Miles-10 Reviews

In the Shadow of the Moon (2019)

Ethics of It Leave a Bad Taste

[5/10 · 26 October 2023]

The ending of this movie left me feeling as if it promoted something less than moral. Then I saw the Netflix series "Bodies" and realized it had a similar plot except that the bad guys in "Bodies" are comparable to what are presented as the good guys in "Shadow." Changing history - if it could be done - would not be ethical. I mean, how would the makers of this movie feel if someone "took care" of their ancestors? People in 1988 witness several unexplained serial murders, apparently based on what books they read or opinions they held. Nine years later, it happens again. And so on. And so on...

Nefarious (2023)

Flanery gives master class in otherwise average horror

[8/10 · 5 July 2023]

Sean Patrick Flanery is a "revelation" as he portrays a demon called High Prince Nefariamus (or just plain Nefarious to friends).

Despite its flaws, "Nefarious" should be viewed by acting students just for Flanery's master class in how to play both the merciless demon Neffie and his tortured host, Edward Wayne Brady. (Why does this film seem to have it in for the game show host Wayne Brady?) Flanery is delicious as he makes manipulating his doctor from the first moment they meet look deceptively easy. Acting should be fun, and Flanery is obviously having a ball.

On the other hand, Flanery's co-star, Jordan Belfi, as Dr. James A. Martin, is not ready (if he ever will be) to play opposite Flanery on an equal footing. His performance is earnest yet weak in ability and believability, it is empty of the inspiration the actor strives for and needs to achieve. Belfi seems far more ill at ease than his character has to be. It looks like a lack of ease as an actor instead of as the character.

There are also good minor roles. Tom Ohmer crushes his part as Warden Tom Moss, and Cameron Arnett as Trustee Styles nails one memorable scene. The trouble is that neither of them is in a position to carry the whole movie.

Sometimes the verbal sparring between Nefarious and Martin is well written and well delivered, which is good because the drama of this film is dependent on their relationship.

Martin: I wasn't aware that this is a game.

Nefarious: That's why you're losing.

Plot points that will bear fruit later are well-planted early on. The cruelty of Nefarious toward Edward makes it clear just how evil Nefarious is. (Which hurts Edward more, breaking his little finger or cancelling his last meal?)

Many things in this movie do not make sense. (See "Goofs".) Not least among these is that I do not believe that prison guards would stand around and watch while an inmate strangled a civilian. The conceit is that they don't want to move in because they fear that the inmate will kill the civilian. But that fear should be precisely why guards would move in and stop the inmate from killing the civilian.

It is surprising to reflect that none of George Carlin's seven words that cannot be said on the public airways are said in this movie. Flanery manages to convey viciousness and turpitude while using a vocabulary that is bare of obscenities.

Years ago I saw a Christian movie, "Born Again" (1978), in which one male prison inmate slaps another as if they were self-restrained sorority sisters. Nothing that namby-pamby is portrayed in this movie. When violence occurs, it is not sugar-coated.

Ironically for a Christian movie (or because it is a Christian movie), Nefarious' exposition of the origin of angels/demons smacks of gnostic mythology. The angels became self-aware and then aware that they had been created by another Being. (Although, the gnostic myth is that some beings were created who did NOT know that they were created by a greater Being and mistakenly thought themselves to be the God.)

Also, there is a heresy called "Docetism" that holds that Christ did not die on the cross because He left the body of Jesus before he suffered and, therefore, Christ did not really suffer. This is exactly how Nefarious abandons Edward at the latter's death. It seems peculiar--if perversely fitting--to see that heresy parodied in a Christian movie even if it is about a demon.

JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald: The Truth (2017) Season 1, Episode 6

One CIA man's blockbuster is another CIA man's old news

[7/10 · 9 September 2022]

Once again, Baer becomes excited over information that he has algorithmically sucked from his immense database of declassified documents relating to the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. A much-ignored report by Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers yields an intriguing lead: an informant (who??) told Deputy Walthers that, prior to the assassination, Oswald made multiple visits to 3126 Harlandale Street in a near-suburban neighborhood of Dallas, Texas. Oswald's last visit was within a week before the assassination. At these meetings, a number of Cubans had gathered, representing a Venn diagram of overlapping memberships in various anti-Castro groups including one called Alpha 66. The house was nominally the residence of Jorge Salazar, and according to Baer, Salazar was a member of Alpha 66.

Walthers informed Secret Service Special-Agent-In-Charge, Forrest V. Sorrels of the information about the address where Oswald visited, and in a subsequent report, Walthers wondered whether there had been any follow up on it, especially given that his informant now told him that Salazar had abruptly moved out during the week of the assassination-at least by 23 November. (Baer and his investigative partner, Adam Bercovici, a former police lieutenant, dramatically jump to the conclusion that the Cubans moved on the 23rd, but, in fact, Walthers' report is far from that precise.)

Baer never doubts Walthers' report despite the fact that the deputy evidently never investigated the lead himself, rather taking the word of his informant, but there are several inaccuracies in the reports. For one thing, Walthers initially gets the street number wrong, although he corrects that in his subsequent report. He also misspells "Harlandale" as "Harlendale" and misreports the address as a "Street" rather than an "Avenue" (which it had been since the 1930s).

According to city directories, Jorge N. And Rosa Salazar still lived at that same address three years after the assassination. Nine years after the assassination, they resided at an address only nine minutes by car from their old Harlandale address. They did not exactly get out of town after the assassination as Baer and Bercovici are misled to think by Deputy Walthers 1963 report.

Nevertheless, Baer's hypothesis about Oswald's real plan of escape is intriguing and simple. After the assassination, Oswald first took a bus and then, when it was snarled in traffic, he took a bus transfer ticket and switched to a taxicab. From downtown Dallas, he was taken to his rooming house, but he had the presence of mind to make his driver let him out a block or so past his residence, apparently well aware of how professional covert operatives would never get out right in front of an address when they knew that someone-in this case, the police-might be lying in wait for them.

Ignoring the nosy questions of the cleaning lady, Oswald took some things-including a revolver-and hurried back onto the sidewalk. He seemed to have some purpose. Where was he planning to go?

Oswald's fate was sealed when he was stopped by a lone police officer named J. D. Tippit. Rather than submit either to questioning or arrest, Oswald shot the officer to death and took off down the street, ignoring an eyewitness several paces behind him who immediately called the police. Oswald ducked into a movie theater where he was caught within minutes.

What if Oswald had not crossed paths with Officer Tippit? If he had continued in the direction that he was walking, he would have come to a bus stop on the next block. Boarding this bus, Oswald would have been entitled to a free ride with the transfer ticket that was found in his pocket when he was arrested. Baer realizes that this bus would have taken him very near to 3126 Harlandale Ave., the very house where he was supposed to have attended a meeting a few days before. This bus route had the advantage of not being on a main drag. Law enforcement would not be swarming over this part of town yet. (After Oswald murdered Tippit, of course, they would be.)

Was that, or something like it, part of Oswald's plan? We will probably never know.

Another question that Baer wants to answer is what Cuban intelligence knew about the possibility of Oswald being supported by Cubans of any stripe. He turns to Enrique Garcia, a Cuban intelligence officer who defected to the U. S. in 1989. Garcia informs him of the biggest bombshell of all. Cuban dictator Fidel Castro had infiltrated every anti-Castro group in the United States and knew everything they were doing. He even knew that someone was going to assassinate JFK in Dallas on 22 November 1963. Of course, this bombshell is neither new nor firsthand information. The CIA found out about this at least by 1988 when another defecting intelligence officer, Florentino Aspillaga, told them. In fact, Aspillaga is the one who told Garcia about Castro's foreknowledge of the assassination.

