Brian Kuhl's Blog

There’s a scene, early in the movie, where we see a Christian band performing.  Rather than keep it brief, it goes on just a little too long.  All I could think was that it was time to move on to the next thing.  This proved to be a pretty good analogy for the rest of the movie.  Everything about it is just a little too much.

The movie is based on a book, which was an account of a true story.  The book was written by Joyce Smith about her son, John, who fell into a frozen lake and was pronounced dead.  He makes a full recovery because of Joyce’s faith in the Christian God.  There are a few scenes where this is done subtly.  Tommy Shine, a paramedic trying to get John out of the water, hears a voice that he initially assumes to be his boss’s.  When his boss denies it, it must be God.

Many scenes are more blunt.  When Joyce is allowed to see John’s body, she starts praying.  Right when she asks for His help, John’s heart starts beating.  Coincidence?  It’s probably not that simple.  Between the fact that John’s mother wrote the book and the fact that Hollywood is known to embellish a little, I would think that there’s more to the story.

I would come down harder on Joyce except that the movie does well in portraying her as a mother in grief.  I get that she’s dealing with the possible loss of her son.  My issue is that religion is the only mechanism that she has to deal with that stress.

When Joyce overhears doctors talking about the reality of John’s condition, she forbids any such talk in his room.  When friends and neighbors are gathered in the waiting room Joyce overhears someone telling their daughter that John’s might not make it.  Again, she forbids any negativity.  (Fortunately, Brian calls her on this.)  Instead of religion being a powerful force, it could easily be seen as a crutch.  It’s like that saying: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Consider something called survivorship bias.  Dr. Garrett indicates that he’s never seen someone that far gone come back.  How many of those other patients had family members and friends praying for them?  Maybe we’re to believe that Joyce is just better at it.  It’s because of her sheer willpower that God let John live.

One might say that this was all a way to let Joyce shine and show her faith.  She gets to tell everyone that God will take care of it.  Maybe it was to show her to tone it down a bit.  She is at odds with a lot of people, including the pastor.  It’s easier for me to believe that it was all random.  To put that much stock in faith undercuts the work that medical professionals do.  John is lucky to be alive and to have parents that love him.  I just don’t think that God was ever part of it.

IMDb page

A lot of things happened in years ending with 76.  I was born in 1976.  200 years before that, America broke away from England.  Also, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, was published.  Atlas was produced to coincide with the 200th anniversary of its publication.

It’s a short video, only 2½ minutes long.  The video shows how Rome grew from a city to an empire and back again.  Most versions seem to repeat the video.  The first time has narration.  The second time is just the animation with music.  (The version on the Eames YouTube Channel has Russian subtitles.)

The animation is pretty simple.  It shows Rome and the surrounding empires and groups, like the Huns, and how each group changed over the corresponding years.  The time frame runs from circa 500 B.C. to A.D. 500.  The short is safe for people of all ages.  It’s just a map with changing lines and either narration or music.

There’s nothing objectionable like fights.  It’s not particularly elaborate, but it is at least somewhat informative.  It helps people visualize what the map looked like over the span of a millennium.  It’s exactly the kind of thing that a teacher might show to a third-grade class.

IMDb doesn’t list who the narrator is and I can’t find any information that would suggest a particular name.  I would imagine that it’s narrated by Charles Eames only because the voice is male.  If anyone can tell me definitively, please leave a comment.

IMDb page

When I saw the coming attractions for The 15:17 to Paris, I was curious to see how they could make an entire movie based on a train ride.  I suppose I could have read the book, but I still would have been curious.  The answer is that the movie tells the story leading up to the event.

For most of the film, we see bits and pieces of what happens on the train with the bulk of it being what happens to the characters as children.  Alek, Spencer and Anthony meet while attending the same school and getting into trouble together.  (The principal tells Alek and Spencer that Anthony is trouble, but they don’t seem to be any stranger to the principal’s office.)

Anthony changes school and Alek goes to live with his father, yet all three manage to stay in touch.  Spencer joins the Air Force and Alek joins the Army National Guard, which isn’t surprising given their love of the military.  Anthony remains a civilian.  When the opportunity arises, they plan a European vacation together.  They debate whether or not to even go to Paris, but they already have the train tickets.

The film is a difficult one to judge.  Using the actual heroes to portray themselves seemed kind of like a gimmick.  I realize that the word has a negative connotation, but I can’t think of a better word to describe it.  This isn’t to say that their acting was bad in any way.  It just seemed like it was done more for the attention rather than the effect.

There were also a few elements that seemed to feed into the scene on the train.  We’re shown Alek and Spencer getting the training necessary to subdue the terrorist and help keep a victim alive until he can receive medical attention.  This is especially evident with Spencer, who is shown receiving wrestling maneuvers he uses to take down the terrorist and a teacher telling him what to do in a scenario with the victim’s specific injuries.

This is a movie that’s good enough, but not necessarily excellent.  I got the feeling that there were a lot of details left out.  There aren’t a lot of twists and turns.  Most of the movie is buildup to the scene on the train.  After the scene, we get to see Spencer, Alek and Anthony being awarded a medal by the French government.  I got the impression that the script was meant to focus on the three American characters.  (Very little is said about the terrorist.  Also, in the final scene, there was mention of people of other nationalities helping.)

