Change Your Image
Timbuktu5
Reviews
Doctor Zhivago (2002)
A Feeble Attempt at Duplicating a Classic
There are innumerable reasons why this version pales in insignificance to David Lean's 1965 classic. To begin with, not a single actor in this 2002 version can come close to competing with his or her equivalent. Sam Neill trying to compete with legendary Rod Steiger as Victor Komarovsky?! Oh, please. Worse, Kris Marshall challenging Academy Award Winner, Tom Courntenay. Just painful.
For budget-reducing purposes, this newer version includes quality-reducing period black-and-white footage in scenes that necessitate large crowd scenes.
The newer version also includes unnecessary filler scenes such as the respective wedding ceremonies of Yuri and Tonya and Lara and Pasha. What purpose is served by these boring, meaningless film footages? The worst scene is reserved for the story's finale. Lara is about to be captured by the secret police. With her is her son (by Yuri) who looks incredibly like Yuri when he was a little boy. Well, he SHOULD look like the father because it's the same child actor who we see in the beginning of the film! The audience cannot help feel as if the child has been transported by a time machine to the present.
Nevertheless, Lara, just before being captured by the authorities, tells her son to run for his life. As she is driven away in the back of the police car, she sees her little boy running desperately down the street in the middle of post-war Moscow. Despite the fact that her vulnerable son's chances of survival in such a forbidding environment are next to zero AND her own fate destined for a concentration camp, Lara, undaunted, breaks out in a huge smile of satisfaction and contentment!
Anyone who has not seen David Lean's version is truly short-changing their viewing pleasure.
Contact (1997)
Ideological Propaganda
This film has absolutely no redeeming qualities.
To begin with, the credibility of science that this film is supposedly based on is truly compromised. The vast majority of modern astrophysicists agree that, based on scientific evidence and the physical laws of the universe, the odds of intelligent life existing on another planet are virtually zero. Yet our hero's primary "evidence," as she explains to a group of children near the end of film is thus: "The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anyone has ever dreams of before. So if it's just us
seems like an awful waste of space. Right?"
Now, I enjoy a good science fiction movie - but only if it doesn't take itself seriously. But this film is shameless propaganda, promoting the leftist ideology and religious prejudices of the author behind the film: the late Carl Sagan. The examples are legion: The crazed "Christian" preacher who is so fearful of alien contact that he resorts to suicide bombing; the former "Christian" priest who has no moral reservations about bedding our hero on the day they meet, while publicly humiliating her because she does not share his faith in God; the National Security Adviser who insists on destroying the aliens (as if we really had the capability) - like something out a truly bad 50's sci-fi film; and the repetitious questioning of the existence of God and portrayal of anyone accepting that existence as inherently prejudice (e.g. our hero is initially not selected to represent the planet earth, simply because she does not acknowledge God?!).
For a truly enjoyable and credible science fiction move of this genre, try "War of the Worlds."
Collapse: Based on the Book by Jared Diamond (2010)
Credibility Problem
While appreciating Jared Diamond's "time machine" approach in examining the challenges of resource shortages, I have serious reservations regarding his solutions.
Diamond's philosophic approach is obviously leftist which, unfortunately, leads to troubling conclusions. By including Climate Change (i.e. the religion of man-made global warming), Diamond loses all credibility in addressing humanity's responsibility regarding shortages in legitimate areas such as water and food.
What is most disheartening is Diamond's failure to recognize his own elitism, typical of other leading "catastophe" proponents such as Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. While passionately advocating for a drastically reduced life style that can't come soon enough, we see him driving a first-rate automobile and shopping at a first-rate grocery store. Again, Diamond and other high visibility proponents would have much more credibility if they began implementing the "reduced life style" now. However, I am dubious Gore and Pelosi will be giving up their private jets and automobiles in the near future.
Like all sane people who appreciate the importance of good stewardship of our resources and the desire for responsible environmentalism, I find it most disturbing when Diamond suggests that free people cannot be trusted to address these concerns. Instead, we are to believe that only massive government regulation can offer salvation.