Baer is not always original in his insights, although the few original takes on Oswald's behavior are worth noting. The times he is off the mark are too frequent. He seems to ignore glaring omissions and inaccuracies in the information he presents.

JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald: The Cuban Connection (2017) Season 1, Episode 4

How could Oswald be in two places at once when he was not anywhere at all?

[5/10 · 9 September 2022]

"Former" CIA officer Bob Baer and company head to the Louisiana bayous to find evidence of training camps for anti-Castro Cubans there in the early 1960s. The report of the House Committee that reexamined the Kennedy assassination in the late 1970s mentions a film of Cubans practicing military maneuvers in Louisiana in which Oswald possibly appears. The film is missing according to Baer. He finds evidence that a camp might have existed, but did assassin Lee Harvey Oswald attend such a camp? Inconclusive.

Baer next looks at the testimony of Silvia Odio who lived in Dallas and claimed that a man calling himself Leon Oswald and two Cuban men visited her in September 1963 and talked about assassinating President John F. Kennedy. He assures us that this is a bombshell and he finds her testimony credible even though Ms. Odio's evidence, when presented to the Warren Commission, the first official body to investigate the assassination, was discounted. Baer does not tell why they discounted it, even though the documents that appear on the screen show that Ms. Odio believed that the visit from Oswald occurred on the 27th or 28th of September, which clearly was impossible if one believed that Oswald was in Mexico City on those dates. Baer should understand that argument since he himself believes that Oswald was in Mexico City-unless, of course, Baer would now care to entertain the theory that the man claiming to be Oswald in Mexico City was an imposter.

Finally, Baer looks at the attempt on the life of Major General Edwin Walker in April 1963. (A bullet just missed the general as he stood in his study at home.) Oswald took credit for that failed assassination attempt, telling several people about it. Baer cites an eye witness who saw the gunman get into a car that drove away, followed by another car. The implication is that Oswald, if he was that shooter, had accomplices. Because Oswald never drove a car, he evidently had not one but two accomplices, one of them being the driver of his getaway vehicle.

This is a rather boring episode to me because of all the sloshing about in the swamp without uncovering anything of interest. The only interesting points are the last accounts, which present evidence that Oswald had accomplices. If Odio's testimony is not mistaken, then it suggests that someone went to a great deal of trouble to send an Oswald impersonator to Mexico.

JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald: Oswald Goes Dark (2017) Season 1, Episode 3

Somebody should talk to Silvia

[6/10 · 9 September 2022]

Having established that Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of President John F. Kennedy, visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City just weeks before the assassination, "former" CIA officer Bob Baer has allowed himself to be persuaded that the Soviet connection is a dead end, but he is still looking at the Cuban connection, and he focuses on Silvia Duran who worked for Consul Eusebio Azcue Lopez at the Cuban embassy. (Baer does not say so, but Azcue was ending his tenure as consul in Mexico City at nearly the precise moment of Oswald's arrival; his replacement was either about to or had just taken over, but because Azcue was the only senior officer on the scene who spoke English, he stepped in to deal with Oswald.)

Silvia Duran, a Mexican citizen, said in her two statements (in 1963 and 1978) that she merely tried to help Oswald with his visa application and that her only contact with Oswald was limited to his three brief visits to her office regarding his application.

According to Duran's testimony, Oswald made a scene when he could not get his visa application expedited. He argued with Azcue and was escorted from the building, just as he had previously been removed from the Soviet embassy. Baer assures us that Silvia Duran's testimony is another bombshell that will blow this case open, but this bombshell, like the others, soon fizzles for Baer. He tracks down Duran, but she won't talk to him.

Next, Baer digs into his database of declassified documents and finds a report by U. S. diplomat Charles W. Thomas, which mentions several witnesses, surnamed Garro, who saw Oswald and Silvia Duran together at a party that was also allegedly attended by Azcue. One of the witnesses, Francisco Garro, is still alive. He is a nephew of Ruben Duran who was Silvia Duran's brother-in-law. Garro tells Baer that he saw Oswald, Azcue and Silvia Duran at a party at his uncle's house. (Was this party before or after Oswald's visit to the Cuban embassy? Baer does not make that clear and perhaps does not know.)

Azcue, like Silvia Duran, never officially admitted to seeing Oswald outside of the embassy. Baer tells us that Azcue was a Cuban intelligence officer, which seems plausible, but Baer does not say how he knows this. Garro also says he fixed Oswald's face in his memory because it was so unusual to see a strange "gringo" at a party that was primarily for family and friends, who were all leftists according to Garro (though not openly communists, since that was illegal in Mexico at that time). Garro says that he recognized Oswald on television two months later following the assassination and was "110 percent sure" that it was the same man he had seen with his Aunt Silvia. (Aside: Some fifteen years after the assassination, Azcue said that the man he met in Mexico City claiming to be Oswald was not the same man that he saw on television when Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby, but Baer does not tell us this.)

The Duran hypothesis fizzles, too. I am not sure why, unless it is just because an informant told the FBI that Fidel Castro said that Oswald, while being thrown out of the Cuban embassy in Mexico City, shouted, "I'm going to kill Kennedy for this!" (Apparently, he blamed Kennedy for not being able to get a visa for travel to Cuba.) Baer treats this as an exclusive revelation, but the documents that appear on screen show that Castro publically gave this same account on 27 November 1963 in a public speech, a year before the letter signed by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover that Baer relies upon.

For whatever reason, Baer concludes that neither the Soviets nor the Cubans were directly behind Lee Oswald's plan to assassinate JFK. Duran and Azcue's possible relationship with Oswald outside of the embassy is forgotten. The possibility that the "scenes" Oswald made at two embassies were both staged is never considered.

Abandoning Mexico, Baer goes to New Orleans where he focuses on a nagging inconsistency in Oswald's dossier: the ambiguity of his political affiliations with both pro-communist and anti-communist organizations. He was the head (and only member) of the New Orleans chapter of the pro-Castro group, Fair Play for Cuba, but he also belonged to the anti-Castro group, the Freedom for Cuba Party.

Oswald lived in New Orleans from the Spring of 1963 until at least late August of that year. In early August 1963, Oswald first offered his services as a guerilla warfare expert (based on his training as a U. S. Marine) to Carlos Bringuier, an anti-Castro leader in New Orleans. Four days later, after he had turned down the offer, Bringuier caught Oswald distributing pro-Castro pamphlets. The two men got into a fight and were both arrested. On 21 August, these same two men debated each other in a local broadcast.

During part of his time in New Orleans, Oswald worked for Reilly's Food but was fired for being unreliable. He seemed more interested in hanging around a nearby garage. The garage was a kind of "motorpool", as Baer calls it, for federal vehicles (e.g., FBI, Secret Service, etc.). Baer rightly wonders why someone so hostile to the U. S. government was interested in such a place. Baer then finds a witness statement by the garage owner who claimed that he saw a man he believed to be an FBI agent giving an envelope to Oswald.

Baer points out that there is a gap of almost four full weeks between the debate with Bringuier and Oswald's application for a Mexican visa. What did Oswald do in the meantime? (If you subscribe to the theory that the "Oswald" who appeared in Mexico City was an impostor, then you do not know where Oswald was for six weeks.)

Baer points out that both anti-Castro and pro-Castro Cubans often hated JFK, although for different reasons. This meant that Oswald could have asked for support from either (or even both) by merely changing his stated reason for wanting to assassinate JFK. But how does Baer know that Oswald joined a training camp for anti-Castro mercenaries in the Louisiana bayous? The fact that Oswald's apartment in New Orleans was only a fifteen-minute drive from an abandoned weapons storage facility that very well might have been used by anti-Castro mercenaries, seems irrelevant because: 1) Oswald did not have a car; 2) the training camp that Oswald would have attended would not have been near the weapons facility, anyway; and, besides that, 3) Baer provides no evidence that Oswald actually attended such a training camp.

