazis were good, but - while the film portrays a wide variety of Allied characters (of many ranks and nationalities) as human, relatable characters as well as fighting men - the caricaturing of the enemy does a disservice to the heroes' achievements and courage. Normandy was a hard-fought victory over some of the world's finest soldiers, not a bunch of lazy clowns.

The filmmakers also inserted far too many celebrity cameos at the expense of depth or character development. On the plus side, there's plenty of action, courage, determination, reasonably realistic equipment, and a proper sense of the scale of the battle.

Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970)

Superbly Well-Rounded History and Drama

[9/10 · 5 April 2021]

The best part of this film is its detailed, three-dimensional portrayal of the Imperial Japanese Navy characters not just as "the bad guys", but as individuals with personalities, motivations, friendships, etc. As an American patriot and career USN veteran, I could nevertheless appreciate the moment of elation when the striking force reports the movie's namesake message (indicating complete surprise) and empathize with the brilliant planner CDR Genda as VADM Nagumo squanders the opportunity to achieve complete victory. With that one exception, the Japanese characters - dedicated and experienced warriors at the zenith of their power - epitomize the saying "Deserve Victory".

Without slighting the heroes on the US side, the film also unsparingly depicts the converse - the peacetime culture of complacency whereby effectiveness or even "doing one's best" have been replaced by "What's the best I can do without inconveniencing myself / the boss?" Not only well-intentioned errors, but conscious choices for half-assery, abound, and are systematically depicted as contributing factors to the dismal outcome.

Some have commented that ADM Kimmel, CinC Pacific Fleet, is portrayed sympathetically (as a good man trying to make the best of a bad situation), but I think the casting of Martin Balsam itself sends a signal. It's not that he's a bad actor (he's excellent), or that he plays Kimmel negatively; it's just that he's, well, Martin Balsam - whose picture is probably next to the "mild-mannered" entry in the dictionary! While James Whitmore (VADM Halsey) is peripheral to the action and Jason Robards (GEN Short) makes worse decisions, those actors are more believable as leaders of fighting men.

"Tora! Tora! Tora!" is long, but (mostly) in a good way - depicting enough of the diplomatic and military background, preparations, and individual lives to be engaging without the superfluous side-stories that detract from other war movies. That said, if I have one criticism it's that the filmmakers could have balanced the necessity of depicting so much background for clarity by cutting some less-necessary material (e.g. Extended scenes of planes launching from carriers) for concision's sake.

Mussolini: The Untold Story (1985)

Brilliantly Cast and Acted

[8/10 · 4 April 2021]

Mussolini is generally depicted as not only a one-dimensional antagonist, but also a buffoon - almost "comic relief" amid the horrors of WWII. Without whitewashing any of his crimes or shortcomings, George C. Scott portrays a human, relatable, interesting character with a family and a life outside of war and politics. I miss the days when talented stars like Scott, Julia, Mastrantonio, and Byrne brought history to network television.

The Polar Express (2004)

The Polarizing Ego

[6/10 · 24 December 2020]

The Good: Even though I'm generally not a computer animation fan, and 2004 CGI < 2020 CGI, I actually thought they used the medium beautifully in this film to create excitement and spectacle. The story is simple, yet sweet. My kids grew up with this movie and enjoy it. I love the music.

The Rest: Imagine "vanity publishing" meets Hollywood: the customer plays all the main characters (as minor variations of himself) in a computer-animated feature film. Dream gift for a struggling Theater major? Maybe, but kinda sad for a movie star. Diehard Hanks fans will love it; others may weary of 1.6hrs of Hanks self-fandom.

Conspiracy (2001 TV Movie)

Brilliant Human Drama

[9/10 · 16 June 2020]

In many ways "Conspiracy" is exactly what storytelling should be: interaction between well-written and well-acted characters, which holds every second of the viewer's interest without relying on special effects or the cheap sleaze so often used for shock effect. There's certainly shock effect, but it's all about the story, dialogue, gestures and facial expressions, etc.

There's even a little cheap sleaze, played to brilliant effect in the form of Ian McNeice's cretinous Party buffoon Klopfer. At one point expert lawyer Stuckart (Colin Firth) lectures not about moral objections, but bureaucratic legal trivialities; an annoyed Klopfer drops the F-bomb, causing Stuckart to scream and pound the table.

A few minor flaws led me to stop short of ten stars: First, while Kenneth Branagh's acting is brilliant, his appearance does not quite suit the character. "The Man with the Iron Heart" had a look to match - a lean, cruel sword of a man - while Branagh is too jowly and lined (though only three years older at the time). Dietrich Mattausch in "Die Wannseeconferenz" was a closer match.

