dale_durnell

The movie has been described as "Classic Eastwood" and in a sense this is true. Even the previews show Eastwood's character (Walt Kowalski) aiming an M1 Garand and telling the trespassers "get off my lawn." There were a couple of times I wanted (nay, expected) him to utter that classic line "go ahead, make my day" (but he didn't).

Still there were times I laughed so hard it hurt, and then I cringed and braced myself as the drama unfolded. I laughed at the relationship between Clint's character and the neighbor lady on the front porch. Then, I cheered quietly about the same relationship. I went to see the show with my teenage granddaughter and as we left the theater she said "I haven't cried at a movie since I was 11." This movie really has something to evoke every emotion, and the audience seemed to feel it too.

But, I'll tell you who stole the show, and who has seemingly been ignored in this movie -- that's Ahney Her, the young actress who plays Sue. From every indication, this is her first acting role before the camera. Yet, here she is, co-staring with Clint Eastwood, working under him while he directs the movie, and while she's got to be perhaps only one third his age, she goes toe to toe with him throughout the movie. In the yard, in the house, among family, at intersections on public streets, in his truck, she's right there with him giving a performance I'll never forget (and I doubt she will either).

The building relationship between an older white male, recently widowed, living as the last remnant of his class and culture in a neighborhood suffering from "white flight" and the newer residents is outstanding. Having served in the military, along the Pacific rim, having grown up in a white, middle class, blue collar neighborhood, I could easily relate to Walt Kowalski and many of the issues he struggled to deal with.

I don't know if this is going to be Clint's swansong, I hope not. But, even if it is, he couldn't end on a brighter note.

There are some films that must be seen, and shared with others to get the most out of the experience. Exodus (1960) and To Kill a Mockingbird (1962), are a couple of those films, as is Doctor Zhivago (1965), and Schindler's List (1993). Each story depicts events in the life of humanity (for better or worse) and they all show the struggles of people against circumstances into which they have been thrown.

This movie isn't just about entertainment -- although it is that too. More than just entertainment, it's education at its finest. The Great Debaters is one of those movies that needs to be seen. Parents need to take their children, churches need to take their youth groups. And then, when they get home, they need to talk about what they see in the movie.

I debated in high school (for three years), in the Los Angeles Public School System in the early 1960's. My granddaughter is in high school now and is interested in debating. So, we went to see the movie with the rest of the family. It was a wonderful experience.

History is one of my passions, and seeing the history (albeit heartbreaking at times) portrayed in the film was educational for me and my family. Sometimes I think we've gotten past a lot of what was reflected in the film about the Jim Crow laws of the southern states in 1935. But then again, I'm not convinced we've not just pushed it into the background of our American culture.

Young people, and those of us from areas of the country where persons of color were not subject to the prejudice displayed in the film, need to see this movie to understand how far we've come (even if we have not yet arrived at where we ought to be).

To study the background of the film is even more enlightening. The final debate was (according to a recent History Channel special) against the University of Southern California (USC) the reigning champions of the day. We used to hold some of our high school debates on the USC campus. The film mentions that Wiley College (a Methodist related institution in Texas) debated Oklahoma City University (a Methodist related institution in Oklahoma -- and my alma mater).

The acting is first rate -- but oh, how it must have hurt the psyche of the actors to have to reenact the life of struggle that persons of color experienced in the south. The interpersonal struggles between the students is well played as is the relationship between at least one of the students and his parents. But also, the struggle of the oppressed (both white and black) in the midst of the depression in southeast Texas is brought home in a background story that plays right along with the debate team's story (and which has its own implications for the team).

The movie, itself, may not be the finest available for viewing entertainment. However, the outstanding acting skills of Edward G. Robinson are fulling exploited and beautifully captured. And, that talent, that genius, makes "Two Seconds" a must see.

Robinson shows the depth of his talents and the emotions he is capable of demonstrating. Ah, that contemporary actors could act so well. Watch the expressions on his face, watch his hands, watch his walk, watch the pain -- this is not melodrama, this is a thespian par excellence showing the world how it is done.

Alas, the movies does not appear to be available for purchase, but this is one outstanding film that should be in any collection of those who are serious about studying drama and acting skills.