Ultimately, Baer does not and, perhaps, cannot resolve the question of whether Oswald was really a communist or some kind of double agent, masquerading as an American prodigal son. Baer cannot explain other contradictions, as well. Why do stories about Oswald sometimes portray him as an organized personality and, at other times, as a completely disorganized one?

JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald: The Iron Meeting (2017) Season 1, Episode 1

Wiley Coyote strikes again!

[6/10 · 9 September 2022]

What makes "former" CIA officer Bob Baer's reality show exciting and entertaining is that every new angle of his investigation into the movements of Lee Harvey Oswald, leading up to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, is presented as "a bombshell"-at least until it is proven wanting in some way and replaced by another hypothesis.

Baer reminds me of Wiley Coyote from the old Looney Tunes cartoons: When one device does not work perfectly to help him capture the Road Runner, instead of fine-tuning that device or using it in a different way, Wiley Coyote abandons it entirely and sends away to the Acme company for a completely different device.

The possibility that Oswald met with a KGB officer named Kostikov at a bullfight in Mexico City on 29 September 1963 is "recreated" to prove that, given the venue's capacity to hold 40,000 fans, it would have so crowded that a clandestine rendezvous (or "iron meeting" in Baer's spy terminology) could have taken place without being detected by the CIA. Having gone to the painstaking trouble of outlining this possibility, however, Baer subsequently doubts that the meeting ever took place at all. (Oh, well, never mind.)

JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald: The Russian Network (2017) Season 1, Episode 2

Timebomb or Tornado?

[6/10 · 9 September 2022]

"Former" CIA officer Bob Baer and his associate, former Los Angeles Police Lieutenant Adam Bercovici, debunk their own theory that Lee Harvey Oswald's meetings with the Soviets and Cubans in the early fall of 1963 might have led to him winning their support for an assassination plot.

Oswald was in Mexico City from 27 September to 2 October 1963. He may have visited the Soviet embassy on the 28th as Baer suggests but, according to other sources, perhaps it was the 27th. (Baer does not make it clear whether the visits to the two embassies were on the same day, but other sources indicate that they were.)

After talking to "former" KGB officer Oleg Nechiporenko, Baer changes his mind about his hypothesis that the Soviets might have agreed to work with Oswald. Nechiporenko, a smooth-talking old man who must have been almost as smooth when he was a young KGB agent in the 1960s, tells Baer that Oswald made a scene at the Soviet embassy in Mexico City, even brandishing a revolver at one point. His gun was taken from him, and he was ejected from the building. The old KGB officer says that Oswald seemed emotionally volatile and psychologically unstable. Baer suggests that Oswald was a time bomb. "A tornado," Nechiporenko corrects him. "Someone makes a time bomb; a tornado forms on its own." (Curiously, Baer goes back to Bercovici and tells him that Nechiporenko said that Oswald was "a ticking time bomb".) Baer is now convinced that Nechiporenko has told the truth and that the Soviets were not interested in using Oswald in any way. Why does he believe the old KGB man, especially when Baer should know that there are many ways-within limits-to use even an unreliable person?

Next, Baer looks at Oswald's contact with the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. (Oswald applied for a transit visa to Russia via Cuba, but Baer doesn't mention Russia in this Cuban context.) Oswald was first turned away, according to Baer, because he did not have the requisite photographs. (Actually, Oswald did come back later with photographs; the real problem was that in order to get a transit visa to Russia via Cuba, he had to get a visa from the Soviets first, and he had not done so.)

Baer decides that it would be crucial to talk to Silvia Duran who worked for the Cuban consul at that time, and he tracks her down. (Baer must know that her name is no longer Duran, but he keeps referring to her by her old name even while trying to address her through her locked front door.) She said in two prior statements-one in the 1960s and another in the late 1970s-that she tried to help Oswald with his visa application, even though he was very disagreeable, and that her only contact with him was during his three brief visits to her office regarding his application. According to Duran's testimony, Oswald made a scene when he could not get his application for a visa expedited. He then argued heatedly with the consul, Duran's superior, and was escorted from the building-just as he had been kicked out of the Soviet embassy earlier the same day. Baer attempts to interview Duran, and at one point she promises to meet with him but stands him up, instead.

Baer ignores the point that the only reason that Oswald ever gave for wanting to go to Cuba was to stop there while on his proposed journey to Russia. No evidence is given to show that Oswald came to Mexico with a ready plan to kill the American president or that this idea was suggested to him by someone in Mexico. There is evidence of contact with communist governments, but beyond that Baer has only inference and speculation, so far. The facts are good to know as are the possibilities, but they do not prove anything conclusively. Besides, Baer seems ready to abandon one hypothesis for the next, which is that Oswald's contacts with Cubans prior to his trip to Mexico is crucial in understanding where he found support for his mission to assassinate the president of the United States.

Death in Paradise: Murder on the Airwaves (2019) Season 8, Episode 7

Why is a report for the French government written in English?

[6/10 · 14 August 2022]

The reviewer jaywalkeruk-1 ("Great, but flawed") makes a solid criticism that the DS from Paris should not be of a lower rank than DI Mooney. That would be the most damning complaint if only she were not also FROM PARIS? I'm with reviewer eddie-perkins who wrote "I'm confused". Why is an internal affairs investigator from Paris looking into Florence's shooting and evaluating Jack's performance? BTW if Madeleine is writing a report to the French government, why is she shown to be writing it in ENGLISH?

Even if there were an explanation for any of this (I suppose that Florence was seconded from French Guadeloupe in the first place), why does a representative of France have any say about the status of a British police officer employed by a British colony? The show has made clear that the fictional island of Sainte Marie was a French possession a long time ago but is now governed solely by the UK.

The show's writers apparently need two things and won't compromise on either: There must be tension regarding Detective Inspector Mooney's fate, AND it must be at the hands of yet another sexy French Detective Sergeant. Why do the detective sergeants on this show always have to be sexy and French? (This is obviously like asking why they usually also have to wear appealingly tight hot pants--though DS Madeleine does not do so, at least not in this installment.)

The murder plot is somewhat clever. I should have seen it coming but did not. The murderer is always too clever by half, and the DI always figures out that the apparent time of the murder or sequence of events has been shifted to create the illusion of impossibility. Any other inspector--except for the ones routinely sent to Sainte Marie--would miss these shifts, and the murderer would get away with it.

Europa Report (2013)

More authentic than most space movies

[7/10 · 7 August 2022]

"Europa Report" is relatively authentic in its details about the large, icy moon of Jupiter called Europa, But it is not perfect, and it will strike many viewers as, at first, slow and claustrophobic. After all, as one of the astronauts observes, the space inside the ship is extremely limited even while the space outside is vast.

That said, I recommend "Europa Report" for being sufficiently adventurous while not making the intelligent viewer cringe over obviously fake science. In fact, it is a horror movie made more horrifying by the plausibility that, just as there are dangers in nature here on earth, there might be equal or worse horrors lurking on the many moons and planets we have yet to explore.

There are some tropes here that are similar to those of other space movies, but many that are different, too. No, crew members do not become infected with an alien bug that makes them kill each other. Yes, they argue, but it is mostly about taking chances versus safety. The crew cooperates, and they take care of each other in admirable ways--if ultimately futile ones.

There are however, several don't-go-down-those-stairs moments. ("Actually walking on the surface of Europa was always a question mark," says one astronaut as the crew is about to vote on whether one of the scientist-astronauts should go outside.)