Second, while Branagh masterfully plays Heydrich as a master manipulator who is all the more menacing because he plays on his keen insights into human nature, personal and bureaucratic relationships, the details of his evil "work", etc. rather than mindless thuggery, there is an exception that seems badly out of character. Confronting Stuckart alone during a brief recess, he threatens him beginning with "Asses will sting . . ." then "meathooks". Really? That sounds more like a loutish football coach than the icy, cultured Machiavellian who alternately charms and chills throughout the rest of the Conference.

The third will really only be apparent to viewers of the other film, and avid history / military buffs. Major Lange is portrayed in "Conspiracy" as a young idealist caught between a strong sense of duty and the awfulness of his responsibilities. He is both well-written and well-acted, and contributes some poignant moments to the film. In the German version he is a sardonic brute, but it is made clear that he is at the leading edge of the extermination campaign - one of the earliest and most skilled butchers, brought to Wannsee to show the rest the way. The "Conspiracy" major is more interesting, but why would he even be there, in a roomful of generals and undersecretaries, as a reluctant, middle-management nice guy?

Minor quibbles aside, this "Nazi Twelve Angry Men" is a masterpiece of psychological drama, almost too good for TV.

The Master of Ballantrae (1984 TV Movie)

Costumed Soap Opera Cheese Masquerading as Historical Fiction

[2/10 · 27 April 2020]

I think the director told Michael York (Jamie) this was a freshman psychiatry video about sociopathy and narcissism. His one-dimensional character radiates hollow, superficial charm, without any semblance of human decency or redeeming qualities.

John-Boy (Henry) is his usual bland incelf, which is appropriate because he's literally a cuckold through most of this movie.

I've always found Brian Blessed to be a fantastic actor and commanding presence, but his "Captain Teach" is a clownish caricature of Blackbeard. He has some silly moments in "Flash Gordon" too, but that's deliberately lighthearted / tongue-in-cheek. This is supposed to be drama, yet he is FAR more over the top, laughing maniacally, constantly, for no apparent reason.

The ending is ludicrous. Henry has spent the whole movie bullied and humiliated by Jamie until - obsessed by jealous rage - he contracts to have him killed. Jamie takes a potion, appears to die, is buried, and survives with no oxygen for three days (!) - just long enough to regain consciousness when Henry digs him up; warn him he'll torment him forever, and keel over. Henry then lightswitches into Mr. Fun Husband and Dad, and lives happily ever after.

Willow (1988)

Fun Story, Some Brilliant Balances, A Few Serious Flaws

[8/10 · 15 April 2020]

First, contrary to some reviews, this is far from a copy of "Lord of the Rings". Someone compiled clever comparisons with "Star Wars", but plot parallels with either movie are superficial. Unlike LOTR (a philologist's life's study evolved into a complex plot weaving cultures, languages, and ancient history) this is human-scale and simple, Lucas at his entertaining-storyteller best. "Willow" has kid appeal but ages well; it's cute but not cutesy or patronizing.

Where it does mirror LOTR is in two compelling themes: First, a safe, warm little home life can be difficult to leave behind, but it's also worth fighting for. Second, heroism is a choice; not only can a character without overwhelming (and plot-distorting) physical prowess, brilliance, or supernatural ability take on great responsibility and effect great change, but it is all the more admirable, relatable, and meaningful. Like LOTR (but unlike many "underdog" stories), this is presented without preachy hostility to traditional heroes; "balance" like this is one of the film's great strengths.

There is much to admire in the art and science of filmmaking and acting here. The score is rousing, memorable, and conveys the theme of each scene. Location shots and general visuals are beautiful. Effects (both technical, and human stunts) "sell" but do not overwhelm the story. Fight sequences are very skilled: never gratuitous or gory, they are rigorous enough to convey urgency and danger, rather than the superficial and stagy fencing of some older movies.

Magic is subtle and doesn't upstage characters or plot. Humor is spot-on as well: lighthearted, but never descending into absurdity or self-parody.

As with the first three "Star Wars" (and despite the fact that there are serious plot holes with people who happen to be female) this is a brilliant, balanced portrayal of strong female characters. None of the three pivotal women are old-fashioned stereotypes, nor are they bitter, masculine or genderless. The two who are sorcerers are skilled sorcerers. All are strong and respected leaders. The female warrior is skilled and effective, but not so powerful (like in EVERY 2010s action movie) as to strain credibility or the laws of physics.

Negatives? The queen is scripted and acted as a VERY stereotypical villain (constantly scowling and gloating). She seems intelligent, and the infant prophesied as her nemesis has no apparent powers, yet she never thinks to choke or drop the baby (or maybe just not feed her) rather than squandering many advantages to plot an "overly elaborate and easily escapable death".

Worse still is her daughter's lightswitch-flip in lieu of character development. I didn't know until reading IMDB trivia, but the pivotal scene was filmed and cut. What's left is a character so dedicated to her mother that she hunts down the baby with minimal hesitation - suddenly fighting for the good guys (cutting and stabbing men she'd led up until that moment) why? Because she likes Val Kilmer? Nevertheless, "Willow"'s many positive qualities make it possible to overlook even these significant holes.

