Reviews

I didn't like it nearly as much as I hoped.

**** SPOILERS AHEAD **** The first 20-30 minutes were a great setup - earth dying, society turning its back on technology to focus on survival. Scenes reminiscent of the Dust Bowl, but then in the middle there's this modern ruggedized laptop computer. Wow. And having the girl be the scientific one was a very nice touch.

After that, it started to go off the rails. The sentry robot was preposterous. It was obvious which characters were going to die and in what order. The first spaceship launch was cool, showed two booster stages with immense fuel tanks. Then, once they're past the wormhole, the same ship is able to land on a planet with higher gravity, and take off, with no external fuel tanks? I just couldn't get into the "tesseract". As Neal Tyson pointed out, if he can make objects move that way, then why not just write his daughter a note? Wouldn't it be easier to fix what's wrong with the Earth rather than repopulate a different one? It reminded me of other movies, most of which I liked better: 2001, Deep Impact, Contact, Silent Running (early 1970's).

Finally, it was just too long. I kept looking at my watch, always a bad sign). Some of the science in "Gravity" was just as preposterous, but at least that one kept me interested.

I'll give it a C for effort, maybe a B-. And I really did like the part where the daughter is struggling on earth at the same "time" that her dad is fighting to survive on his planet.

It's gorgeous to look at, often witty, and has a few brilliant casting choices. But two thirds of the way through, the charm wore off.

It's not certain now exactly where it started to feel wrong. Maybe it was the nested story within a story within a story; maybe it was the way that the older Zero M. didn't match the appearance of the younger one (the eyes?) Maybe it was the unfortunate things that kept happening to M. Gustav, which were unexpected after seeing the trailers and poster. Maybe it was the shifting accents of the Americans in the cast; Jeff Goldblum started talking about "Mah-dem", then switched to "Mah-dahm". Maybe it was the that M. Gustave, who is usually quite aware of his surroundings and predicament, was sometimes clueless. When Bill Murray finally made his appearance, nothing special happened. Whatever it was or whenever it happened, it was disappointing.

I really enjoyed this movie. It's one of Tom Cruise's best, my favorite since Magnolia and Rainman. Its original setting (for us in the USA, that is) makes me wonder more about the history of Japan, and how it changed from a rural to a modern industrial society.

I didn't quite get lost in it, hoping that it wouldn't end as I have done while seeing other epic films. At times, the story strains at my willingness to suspend my disbelief, but each time it backed off just before it "jumped the shark". I'm very curious to learn what Japanese audiences will think of it and several unrealistic scenes.

The actors complement each other and there are very few scenes where the camera lingers too long on them. Most of the time, I want to see and hear more from these characters.

But so many parts of it reminded me of other films, books, even TV shows. Can you say "derivative"? Maybe I'm just confused because I'm getting older but here's how I remember the story:

(a few spoilers ahead)

Our hero Lt. John Dunbar ("Dances with Wolves") / Capt. Nathan Algren goes west, accompanied by an irreverent companion who doesn't last long enough in the film. Rhett Butler ("Gone With the Wind") / Algren plans to get rich as a mercenary in the Civil War, paid by modern-thinking Japanese business interests ("Rising Sun"), to fight Indians / Japanese rebels. During a battle, Inman ("Cold Mountain") / Algren suffers multiple injuries that should have killed him, but keeps on going through the winter snow and is eventually nursed back to health by a woman.

As Blackthorne ("Shogun") / Anjin-san ("Shogun") / Algren recovers, he is held prisoner in a house with a Japanese family who thinks that he is a stinking unmannered barbarian. But Jack Elliot ("Mr. Baseball") / Algren learns to appreciate Japanese culture, as he wisecracks about guys in dresses ("Tootsie"). Then Danny Larusso ("Karate Kid") / Algren learns Asian fighting techniques and becomes an adviser to the honorable Indian / Samurai leader in a civil war in Japan, while having flashbacks to his Vietnam / Indian fighting days when he killed civilians ("Blue Thunder") alongside the arrogant Gen. Custer ("Little Big Man"). He fights against black-suited Ninjas (Tekken, the martial arts video game, and "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles").

Finally, in the climactic battle, William Wallace ("Braveheart") / Algren helps lead the Indians / Scottish / Samurai into battle against the U.S. Cavalry / English / Japanese army, against impossible odds, arrows raining down upon the bad guys. ("Lord of the Rings" and "Braveheart" again, probably a few dozen guys in costume and the rest added using computer effects.)

Other viewers can probably pick out even more films that "echo" or reverberate in this one. There is even an allusion to a movie that should be made one day; about the military advisers who are supposed to be non-combatants, sent by the USA to Vietnam and other locations around the world to put down the rebels.

Even while distracted by all these other movies, I really did enjoy the film, and I look forward to watching it again in a few years.

Steven

I remember seeing this when it first out, in a theater, and thinking ... why? It was on cable a few nights ago and I watched it again.