The scene that confused me most was the one about the attempted repair of the communications system; I thought they were all in the lander on Europa's surface, but apparently they left two astronauts on the orbiter high above the surface. Anyway, that is the first genuinely scary scene. There are subsequently some more scary scenes including the ending.

For those who do not know. Europa is Jupiter's fourth largest moon (Jupiter has well over 80 moons and moonlets), and it is one of three big Jovian moons that have liquids on their surfaces. In fact, Europa has an all-ice surface with nothing much other than a salt-water ocean beneath that ice. While the surface of this planet-sized moon is absolute zero degrees (utterly frozen), its innermost core is molten hot so that the salty ocean between the hot core and cold surface is relatively warm--warm enough that some of the creatures in earth's oceans would probably be able to live in Europa's ocean. So, does Europa have life of its own? That is what the astronauts in "Europa Report" want to find out.

There are some scientific quibbles: Although the movie acknowledges that radiation is a huge problem, it seems rather cavalier about it. (Europa is pretty close to Jupiter and is hit by 5.40 Sv of radiation a day; as I understand it, that quickly translates into deadly exposure.)

Another problem is that the movie assumes that the surface of Europa is rough but relatively flat; yet recent data suggests that the icy surface is made up of huge, closely interspersed ice-spikes; making landing a ship there similar to throwing a tennis ball at the sole of a boot cleated with sharp metal spikes.

Many advocates of a mission to Europa insist that we should send robots, not people. However, the filmmakers should be forgiven because danger to robots would not be as exciting as danger to humans. "Europa Report" gives us a crew of diverse humans who turn out to be relatable (if somewhat generic), who are nevertheless admirable in their determination and bravery.

D.B. Cooper: Where Are You?!: Cooperland (2022) Season 1, Episode 4

Comic book angle makes best ep in series

[7/10 · 23 July 2022]

I found this the most interesting entry because I did not know about the Canadian comic book angle. Many people (unless they are "Cooperites") are unaware that "D. B. Cooper" was not the alias used by the famous 1971 skyjacker; rather, he gave his name as "Dan Cooper" when he bought his plane ticket. It turns out that Dan Cooper was the name of a French-language comic book hero who was popular in Europe and French-speaking Canada in the '50s, '60s, and '70s. The fictional Cooper was a pilot who frequently parachuted from jets and even dealt with a skyjacker in one of his adventures. The FBI considered that the real-life 1971 skyjacker might be a Canadian, but relations between the U. S. and Canada were not good during the early 1970s. The FBI was refused permission to investigate there.

The King's Man (2021)

Good acting, execrable history

[4/10 · 21 February 2022]

"The King's Man" is well-photographed and well-acted. (As Alistair Cooke once marveled, how does an island nation produce so many great actors?) But only by deliberately doing so could anyone get the history so backward. Just a few examples, from the big things to the little: Great Britain blockaded Germany and drove its people to starvation during World War I; it was not the other way around. You did not have to twist Woodrow Wilson's arm to get him to join the war, he told an associate that he believed that Britain was fighting the Americans' war for them. Singing "Happy Birthday To You" had not yet caught on during World War I. People were still more likely to sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" for many years afterward. That said, and bad justifications for war aside (War in general and that war in particular), the fight scenes are well-choreographed and Tom Hollander is wonderful in three roles.

The Slender Thread (1965)

Slender is the Night

[6/10 · 8 January 2022]

One of the people I watched this movie with recently (the day before Sidney Poitier died) worked with me on a "hotline" crisis center in the 1970s. (That was in a small town; I subsequently worked at another one in a large city.) The use of technology in this 1965 movie to locate a suicide was, in its time, stretching the possibilities.

"We never were able to trace a call," said my friend about our small town hotline.

"As far as I know, we never did in the city, either," I said.

"The moment that rings truest for me," said my friend, "is the end where Poitier's character blows off steam. I really felt like that after my first suicide call." That's one of the places where most viewers might think that Poitier over-acts. We didn't think so.

This is not a great movie, although it is worth seeing for a number of reasons. Somebody said that there are no great performances in a bad movie. I rather think this is a flawed movie that nevertheless has some good acting, although, putting two award-winning actors together under the direction of a relatively inexperienced director (Sydney Pollack) is not a sure-fire formula.

Many of the 'sixties tropes on display are dated. Not least of all is that, excepting Poitier, the few black faces in this movie are all in the deep background. If you were not looking for them, you could be excused for thinking that Poitier's was the only black face on the screen.

Perhaps the most interesting question is whether or not race is ever alluded to. It is never directly mentioned, but it could well be subtext. The suicidal woman, Inga (Anne Bancroft), has big problems, but Alan (Poitier) mentions that, hey, he has problems, too, but he does not elaborate on them.

Talk about subtext: the movie confronts Inga's problem only superficially. She is caught between being regarded either as a madonna or a slut by her husband and she takes this to heart as if these are the only ways she can view herself. The movie does not interrogate the issue because the main focus is on whether Poitier and the rest of the male cast of rescuers can push along the now primitive-seeming technology used to trace her call.

Most lost in terms of what is expected of him is Steven Hill as Inga's husband, Mark. (Hill is best known, perhaps, either as the original district attorney on "Law and Order" or the original team leader on "Mission: Impossible".) His problem is her problem as he is torn between his simultaneous love and disgust for her. What is he supposed to be thinking and doing most of the time? I don't know, and don't think anybody told the actor, either.

The help line that Inga calls is brand new. She just happens to learn about it from a newspaper headline reporting that it has opened. (Inga also seems to have a steel-trap memory: she calls the phone number after reading it in the paper without writing it down or rechecking it.) This makes me think about the social background of this mid-1960s movie.

The screenplay--by Stirling Silliphant, who also penned Poitier's hit, "In the Heat of the Night", two years later, and the uncredited David Rayfiel--was based on a "Life" magazine article, written by Shana Alexander, about a helpline worker who tries to save a suicidal woman.

The bigger picture can best be understood through the (now unavailable) documentary "Bold New Approach" (1966), which was probably filmed around the same time as "The Slender Thread". The Kennedy administration had earlier promoted the idea of developing community mental health resources, the need for which is suggested by a scene in which Inga meets a psychiatrist who does not have time for her. This seems to be a not too subtle criticism of the then-existing system, suggesting that mental health crisis services ought to be more available. (In the U. S. today, most state health departments oversee a regionally organized network of community-based behavioral health services that prominently include crisis options.)

The 1960s also saw the beginning of professional emergency medical services, hinted at here as the fire department ambulance goes out on the call to help Inga. Even ten years later, this was commonplace, but in 1965, a fire department ambulance with trained medical technicians was so new that it was almost science fiction.

The opening shots of Seattle remind us we are watching a movie probably shot about five years after zooming outdoor camera work emerged on the big screen, and new toys do tend to be over-used.

Even more glaring is the portrayal of a discothèque where the beatniks have not quite yet become hippies, and everything looks stylized, the way it would have been portrayed on television at the time; there is nothing realistic about the scene.

The Perfect Stranger (2005)

Sincere but flawed

[6/10 · 13 July 2021]

It is impossible to review "The Perfect Stranger" the way one might review "My Dinner with Andre" even though both have a similar idea: Two people discuss the Big Questions of Life over dinner at an upscale restaurant. There the similarity ends. "Andre" focuses on what the title character has to say, but it is still a dialogue between equals whose opinions are theirs alone and understandably heir to bias and error. It does not matter whether we agree with Andre or Wallace because they are mere mortals.

In the present film, the stakes are raised because one of the diners is supposed to be all-knowing and all-understanding, but can only be so to the extent that Jefferson Moore's script (or its source, the novel of the same title by David Gregory) is convincing. A play on film based on a hortatory dialogue needs a guru and a foil/votary. The guru is "The Perfect Stranger" of the title, a man who claims to be Jesus (Jefferson Moore), although he looks like he just got off work at Merrill Lynch as the foil in the piece, Nikki (Pamela Brumley), aptly describes him.