The Rebels (1979)

Like They Didn't Even Try

[3/10 · 8 April 2020]

Not only do I recognize that historical fiction is fiction, and TV movies aren't Hollywood blockbusters, but I also quite liked Jakes's "North and South" series. Unfortunately, so much about "The Rebels" just lacks effort.

The narrator describes the Knox expedition setting out in November (across Massachusetts / far northern New York) as they march across lush grassy fields under green leafy trees, hoping it will snow for the return journey - which then IS appropriately wintry. Did autumn go on strike?

Some plot twists are farcical: Don Johnson's character, a barfighting drunken playboy - who (by his own admission) has never believed in or accomplished anything - needs something to do after an injury, so he's elected to Congress. This is attributed to the influence of Jefferson (who didn't meet him until afterward) and Washington (who'd given him a five-minute mission briefing). Andrew Stevens was sidelined with a fever even earlier in the journey, resulting in his unanimous election as commander of a militia company (of which he was not even a member).

The dialogue alternates between common modern speech and pretentious, bombastic attempts at historical idiom - as though a 9th grade English class patched together a 1775 script after finishing their unit on Shakespeare.

Costumes are sometimes accurate, and sometimes stereotypical 70s used-car-salesman fabrics. Most of the famous historical figures look OK (except for Lafayette, who's straight out of Mme. Tussaud's), but the hairdressers put a great deal of effort into spraying and blowdrying the fictional heroes into giant 1979 coiffures.

A writer of historical fiction can get creative with dialogue using a fictional character or lesser-known real person, or make the effort to find a historical figure appropriate to the style or sentiment. Any number of characters could believably refer to the British commander as "Billy Howe" or tell Congress they "don't give a damn" - practically anyone BUT the well known gentleman planter, George Washington, who gets these lines. John Hancock - a rebel before there was a rebellion, famous for first (and most ostentatiously) signing the Declaration of Independence - is depicted as a waffler who dismisses Johnson's desire for independence as youthful impulsiveness.

Just a creepy aside, but Johnson has a bed scene with an actress who (according to this website) was 15 at the time.

The Four Feathers (1978 TV Movie)

Unrelatable Protagonist

[4/10 · 21 March 2020]

Let me preface this by saying I'm not advocating a political position, just critiquing the events of this movie through the lens of effective storytelling and human nature. I found it hard to believe in or root for this Harry, who is both written and acted weakly.

Contrary to one other review, this is NOT the story of "a guy torn between love and duty". All Harry's loved ones (including the girl for whom he's ostensibly staying behind) are unanimously on the side of duty. He isn't a philosophical or religious pacifist, admirer of the native culture, or Muslim convert. He doesn't fail or chafe at soldier tasks; he excels at them (not just on the drillfield, but later when he kills without pause). Favorable reviewers make much of him getting out from under his father's thumb, though he has no discernable passion of his own (business, politics, charity) and seems quite content continuing to reap the bounty of his military-aristocratic family without working for it. In summary, there is no conflict - just a bowl-haired, self-indulgent Me Generation kid whining "But I don't wanna!" The closest he gets to voicing "his side" is when he snickers about "planting a flag for the Empire" - not a principled denunciation of imperialism, mind you, just the ridicule of a punk who thinks everything "They" teach was put on this Earth for his amusement. Very 70s, very "M.A.S.H." - but not the least bit believably Victorian.

He changes his mind overnight, reemphasizing that there's no principled stand and it's all because he's more scared of the feathers than he was of the war. That, and the fact that he shadows his own regiment, also makes the whole "gone native" plot to regain his honor (as opposed to just rejoining the Army) contrived and pointless - as opposed to other versions where he infiltrates the enemy, etc.

The battle scene is also contrived: Harry wants to warn the Brits, who are about to be ambushed. "But you'd have to ride through all the Dervishes!" Simply firing a shot before they closed their trap would have accomplished the same result, possibly also confusing the attackers, rather than pointlessly getting shot down immediately (albeit recovering a minute later, because he's the main character!).

Does Harry's shame at least inspire growth? He succeeds in his quest, mostly through the aid of faithful guide Abou Fatma (the real hero), who ends up accomplishing 90% of "Harry's" tasks. As if to emphasize Harry's unreformed spinelessness, he drifts in and out of consciousness after a few hours in prison, while Capt. Trench (who's "been standing up for seven months", starved and tortured) is lucid and sitting upright.

Love story? Jane Seymour hates herself for rejecting the man who scorned their supposedly shared values (though not because he had any of his own).

Period details vary from bogus to superb. Robert Powell excels (as always) as a somewhat complex character who wavers amid loss and temptation, but finds his honor in the end.