Inherit the Wind (1960)
Great Movie, Ironic Message
"Inherit the Wind" is truly one of the classic films of all time. Acting is superb and, especially surprising, the talent of Gene Kelly. Although best known as a dancer/singer, Kelly's brilliant portrayal of newspaperman, E.K. Hornbeck, demonstrates how - given good script and a great director (in this case, Stanley Kramer) - a truly talented actor can blossom.
What I find most ironic about the film's central theme is how in today's intellectual environment, the debate between evolution and creation has, over the many years, reversed their roles. It is now creationism (or, more precisely, "Intelligent design") that is being persecuted by proponents of evolution and not vice versa. For example, despite the recent exposure of evolution's Ida "missing link" hoax, do you think all those public school biology teachers have now expressed regret to their students for promoting such serious misinformation? Or, do you think these influential educators ever permit bright, curious students to even suggest Intelligent design as alternative theory for discussion? Considering the ideology monopoly that is inherent in our tax-paid school system, I believe I am safe to answer "no" to both questions.
If, in the movie – and, for that matter, at the historical Scopes Trial of 1925 - Matthew Harrison Brady (i.e. William Jennings Bryan), the attorney representing the tax-paying citizens of the community, had asked for the defendant's release from jail and merely fired him, we wouldn't have had such a sensational story or, for that matter, the movie itself. While the "freedom to think" is universally accepted and even encouraged, nevertheless, Bertram Cates (i.e. John Scopes) was a paid public servant of the community who decided that HE was going to decide what was or was not truth. While as a free citizen he had every right to express his scientific perspective, he had no right, nevertheless, to deliberately defy the will of the people who employed him. Today's skeptics of evolution – including scientists, parents, and even high school students – ask only for the freedom to question
to debate
to challenge the status quo
and, ironically, to ask the same pertinent question proposed by attorney Henry Drummond (i.e. Clearance Darrow) in defense of the biology teacher: "Then this man wishes to have the same privilege as a sponge, he wishes to think!"
Zulu Dawn (1979)
Boring
As a history nut who is particularly interested in this particular historical event, I was very disappointed with the movie. Granted, the costumes and staging was quite authentic, but the Hollywood portrayal of this "British Little Big Horn" was truly boring.
The amount of film footage dedicated to marching or parading troops has to have been unprecedented in film history. Eveytime I heard triumphant background music begin, I knew I had to prepare myself for another laborious scene of meaningless filler. Obviously, the producers had invested heavily into "staging" and were determined to get their money's worth.
Despite the outstanding cast, their dialogue was, again, boring and their characters were never developed. Whenever Peter O'toole or Burt Lancaster finished a scene, I would cringe with disappointment. Their given lines were so weak and meaningless that I could hardly believe these were the same two great actors who portrayed Lawrence of Arabia and the Bird Man of Alcatraz respectively.
There are worse epics, but this one is not much better.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Disappointing
Acknowledging the many skills of director Stephen Spielberg, this particular film, nevertheless, was quite disappointing.The development of the story was far too slow.
I could not believe how many times I had to watch "Roy" frantically trying to create physically the picture imagine in his mind.
The time-wasting build-up of the final arrival of the Aliens, however, was even more tedious. In this final climatic scene, for example, "Roy" and "Jillian" are together watching the developments from the edge of the mountain
their dialogue is limited to where Jillian politely declines Roy's invitation to climb down for a closer view
However, later on and with no explanation she decides to climb down anyway
so-o-o-o boring. To add insult to injury, the predominately English-speaking American audience has to sit patiently as "Claude's" French is interpreted sentence by sentence – and to what end?! And, finally ...
I don't know how audiences can "cheer" or even "shed tears" for Roy's decision to desert his family (whom he has already put through hell with his bizarre behavior) and join the Aliens in their departure for who knows where. Perhaps part of the explanation is that this movie is obviously intended to be a subtle expression of New Age religion. The mysterious, brightly shinning Aliens are portrayed as god-like, ushering in a new age of peace and love. Roy simply cannot resist the compelling religious power that the Aliens have over him and, therefore, is not responsible for any antiquated Biblical-based moral conduct. This movie was not intended to be a comprehensive story, but rather a spiritual experience.