In his argument, Jesus first attacks as inadequate all systems alternative to his own (other religions, atheism); then he lays out a Christian theology; and, finally, he tells Nikki how this theology applies to her. Some of it, particularly the applied theology, is provocative, but the weakest part of the dialogue is the dismissal of other points of view, done so simplistically and unconvincingly that it does little to eliminate the competition. Other views are dispensed with through strawman arguments that Nikki is unable to see through. She is too much of a pushover to make this dialogue challenging for Jesus.

A better matched interlocutor would not have let Jesus get away with saying, for example, that Christianity, rather than Hinduism, fits better with the Big Bang Theory of modern physics. It is a weakness for any theology to gloat that science supports it. For its own good, religion should not concede dependence on science, which in any case changes when it acquires more evidence. Religion, if it is worth anything at all, must offer higher truths, independent of science. Indeed, some cosmologists have considered the possibility that the Big Bang is not THE beginning of everything but, rather, only the beginning of one iteration of an eternal universe. While science can know of no other iteration before this one, it is still possible that Hinduism's notion that the universe begins and ends over and over again is right. Thus, the jury is out on whether Hinduism's theory of the universe supersedes or contains Judeo-Christianity's. That cosmological point ought not to be granted as it implicitly is here.

Unable to argue this point, Nikki tries another tac. What about Islam, another Abrahamic religion? How do we know Mohammed didn't get it right? Doesn't Christianity, like Islam, simply depend "on whether or not God spoke to one guy?"

Jesus goes toe to toe with Mohammed, declaring, for example that the Prophet's claim that Jesus did not die on the cross is not only wrong because "I was there" but because "My crucifixion was historically documented by Christians and non-Christians." Actually, one non-Christian did, maybe. All other historians who affirm the historicity of the crucifixion rely on their own faith or else very indirect (if persuasive) evidence. And Christian accounts are not concerned with history at all but are faith narratives. This part of the dialogue is overloaded with disputed and disputable evidence.

Jesus finally argues that the Christian God provides people with the hope of being completely and perfectly loved, but "the Muslims never had that hope. They can't have a personal relationship with Allah. He's just someone to worship and serve from far away."

That is a distortion of the Muslim view. The Quran says, "We (Allah) have created man, and We know whatever thoughts his inner self develops, and We are closer to him than his own jugular vein." This is hardly distant. For the Sufi Muslim mystic Rabia Al-Adawiyya, Allah was not impersonal but was the love of her life: "...if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, withhold not Thine everlasting beauty." Moreover, and to go back to Hinduism, that multifaceted faith recognizes something called "bhakti yoga" which is salvation through devotion to God as a personal being. Hinduism regards Krishna and-for that matter-Pure Land Buddhism regards Amitabha Buddha much as Christianity regards Jesus. Christianity hardly has a monopoly on the concept of a personal savior.

If Moore's version of Jesus knows half of nothing about other viewpoints, he does know Christianity well enough to give Nikki and us a provocative rendition of the tenet that one's faith is infinitely more salvific than one's deeds. No person can ever do enough good deeds. "There is great profit in obeying God," Moore's Jesus says, "it just won't get you into heaven." But what is the profit and where is heaven? Here, Jesus has to rely on language for terms that he must, at the same time, undermine. (Pay attention or the seeming contradictions will confuse you!)

Faith in the sacrifice of Jesus is at the heart of most Christians' belief, and it is the only way to salvation. Further, Jesus argues here that heaven is a misleading concept because what Christians have through faith is not a spot in The Good Place but Eternal Life. To accept the invitation to let Jesus into your life is to accept an indwelling-crassly speaking, a kind of possession, but presumably without losing one's individuality or free will. Christianity becomes "a force for good in the world" not because of rote rule-following but because of each Christian's asking him or herself not only "What would Jesus do?" but, pragmatically, "How can I do that now?"

This is a 90-minute-plus movie that is over before it's over in that the last twenty minutes combine credits with three interviews with cast and filmmakers (including Moore who is both). The look of the film is not too claustrophobic even though most of the movie is shot in a restaurant, at a table. There are shots of other patrons and interactions with the waitstaff. There is occasional humor, as when Nikki goes to the women's room and says out loud but to herself, "He thinks he's God!" Another woman comes out of a stall and says, "They all do. Just make sure he pays for dinner."

The Algerian (2014)

Thriller sneaks up quietly and ultimately delivers a knockout punch

[8/10 · 15 April 2021]

"The Algerian" is a little gem that explores the motivations of a terrorist named Ali and the unexpected consequences of his engagement with his target. Ben Youcef as the titular character is a revelation, an actor as smart as he is good-looking. (He also wrote the story on which director-writer-editor Giovanni Zelko based the screenplay.)

Ali, who attended American University in Cairo, speaks fluent English, but there are still cultural things that surprise him when he arrives in the United States on a student visa. He is a lone wolf early in the film as he takes a room that he eventually furnishes with a naked mattress and not much else. (At one point, we see what looks to be an empty bird cage; was there an attempt at keeping a pet that was edited out?)

Ali's isolation and loneliness are palpable, but gradually he meets people including a shopkeeper (Zuhair Haddad) who sells him a bicycle and makes him an Arab-style cup of coffee, and a woman he could have fallen in love with in a different life. (Candice Coke's performance as Ali's love interest, Lana, anchors the film in a secondary story arc that holds up a tragic mirror that Ali cannot ignore.) All the people he meets represent either his old world or this new one in unanticipated ways. Harry Lennix, as Sulyman, the imam of a local mosque, is possibly the best-known cast member in this ensemble (other than Seymour Cassel who has a small role as a professor of history who argues with Ali). Ali is comforted by Sulyman's pastoral counselling but instinctively knows that Sulyman is also an American, and he can't confess that he is in America to carry out a deadly mission. The mission is on behalf of a figure known as "Father" who fancies himself destined to become the Khalifa (Caliph) of the whole Muslim world through terrorist acts. All of these characters are limned effectively and efficiently despite their often brief appearances on screen.

Ali does not bargain for meeting two women who inspire love and an American man (Josh Pence) his own age who becomes a friend. His relationships tangle him in conflicting feelings of love and hate, tolerance and prejudice (both received and given). As his feelings about his comrades and his cause on one hand and his new friends and his host country on the other become increasingly complicated, Ali questions his commitments and ultimately makes a shocking decision.

A couple of segues from scene to scene seem a bit abrupt, but there are not too many of those. Also giving the impression that Zelko had to do some severe editing, there are some unanswered questions such what leads the FBI to arrest the shopkeeper who knows nothing about Ali's mission. An apparent act of random injustice seems to be there just to stoke Ali's animosity for the U. S., even though we already understand that he blames Americans for making him an orphan when he was a boy.

Slow at first, the film becomes more and more exciting and unpredictable. Zelko's direction is confidant and brings out fine performances from a cast of mostly little-known actors. Sara (Tara Holt) as Ali's second love interest does her best to be convincing, but this relationship pales beside Ali's stronger chemistry with Lana. (BTW is it an intended or unintended joke that "Lana's" nickname for Ali is "Superman"?) Father (Said Faraj) is surprisingly humanized despite his devotion to speechmaking even in conversations and his obvious manipulativeness and megalomania. It ultimately seems out of character for him to come to the U. S. to oversee his plans. Doing so makes him seem pennyante, a poor man's Usama bin Laden. Megalomaniacs are usually canny enough to stay out of harm's way.