Mel Gibson is no John Wayne, and this is not "The Green Berets." And while the humanity of the leaders and the brutality of the war in Vietnam come through in both films, this film is so very different.

Fierce in its intensity and as graphically accurate as a film can be, the movie is serious fare and not for the lighthearted. For those of us who were there, in country, this film is a savage reminder of the stupidity of politicians trying to legislate a war. From the early war scenes of the French in Indo-China, to the (in retrospect) prophetic statement of the Vietnamese commander at the end of the film, the story is cast in a very historical light.

That this is a new kind of war, with new troops, new weapons, and new tactics does not escape Gibson's character. Thus, the film shows that not only in the field but back home, as Madeleine Stowe's character remarks, "the Army wasn't prepared for this."

Early on, we meet Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) as a family man, but also as a professional soldier. And, we meet Sgt Major Plumley (Sam Elliot) as the grizzled old warrior. Together, they know that it will be a tough job to get these kids trained and to keep (in as much as it might be possible) these youngsters from getting killed. Barry Pepper is outstanding in his role as a news photographer who hops a ride to the battle.

Even in "Soldiers" the life of those "who sit and wait" is not well developed -- which can be explained given that the story is primarily of the story of those who have gone off to fight. Thus, we never get to really know Madeleine Stowe's character (Julie Moore) very well. Still, we do get an insight into her life as a take charge of the situation military spouse in the mid 60's. Additionally, the gathering of the wives, the sharing of their stories, and lives, is an added dimension that so many war films overlook. The naivety of many of us who were not from the segregated South is tastefully revealed and well played out.

The scene of a group of newspaper journalists and photographers arriving via helicopter after the fighting was typical of media of the day, and (in my humble opinion) not far removed from some of their antics today. After over three days of fighting, killing, and dying --the cleaned and pressed press corp comes in asking their usual repertoire of insensitive, if not stupid, questions. Sadly, this is one of the many accurate scenes in the film.

As one who grew up in the late 40's and early 50's, and who thrilled to the old black and white presentations of the Count of Monte Cristo, and the other works of Alexandre Dumas on small screen televisions, I was exceptionally pleased with this latest rendition of this great classic work. And, as one who grew up with a father and grandfather who worked in the movie industry at MGM through the early 1950's, and as a fan of the art of the cinema, I am pleased to see that the classics have a new life for a new generation (or two).

The characters are exceptionally well developed. From early on, you have to cheer for Edmund Dantes. However, an early dislike for Ferndand Mondego quickly grows to a genuine loathing. Likewise, you quickly dislike de Villefort and Danglars, but easily feel compassion for young Mercedes. Of course, it's really a no brainer either to know that Jocabo is going to be faithful to the one who shows him mercy.

The prison scenes in the Chateau d'If are marvelously played, and of course Richard Harris does an admirable job -- perhaps the offering the best individual performance in the movie. Given his age, Harris' role must have been extremely challenging for him, even given the fact that it was all a studio set -- working in such cramped positions when he and Edmund are digging their way out must have been painful at times.

While I found the story to be faithful to the original, and the marvelous manner in which the Count of Monte Cristo is introduced to society is a work of art, I found two areas with which I had a problem.

First -- there were some scenes where the actors either failed to enunciate well, or perhaps it was the sound equipment in the theater in which I viewed the film, but I was disappointed with the sound quality at times. Occasionally, it seemed that the actors had too much to say in the short time alloted for them to say the lines and the dialogue was artificially compressed and incoherent. Again, perhaps a better sound system might have improved this situation (I almost wished for closed captioning subtitles).

Second -- when Edmund was the setting of the traps to obtain his vengence, I would have to say that the intrigue was glossed over and that part of the story (which is really critical to fully understand the drama) could have/should have been more fully developed. I fear that since the rest of the story was as faithful as it was to the original story that the elements that would have helped develop and explain the Count's schemes were probably left on the cutting room floor -- perhaps to shorten the movie's running time. For whatever reason, I found this to be an unfortunate situation.

Nevertheless, overall this is a quality movie, of a timeless story. To the actors, director, and producer of this, the latest, remake of a wonderful work by a brilliant author I say thanks for a wonderful evening of entertainment and escape from the realities of life.

Sometimes, a remake can be as good, or better than an original. The 1997 version of Titanic was award winning and the 1998 remake of Les Miserables was outstanding. But, I'm sorry to say that's not so with the TBS, made for television, version of High Noon.