Passenger 57 (1992)
Political Correctness Nonsense
Few modern movies can match this one for the degree of political bias in leading to outrageous racial stereotyping.
Both our hero and heronine are black. Fine. The terrorists are white. Okay, still fine.
However, the white State Troopers of Louisina are all portrayed as brutal racists. While our hero is risking his life over and over again to save the innocent passengers on the plane from the clutches of the evil terrorists, here's the imbecile State Troopers beating up the poor guy because they don't believe his story. Would the Police Chief even think about picking up the phone three feet from him and call to verify his identity and the poor guy's story? No. Instead, our hero has to literally escape from the troopers in order to chase the terrorists hiding out at a local carnival.
There's more.
Amazingly, the entire crowd is white (again, this is Louisiana) and the camera several times catches glimpses of Confederate flags (white racial images) as no one helps our hero in his battle with the terrorists.
Is there no other "good guy" that can help our desperate hero? Yes. The FBI officer who - you guessed it - is black.
Pathetic.
I Want to Live! (1958)
Hard to be Sympathetic
Despite Susan Hayward's fine performance, I could not be empathetic to her character or her ultimate fate. While living a life permeated by non-stop bad behavior choices, you keep wondering: "When is she going to stop playing victim and start making healthy decisions?" Okay, she didn't murder the poor woman, but she knowingly and continually associated with people quite capable of murdering. Well, she ends up on death roll and suddenly, she realizes, "I want to live." Not only is this realization far too late, she never gives even a hint of recognizing her life of crime and any sense of rehabilitation. Is there any reason to believe that if she had suddenly been found innocent and set free that she would do anything other than continue a life of crime and be a menace to society?! Moreover, the dramatic, anti-capital punishment message is rather pathetic. Why, for example, do we not see the actual murder and the consequences of both the victim and her loved ones? Such political bias is unwarranted.
The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)
Edmund Dantes is guilty!
Author Alexander Dumas must be rolling in his grave after learning of how Hollywood could so drastically distort his classic novel.
The fundamental premise of the novel is that our hero, Edmund Dantes (i.e. the Count of Monte Cristo), is unaware that he has delivered a treasonous letter from the incarcerated Napoleon Bonaparte and, therefore is unjustly imprisoned. However, this movie incredibly - rewrites the story to where we find Edmund actually meeting Napoleon and, in effect, collaborating in his plans for a coup d'etat. Therefore, what other conclusion can the viewer take than that Edmund Dantes is guilty of treason and, therefore, deserving of his prison sentence! If that is not enough, the moral premise of this popular novel is that the perpetrator of revenge, no matter how justified in his cause, pays, in the end, a heavy price. In the movie, however, Edmund is rewarded for his one-man vigilante by the happiest of finales.
For a more than credible Hollywood version of this classic story, try the 1975 Richard Chamberlain feature.
El Cid (1961)
Disappointing
While a good action movie for families of all ages, "El Cid" is disappointing in story believability.
Unfairly accused of treason early in the film, our hero, without explanation, fails to make any statement in defense of what his contemporaries would have certainly considered a wise and visionary decision. If he would have just explained to the King and his court the rational motivation behind his noble action, he would not only have been cleared of unjust charges, but honored for his noble deed! For example, if anyone considered El Cid's actions treasonable, how would they explain his willingness to return to Court? Instead, because of his unexplained distancing himself at the critical time he is needed, El Cid puts his poor father in the humiliating position of being publicly disgraced for defending his son specifically, by the father of El Cid's fiancé. So, our hero - again, failing everyone by not explaining the circumstances behind his "treasonable" action - takes it upon himself to defend his father's "honor" by inexcusably killing his fiancé's father and, predictably, crushes the heart of his fiancé. How much more damage could our hero do for his unexplainable lack of common sense?! When compared to the classic epic, "Ben-Hur," produced just two years earlier, "El-Cid" is simply second-rate. As lead actor in both films, Charleton Heston's great talent simply could not make up for his limited script in "El Cid." For example, the viewer must believe that El Cid can defeat thirteen battle-hardened soldiers in single combat. Tragically, this incredulous scene transformed a noble knight into a mere swashbuckling Errol Flynn.
Good film, but could have been better.