The Family: Chosen (2019) Season 1, Episode 2

An alarming expose if perhaps not as alarming as filmmakers think

[6/10 · 13 April 2021]

Also known as The Foundation, Inc., The Family is a secretive Christian organization that has brought civic leaders and especially politicians together for the better part of a century, although it went national and then international less than seventy years ago. It is most widely known through its sponsorship of the annual National Prayer Breakfast, attended by all U. S. presidents since 1953. It was founded by a Methodist preacher and expanded, from 1969 to 2017, by a Presbyterian named Douglas E. Coe.

There might be less wrong with the notion of The Foundation than the makers of this documentary seem to suggest. There is nothing wrong, per se, with promoting nonsectarian religious fellowship among politicians; nevertheless, there are disturbing aspects to the particular ideology and teachings of the organization as presented here and its influence on some politicians. Also its secretiveness and ambiguous status as a church/not a church raise questions.

This installment focuses on the fruits of the group's alleged teaching that people in positions of leadership are, ipso facto, in power because God wants them there, and that they are forgiven for any sins they might commit because God wants them to stay in power or he would not have put them there. The foundation uses, as its template for this particular interpretation of the doctrine of predestination, the Biblical story of King David and Bathsheba (related in 2 Samuel in the Bible as well as in the 1951 movie, "David and Bathsheba"). David sinned not only in committing adultery with Bathsheba, but he had her husband killed to cover up the affair; yet, while God demanded remorse, He did not remove David from office over his transgressions.

Two contemporary cases seem to show that "The Family" actually recommended the application of this "ethic" to at least two politicians who strayed in their marriages and then offered the King David defense for their decisions not to resign. (These men were both Republicans, but it seems facetious of the filmmakers to ignore, in this instance at least, the likelihood that many more philandering politicians of both parties have been similarly counseled by The Family.)

Much seems wrong with the group's interpretation. Obviously, it exaggerates the importance of these particular politicians remaining in office. Neither was a king, for one thing. (And even Great Britain's Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 after it was determined that he could not be king if he married a divorced woman according to the canonical law of the Church of England.) These politicians were a U. S. senator from Nevada and a governor of South Carolina. Neither's continuation in office was really vital, and the assertion that he should not resign, in the case of the governor, sounded particularly ludicrous-not to say exquisitely self-serving-when he mentioned King David.

The scrutiny drawn to The Foundation as a result of these instances of its dubious ethical coaching of politicians, raised other issues as well. The politicians received their counselling at a building in Washington, DC owned by the group, which claimed it as tax-exempt church property in legal documents. Some politicians once lived there, paying a fraction of the rent they could expect to pay on the open market, which constitutes an unlawful donation to these politicians by the organization. It also raises the question of whether The Foundation is a church or not. It seems to claim that it is when it is convenient and that it is not when that is inconvenient. The group says it is not promoting a particular religion to national or world leaders, but its doctrines turn out to be exceedingly particular and might well conflict with the doctrines favored by each leader's personal faith.

The Family (I) (2016)

Memorable and Disturbing

[6/10 · 13 April 2021]

Five years ago, this series was cancelled, and yet it still haunts me. There were things about it that I liked and things I did not. It was a bit of a melodrama, which could be off-putting, and it was rather perverse, which could also be off-putting but also, like the distress of witnessing a road accident, made it difficult to look away from.

For those who do not know, the plot centers on a woman named Claire Warren (Joan Allen) who is the mayor of a small town (supposedly in the U. S. state of Maine, although there is nothing about the people or place that says "Maine" to me, and I grew up in nearby Massachusetts). She is also the mother of three children, one of whom, Adam, has been missing and presumed murdered for ten years. (The name, Adam, perhaps unfortunately, echoes that of Adam Walsh, a boy whose abduction and murder, along with the subsequent case of a girl named Amber Hagerman, contributed to increased systematic and rigorous responses to child abduction in the U. S. and, perhaps, to similar emergency protocols in other countries.)

Claire is contemplating a run for governor of Maine when a youth claiming to be Adam (Liam James) appears at her home, dredging up unpleasant memories for the family. Also, each character is apprehensive about whether this youth is really the long-lost Adam. They must reevaluate how the original loss affected their behavior in its aftermath as well as how it still down to the present day. Not only does Claire partially owe her election as mayor to being the mother of an abducted child, but her husband, John (Rupert Graves), owes his success as an author to a book about surviving the loss of a child.

BTW although one might think that this plot is improbable, there are documented cases of people who may have been long-lost relatives turning up and being believed by some and doubted by others. An old documented case of this sort was the basis for The Return of Martin Guerre (1982).

One of the many disturbing characters is Hank (Andrew McCarthy) who, although actually a pedophile, was wrongly convicted of the kidnap and murder of Adam nine years before.

Disturbingly, the viewer is invited to feel both sympathy and repulsion toward Hank who, as a registered sex offender, is forced to take a drug that chemically "castrates" him. He therefore cannot develop a socially and legally more acceptable relationship with an adult even though he tries. Still, the viewer is justified in not feeling too sorry for him because he feels sorry enough for himself.

Indeed, one of the creepiest and therefore most memorable lines in the series belongs to Hank. When someone questions him about whether he saw the real abductor, he describes the way a strange man was looking at the boy. He is then asked how he noticed and remembered this man's behavior so vividly. "Because I was looking too," says Hank.

Naturally, the detective (Margot Bingham) who made her career by making sure that Hank went to prison is not looking as good as she once did to those around or to herself. Adding to the soap opera, she is still haunted by the affair she had with John, Claire's husband and Adam's father.

Nobody in Adam's family is dealing well with the return. The mother is even reminded of her anger at-of all people-Adam, precisely because she thought she had taught him never to trust strangers or to go off with them. She feels guilty for blaming the victim but cannot help herself.

In the two children who remained, now young adults, Adam's return rekindles the old guilt they felt because they were supposed to be watching their brother on that fateful day. Willa (Alison Pill) and Danny (Zach Gilford), the adult children, seem the most sympathetic to me, but only because their flaws and weaknesses are traceable to a horrible and public family tragedy that brought them unwanted attention and guilt at vulnerable ages. They were innocent, and now they feel so bad about themselves that they are the only characters who probably feel worse than they deserve.

The ultimate mystery: who is the youth who claims to be their long-lost loved one if he isn't who he says he is? How else does he know some things that identify him as Adam, yet occasionally does not remember other things? Where has he been all these years, and why can he not help investigators to locate the place where he was kept or identify the man who kept him there?

Then there is the journalist, Bridey Cruz (Floriana Lima), a particularly irredeemable character who does not care who she has to hurt (or sleep with) to get the dirt on the Warren family. In an era when the erstwhile stigma of being gay or lesbian has been dramatically rehabilitated, Cruz incorporates her bi-sexual fluidity in her armamentarium of ways to manipulate people, including Willa who, arguably, is the most vulnerable of all the vulnerable characters.

My theory as to why this series was cancelled is that too many viewers did not watch because they were turned off by the unpleasantness of the subject as well as the lack of any truly sympathetic characters. If you think that any character is virtuous, just wait, and you will learn that they have less than admirable qualities.

The series ends on a cliffhanger, but it is an ending that definitively answers most of the major questions, and although it suggests that more would be in store for a continued narrative, I am not disappointed that the story ends there. Rest assured that the Big Bad is dead; long live the (new) Big Bad.

House of Dark Shadows (1970)

Serviceable horror show benefits from good acting

[7/10 · 9 April 2021]

Having seen the entire TV series on which "House of Dark Shadows" is based, I can say that it represents one of the many featured plotlines of the long-running series, although bringing it to a different, somewhat less elaborate but righteous conclusion; many fans of the TV series, however, will not consider it as interesting in the long run, and not so fair in its conclusion. (A riddle to avoid spoiling the plot.)