Alright, so I grew up on the original -- but, it's still a classic!

I will admit that in the remake, some of the characters played their roles admirably: Tom Skerritt portrayed a viable Will Kane and Maria Conchita Alonso was superior as Mrs. Ramirez. Even Dennis Weaver was credible as Martin Howe, but I never felt for him and his circumstances the way I felt for Lon Chaney Jr. in the 1952 version. In fact, throughout the entire program, I never got to where I really cared for the characters as I did in the original.

Advance P.R. in the television guides said that the producers wanted a more "vicious" villain, and so cast Michael Madsen as Frank Miller. But, Madsen looks and acts more like Broderick Crawford in "The Highway Patrol" TV series than a villain in the old west. His twin nickel (or chrome) plated Remington revolvers did nothing to enhance the role for him.

In the 1952 version, Fred Zinnemann used a crane to back off and show the loneliness of Kane as he goes about the task before him. The director of the 2000 remake tries to do the same thing, but the effect is no where as dramatic. Something is missing.

In the final scene in the 1952 original, you can see Kane's contempt for the town on the face of Gary Cooper -- contempt for having been left alone, and abandoned. That emotion was totally lacking in the remake and so the ending is almost anti-climactic.

This is one of those movies that needs to be seen more than once. In fact, after the first viewing, the movie almost compels one to see it again. And, with each screening, it gets better. The storyline is fabulous -- it is well developed, and the characters are well played. To say that there are twists and turns would be to understate the artistic qualities that make the movie such a hit.

At first, the role played by Bruce Willis seems so out of character with his usual persona on screen. But, he is wonderful as Dr. Malcomb Crowe who struggles through the movie, wondering if he could have done more with those he is called to help. Toni Collette, as the mother of young Cole (played by Haley Joel Osment) was nominated for an Academy award. But, Olivia Williams' portrayal of Crowe's wife is the real award winning performance. She plays a woman torn between the work of her award winning husband, and her own life.

The building relationship between Bruce Willis' character and that of Haley Joel Osment is well executed. Willis wants to help, then realizes he may not be helping, but then he stays on to help the young man confront and deal with his "secret."

This film is on a par with the best Hitchcock classics. M. Night Shyamalan has a gift as a writer and director, and he excelled in this film. As a cinemagraphic work of art, the film is superior. The camera angles and the outstanding use of lighting should be required study for future films. The dialogue is mature, and the storyline is thought provoking. The subtle nuances in the script and props are compelling. The special effects are at times a little gruesome, if not morbid. But then, what do you expect from a film where a little boy sees dead people.

For those looking to add to their home video collection, this is a "must have."

This is the best rendition of a Biblical story in years. After suffering through "Noah and the Ark" last year, I had all but given up on television being able to produce a story from the Bible that is worthy of viewing. CBS is to be commended for their work with "Jesus."

The dramatic opening scene, with Jesus seeing future visions of what would be done in and with his name is positively breathtaking and extremely thought provoking.

Further, this is the best depiction of Jesus, the person, in years, and in fact surpasses the image of Jesus in the 1977 "Jesus of Nazareth." Jeremy Sisto's Jesus is real -- he's fully God, but also fully human, and he enjoys life. This is the Jesus I know in my own personal relationship. He's not a stuffy, fuddy duddy. Sisto portrays a Jesus with a real zest for life.

Sure, there are a few inaccuracies (but, they're relatively minor, and really inconsequential to the story). One such instance is Joseph's comment after Jesus' presentation in the temple at Jerusalem at the age of 12. Joseph says that if the family expects "to get home by tomorrow night, we need to leave now." It would be more likely to take the family at least four days on foot (or even with a donkey for Mary) to travel the 80 some odd miles from Jerusalem to Nazareth (by-passing Sameria).

The cinematography is great -- and the choice of locale for the exterior shots was well considered and planned. The costuming is excellent. Some violence is inevitable in this story. But, it is not so graphic as to be This one is a real keeper and is destined to be a classic in years to come. At the end of the first half of the story, CBS was already offering the video for sale. If the editors will leave it alone, and not cut it up (as someone did with the home video version of "Merlin"), "Jesus" will be an excellent addition to home libraries everywhere.