You know those shows on TV about bad drivers running from the cops? The only reason to pay attention is that at any moment you're going to see something incredibly stupid. That's what this movie is like, only in slow motion.

If God were truly merciful, he would have destroyed all the copies of this movie before it made the theaters, and long before cable.

(tiny spoiler) ......

Did Kirk Douglas appear in it, it just to see Farrah with no clothes?

Like many of the other posters, I stumbled across this on AMC late one night. I recommend it highly. It will seem slow for people used to today's movie pace, but it has some details that I had not seen in any other movie from the era, and that I enjoyed very much.

It tells the story of three Navy officers, in 1941. Blake Lee, (Fred MacMurray) is a squadron commander, in charge of training new flyers. Lance Rogers (Ralph Bellamy) is a flight surgeon, examining new fliers but also responsible for a long line of safety improvements to Navy airplanes. Doug Lee (Errol Flynn) is a newly arrived doctor, who works with the other two and helps to devise solutions to two important problems faced by the Navy. Their heroism is the true theme of the movie.

There's lots to like, and not to like. MacMurray and Bellamy are excellent in their roles, as serious men determined to do their best for the Navy and their country. Flynn doesn't fit at first -- the other two dislike him at first, for reasons that seem contrived. And his acting doesn't fit in with theirs either. However, they eventually come to respect him and Flynn makes himself at home. Curiously, Ballamy and MacMurray have almost no memorable scenes without Flynn.

The comic relief offered by some of the minor characters, including all the women, goes nowhere. On the other hand, the bright Technicolor is a pleasure to watch, especially in most of the flying scenes. You certainly get the impression that the people who were technically responsible took great care and were very proud of what they they were showing onscreen. Only a few scenes look fake, and most of them are simply glorious to watch. I would have liked to learn more details about the models of airplanes that were shown.

My other feelings about the movie mostly involve in a set of unanswered questions, and subjects that were not explored in detail. Some of these questions seriously detracted from my enjoyment of the movie, while others heightened my experience. Some of them could have been corrected at the time, while others are important only because of the historical events after its release.

My first question was: Is this movie based on the true story of the men who had worked on these problems, or simply a dramatization of the contributions of several? This question, which is ultimately unanswered, distracted me for much of the film. Given the importance of the two issues (blacking out because of G forces and the effects of high altitude), it seems strange that these two were the only people in the Navy working on the problem. On the other hand, maybe the reduced effort portrayed in the film was a true indicator of the lack of attention being given to those issues by the Navy at the time.

Some of the science presented looks rather strange, when looking back at that era of aviation through the experience of the jet age and space travel. Some technical points are presented in great detail, such as the scenes in the altitude chamber, while other items are left unstated. Maybe they didn't think that audiences of the time could handle the science. However, I remembered my high school chemistry and I wanted to yell, "why don't you just say partial pressure!" I was very interested in learning more about the "index" used by the doctors to determine flyer fatigue, and the failure to provide any more explanation detracts from the movie.

On the other hand, I was fascinated by their solution to the blackout problem. It's not the G-suit that was developed later, but you can see its origins.

Watching the movie provides a sensation of unreality. The informed viewer knows that Pearl Harbor is just ahead, but there's not a hint this or the long war ahead. There's only the feeling that pilots needed to be better and have better equipment than the "enemy", but this search is almost leisurely and not at all urgent. Compare this to to so many times movies that were made in the next few years and afterwards ("The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell" comes to mind). This sensation of innocence permeates the movie, but it heightened my enjoyment, unlike some of the other unanswered questions.

(minor spoiler ahead)

Another curious note: The movie shows a pressure suit that was developed as the solution to the effects of high altitude. I consider myself somewhat of an airplane buff. However, I have never seen that suit, or anything like, in any other movie or documentary about aircraft in World War II.

Steven

This came on TV late at night this week, and I didn't know a thing about it. That's the way I enjoy movies the most, and this one didn't disappoint.

Although it's now more than 50 years old, it wouldn't take a lot of rewriting to remake it today.

I only saw a couple of minor glitches, but they really don't take away much of the impact of the story.

*** SPOILER WARNING ***

*** SPOILER WARNING ***

*** SPOILER WARNING ***

This was pointed out by the host on Turner Classic movies: the scene where Georgia (Lana Turner) drives away from Jonathan Shields' house at night. There hasn't been a hint of any kind of outdoor weather in the whole movie, and then in this scene all of a sudden she's in a driving rainstorm.

Next, as James Lee (Dick Powell) and Shields (Kirk Douglas) stop at a gas station at night on their way back to Hollywood, James Lee spots a newspaper with his wife's death reported on the front page. In the next scene, still at night, the two of them reach the accident scene, where he identifies her body. Now, how is it possible to publish a newspaper, for the paper to get delivered to a gas station, for somebody to see it, then to drive to the accident site, and the crash site looks like it happened minutes or hours ago???

However, for every clinker scene like this, there were many others that made you think you were watching geniuses at work.

Steven