Dan Curtis, who created the series, directs here, using a lot of arty camera work as he did on the series when he helmed the occasional episode. Often it is barely noticeable, as when the camera gratuitously pulls back a little from a seated actor before it cuts to the other actor. At the climax, there is a lot of slow-motion camera work, which is almost by definition gratuitous.

The dialogue ranges from serviceable to mediocre. The writers, Sam Hall and Gordon Russell, were regulars on the series, but Russell, in the view of some critics, such as blogger Danny Horn, was one of the series' most hackneyed writers--unimaginative, humorless, and careless in his plotting. Here it is not so much that all those tendencies are on full display as it is that they seem always to be tugging at the plot and dialogue. The result is a melodrama with buckets of blood and no sense of humor. (Among the virtues of the TV series not on display here is at least some comic relief.)

The acting is good, considering what the actors have to work with. Nancy Barrett, the secret weapon of the TV series, does the same duty here. To look at her you would think, "OK, she looks gorgeous but can she act?" The answer is, "Yes, amazingly well!" Those unfamiliar with the series will have a relatively painless opportunity (without the drawn-out ennui of a daily soap that also cannot afford retakes to compensate for bad dialogue and acting) to appreciate these actors, some of whose best work was buried in the soap opera. Aside from Barrett (Carolyn Stoddard), there is Academy Award nominee Grayson Hall (Julia Hoffman), although she does tend to over-emote, which works better on the small screen than it does here. (BTW she was married to co-screenwriter Sam Hall.)

Also noteworthy are Jonathan Frid (Barnabas Collins), Kathryn Leigh Scott (Maggie Evans), '40s movie star Joan Bennett (Elizabeth Collins), Louis Edmonds (Roger Collins), Thayer David (Professor Stokes), John Karlen (Willie Loomis), and David Henesy (David Collins). Some good actors are wasted in small roles, Dennis Patrick (Sheriff Patterson) and Jerry Lacy (Minister) in particular. Don Briscoe (Todd), who gives a confident if thankless performance as a clueless victim, is most memorable for his voice, which sounds to me as if he were perpetually channeling Henry Fonda.

The editing is so choppy that scenes seem disconnected as if business happened in between scenes but has been jarringly left out. Some well-placed commercial breaks to provide misdirection from the disjointedness actually would have helped.

The Rookie: True Crime (2021) Season 3, Episode 7

Worst episode of the series

[1/10 · 2 March 2021]

This installment was, I believe, supposed to be funny but was pathetic instead. Frankie Munoz appears in a thankless role as a former child star (a bit on the nose) who now exploits people, is suspected of murdering them, and is a tragic figure--and a comic figure. (Can you be both? Not in MHO.) The most interesting thing about it is the possibility that it was made in response to Covid-19 because, for a lot of their time on screen, the actors are not within six feet of each other, with a few notable exceptions. (The actors who are usually paired on the show are near each other most.) Notice that the main guest star's final scene is a one man show supposedly involving another person that we never see except as a distant shadow. If Covid was a reason for this staging, it proved to be a bad idea. It doesn't work. Most Inexplicable Character: Rain Wilson as himself. He only added to the showbiz in-jokes that are plentiful and unfunny enough already. Maybe he contributed the most inane and inscrutable in-jokes. ("Corrie thought that *he* should have gotten the starring role in 'Backstrom'".)

Mysteries of the Bible: Paul the Apostle (1997) Season 4, Episode 8

How do you evaluate opinions when you do not know the context?

[6/10 · 8 February 2021]

"Mysteries of the Bible" presents about five talking heads without giving the viewer any context as to "where they're coming from". For example, Robert Price is a mythicist who is entirely skeptical of literal interpretations of the Bible. It is not surprising that he is the one who points out that Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is never explicitly described in any of Paul's letters and that, therefore, its attestation in the Book of Acts may be - and, from Price's viewpoint, is - suspect.

Robert Morris is an Episcopal clergyman who founded an interfaith organization that describes its mission as "integrated spirituality for daily living", and he, perhaps, can be fairly described as a conventionally liberal protestant.

Wayne Meeks is an academic with a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies from Yale University who is a former president of two prestigious organizations, the Society of Biblical Literature and Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. His specialties include Paul's letters.

Susan Alcock is a professor of archeology, so her views are based on the interpretation of artifacts found on the ground at ancient sites such as Petra, an ancient city where Paul is believed to have lived briefly.

(There is at least one other scholar used in this program, but I don't remember who.)

The Rookie: La Fiera (2021) Season 3, Episode 3

Show has become increasingly oh so woke and just so plotted, at the same time

[5/10 · 21 January 2021]

Most of the characters' problems are too quickly resolved. If only life were this easy. John's Mom arrives with problems that have plagued their relationship for decades, but by the end, mother and son have a good talk, recognize that they are both tired of playing games and resolve to try to do better by each other.

Another officer has decided to save a homeless teen and, by golly, this problem appears to be resolved by the end, too.

Another civilian is having a baby, and the officer takes her to the hospital and sees it through until she has her baby safely. Doesn't this officer have other claims on her time?

John is trying to be helpful to a neighborhood, but he is constantly criticized by a resident for misplaced do-goodism and its unintended consequences. But they agree to work together by the end.

The only problem that isn't resolved in an hour is the problem of an aggressive cop who goes off on civilians, all of whom he assumes are gang members. Two cops go to their supervisor and urge him to do something about this cop. He decides to put the offending officer on desk duty, but by the end, he seems to have changed his mind and indicates he might do something more drastic about the bad cop. To be continued....

Very well acted, but the fast resolutions of the majority of issues is too pat. Left me saying, "Oh, come on."

Monk: Mr. Monk and the Magician (2009) Season 7, Episode 15

"Your hygiene or your life!" Monk: "I'm thinking about it."

[8/10 · 27 July 2020]

Some Monks are better than others. This one is pretty good because the murderer (Steve Valentine) uses a ruse that he is narcissistic enough (but right) to say is both simple and clever, giving Monk a run for his money, and because Monk finds the limits of his self-centeredness in ways both funny and sad. His annoying neighbor, Kevin, is the victim, and after the murder, Monk feels guilty about bad-mouthing Kevin while he was alive. He confesses to lying just to avoid Kevin. Trying to comfort Monk, Natalie comes close to admitting that she sometimes deliberately avoids Monk. Monk has more in common with Kevin than he knows.

Kevin, played by Jarred Paul, really is annoying. At the funeral, Monk and Natalie find out that his whole family is annoying. Funerals are not usually this funny. (Especially if you know who Colin Robinson is - I think the secret is that Kevin's whole family are energy vampires.)

The punchline is that Monk is so squeamish about germs that he recoils at being kissed by a beautiful woman (Peyton List) even knowing that her kiss could literally save his life. That is very, very neurotic, and her wordless reaction to his squeamishness is priceless. (I'm trying to save your life, here; and, besides, men don't usually turn down my kisses!)

The Man from Earth (2007)

Writer goes beyond what he knows, in this talky movie

[3/10 · 10 April 2020]

The premise of "The Man from Earth" is that a college professor, about to leave town forever, tries to prove to his colleagues that he is 14,000 years old, as they try to poke holes in his story. Is John Oldman telling the truth or is he putting them on? (The professor's name BTW is John Oldman, and in case you don't get the pun, one of the characters points it out near the end.)

This premise raises many questions, starting with: Why the imprecise title? Aren't all the men in the movie from earth? And the women, too, for that matter? The script is by Jerome Bixby, a sci-fi and fantasy writer who touched on a somewhat similar theme in one of his old "Star Trek" scripts ("Methuselah", from 1969). Bixby died almost a decade before this movie's release, but, without information to the contrary, I will hold him largely responsible for the film's great shortcomings as well as its meager virtues.

Although the movie's premise is an intriguing one - as Bixby, speaking through several of his characters, keeps telling us - it seems to be written by someone who does not have the requisite knowledge of scientific and historical subjects to make John's story plausible, even if we are willing to entertain the possibility that someone might have lived for 14,000 years. I am not spoiling whether John is telling his friends the truth or a hypothetical story, which he allows for from the outset. For the movie to be credible, though, his audience - representing supposed scholars in fields including history, anthropology, and biology - should not be less able than the audience to poke holes in his story.

This movie would have been better if Bixby had known more about intellectual history (When does Bixby think humans figured out that the earth isn't flat, for example?) or things like the difference between a psychiatrist and psychologist. Then the repartee might have left me appreciative rather than rolling my eyes. Instead, Bixby exceeds what he knows enough to talk about, and does so in an awfully talky movie. Everything depends on audience involvement in the ideas being discussed, and once they fall flat, the whole movie does, too.

There are so many flaws in the understanding of both scientific and historical issues here that I find myself wishing that someone like the late Michael Crichton had tackled this premise instead of Bixby and director Richard Shenkman, who obviously did not know enough to correct Bixby's errors.

One problem that comes up right away is that John claims that he stopped aging when he was 35 years old. His story generally accounts for the fact that, back then, he had no way of knowing much about his historical context since history had not been written yet. By the same token, though, he could never have been sure of his own exact age when he stopped aging. He should have allowed that he only knew his apparent age approximately based on comparison with other people. Then, too, 14,000 years ago, 35 would have been considered old at a time when most people never reached 40 - John also looks as if he must have discovered skincare products early on.

Eventually, John tells his captivated audience what he knows, first-hand, about the origins of Christianity, and he makes everything he says needlessly complicated not to say fanciful. (It's a version of the dubious Jesus-survived-the-cross story.)

John's friends become frustrated and even hostile as they find they cannot disprove his account, and while I confess to being glad for the drama, their suspicion and distrust seem overblown. At a couple of points, one or another of his colleagues accuses him of being a psychic vampire. What John is claiming to be is an immortal (as in the movie "Highlander") as well as engaging in a serious version of Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner's "2000 Year Old Man" routines.

In middle of all this, movers arrive to take John's furniture (he is, after all, leaving town and his cottage, never to return), but nobody misses a beat. The movers must wonder: What are these people talking about? Yet they say nothing. (In a real situation, I would admire their professionalism, but in this film, their obliviousness seems unnerving.)

The acting is very good if not great. You might see familiar faces in the cast without being able to place which bit parts you have previously seen these actors in. The cast includes Tony Todd of "Candyman", "The Crow", Chuck", and "The Young and the Restless"; John Billingsley of "True Blood", "24", and "Star Trek: Enterprise"; Ellen Crawford of "ER", "Boston Legal", and many more; William Katt of "The Greatest American Hero" and "Carrie"; and Richard Riehle of "Casino", "Office Space", "Star Trek: Enterprise", "The Young and the Restless", "NCIS", "Grounded for Life", "The West Wing", "Ally McBeal", and "Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo".)

There is a sequel to this movie, and although it promises a more dynamic plot (rather than everybody sitting around John's living room), I am not going to see it because the original is so disappointing.

The Art of Self-Defense (2019)

Throw away comedy lines, brutal violence, closet-mystery haiku

[7/10 · 25 January 2020]

This movie has rightly been compared to a greater movie, "Fight Club". It is more like that than it is like "The Karate Kid" to which it has also been compared. It is also a mystery of sorts. Jesse Eisenberg's character, Casey, works out a couple of mysteries as we discover what the "night class" is all about. Although the main surprises are guessable, there are so many surprises at the end that the audience probably won't see all of them coming. (I didn't.)

There also may be an implied mystery-solution that is never revealed. Let us just say that what happens between Casey and Sensei at the end of this movie probably recapitulates what happened between Sensei and his own master, but that is never made explicit.

Nothing Is Truer Than Truth (2018)

Beautifully photographed, well-written and researched presentation

[8/10 · 25 January 2020]

"Nothing Truer than Truth" is an assuredly done documentary about the Shakespeare authorship controversy siding with Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, as the true author. It is well-written and photographed, especially focusing on the Italian period of de Vere's life. If the authorship question can never be settled with full certainly, much of the best evidence for de Vere's authorship is the Italian influence on the Shakespeare Works. This film demonstrates that. The details about Venice and environs in the 1570s and the life that de Vere is known to have led there is the best part of the film. The photography in Italy cannot be more highly recommended.

This is a controversial subject, and yet this documentary saves its most didactic argument - that de Vere rather than the man from Stratford wrote the Works - for the last twenty minutes. Before that, it presents its evidence with the assumption that de Vere was the true author. That is a bold move, but I cannot think of any other evidence for de Vere's authorship that is more compelling than the Bard's astonishing knowledge of Italy, whereas the man from Stratford never went there.

Though nineteenth and twentieth century English professors have argued that Shakespeare was misinformed about Italy, it turns out that, whoever Shakespeare was, he knew more about sixteenth century Italy than nineteenth and twentieth century English professors. The film does not dwell on that aspect of the controversy except to point out that Shakespeare's reference to Giulio Romano as a sculptor rather than a painter in "The Winter's Tale" was not the mistake that some critics have thought. Like many artists of the time, Romano sculpted, too (he was also an architect), and the Bard knew this though later professors who assumed themselves to be better informed than Shakespeare did not.

The film also looks at the parallels between the events of de Vere's life and the things that occur in his plays and poems, for example, his estrangement from his wife after - like the title figure of his play, "Othello" - he was persuaded of her infidelity. Of course, "Othello" is based on an Italian source that de Vere would have known and Shakespeare of Stratford might have; so, how much is really autobiographical, and how much borrowed, and what if anything can be proven by that? More telling is the detail that in his poem "Venus and Adonis," the Bard describes Adonis as wearing a hat, which seems to match a rare painting of the figures Venus and Adonis, who are more often shown hatless. The painting with the hat existed only in Italy at that time.

Even among Oxfordians (the term for those who champion de Vere as the true Bard), there are differences of opinion: Was Oxford/Shakespeare bisexual? The film says yes. Was he a universalist who understood every class, sex and walk of life, as the film affirms, or did he view the world from a privileged aerie of sex and class? The distinguished talking heads in this documentary (who include Sirs Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance) all seem to agree on the same answers to these questions. Not all Oxfordians do. The interviewees in this film perhaps disagree with each other about whether the Bard was a misogynist or a closet feminist (unless they all think that somehow he could be both).

An odd thing about "Nothing Truer than Truth" is its neglecting to explain its title, which it does reveal to be a translation of the Latin motto "Vero Nihil Verius." But we are left to our own devices to learn that this was de Vere's motto and that de Vere loved to pun on the similarity of his name to the Latin word for truth.

Messiah: The Wages of Sin (2020) Season 1, Episode 10

Cliff hanger?

[7/10 · 9 January 2020]

The ending is open. Is there more in store for the remaining characters? Al-Masih is outed as someone with a pedestrian human identity, but does that matter? This episode leaves us with a lot of questions. One thing is for certain: Rev. Felix Iguera has learned nothing. He was motivated by his emotions of despair at the beginning, then he was motivated by his feelings of hope, and now he is back to despair. He has cycled through his feelings but hasn't changed. Eva Geller has changed, but she is devastated by it. Everyone has been impacted by al-Masih, who is either a transcendental figure or else the greatest magician/conman who ever lived. This question isn't answered. Not yet?