When I review a movie, I try to think of who might want to watch it.  I’m kind of hard pressed here, other than those who like movies based on actual events.  I think for most people, this is going to be a movie you’ll want to wait for on DVD if you see it at all.

IMDb page

sHaving MoviePass means that I’m getting movies by the month, which makes for some strange decisions.  12 Strong is not a movie I would normally have seen in the theater.  The Commuter is not a movie I would normally have seen in the theater, either, but I had already seen that.  Still, I managed to make it all the way through both movies.  I think that’s more of an accomplishment with 12 Strong.

For those that haven’t seen the coming attractions, 12 Strong is about a group of soldiers, Green Berets and CIA operatives that were sent into Afghanistan shortly after the September 11 attacks.  The goal was to take a city called Mazar-I-Sharif.  Apparently, it’s important to the Taliban.  Captain Mitch Nelson is given command of the titular 12 that are sent in to meet with General Dostum.

Dostum leads a local army that will be helping Nelson and his men.  Before the group takes Mazar-I-Sharif, they have to go through and bomb several other areas.  The first area takes a few tries to get right, but they do level it.  Subsequent areas seem to go more smoothly.  They do eventually make it to Mazar-I-Sharif and take the city, as planned.  All 12 of the men get to go home safely.

The movie wasn’t quite as exciting as I would have expected with a war movie.  Part of this may be because the movie seemed to be going through the motions rather than writing an interesting story.  I understand that there’s only so much you can do with a true story before it becomes fiction, but the movie seemed somewhat bland.

Take the fact that they had to go through several cities before capturing the big city.  I didn’t really understand why they couldn’t go to the important city first, then maybe work their way back if they the other areas.  I’m sure there’s a reason for this, but I don’t recall it being covered in the movie.  Nelson and Dotsum lead their respective troops from area to area, blowing stuff up as needed.

The movie even starts with two of the soldiers telling their wives that they‘re leaving.  Captain Nelson even promises his wife that he’ll come home alive.  Bad idea?  Yes.  Cliché?  Most definitely.  Does it make the story more poignant?  Not really.

I think the biggest negative for me was that there wasn’t much of a sense of accomplishment.  It’s not really stated why any of the targets had any value, other than that’s where the enemy was.  There was mention of another team being sent in to take a different path, but any sense of competition wasn’t brought up that often.

When I came out of the movie, I felt like I was missing any sense of new perspective.  It seemed like this was the version of the story you’d tell to someone who had been there.  I get that the mission was accomplished in abut three weeks when it was supposed to take about two years, but it just didn’t seem that difficult.  The movie didn’t seem to convey any sense of scale or tension.  It just told the story.  If you want to see it, I’d wait for it to come out on Netflix.

IMDb page

Molly Bloom could have been a lot of things.  She could have been an Olympic contender, but an accident during trials prevented that.  She could have been a lawyer, but a year off school led to assisting with high-stakes poker.  Had it not been for an arrest, she might still be the best poker host that no one had ever heard of.  Alas, it apparently wasn’t meant to be.

Molly’s Game, as you might expect, is about poker games run by Molly Bloom.  When she takes a year off from law school, she lands a job that turns into assisting her boss with his games.  She picks it up well enough that when her boss tries to withhold her paycheck from the day job, she splits.  She takes his clients with her, allowing her to set up her own games.

You may be wondering if this is legal.  Molly asks the same question of a lawyer.  As long as she doesn’t take a cut of the pot, it’s just this side of legal.  Instead, she’s to rely on tips to build her bank account.  She even declares all of her income to the IRS.  She has a few setbacks, but is able to hold her own…for a while.

One of Molly’s dealers convinces her to start taking a rake.  It isn’t long before drugs and alcohol make their way into her life.  She even attracts the attention of the Russian mob.  (She denies knowingly being involved with them, although she does receive a visit from a rather large man who beats and robs her.)

There are several things that I hate seeing in a movie.  One is where the movie is told as a flashback.  Here, the movie starts with Molly’s arrest and subsequent search for a lawyer.  We have the story leading up to the arrest interspersed with her trying to defend herself and get money back that was seized by the government.

Another thing I’d consider cliché is the downward spiral.  It’s not as pronounced here as I’ve seen in other movies, but Molly Bloom is an ambitious woman.  She makes some bold decisions that cause her to make some bad decisions.  Those that have power not only want to hold on to it, but often want more.  Had she not started taking the rake, which is forbidden by law, she would probably have fewer problems.  Then again, we wouldn’t have a movie.  (I’m sure for every person like Molly, there are many others content to stay in the shadows.)

The whole aspect of changing names is to be expected.  Even with a story based on truth, I expect a certain amount of fictionalization.  Michael Cera plays Player X, who is supposed to be a composite of several other actors.   Naming a name like that could be problematic from a legal standpoint.  The movie also shows Molly Bloom refusing to do so for moral reasons, as all she has left is her integrity.

This is one of those movies I probably would have waited for on DVD or streaming had I not had MoviePass.  The movie wasn’t particularly exciting.  If you’re looking for an exciting gambling-related movie, there are others out there to be had.  The movie comes across more as a 140-minute cautionary tale.  Then again, there weren’t too many surprises.  I’d say this is a movie where you could easily judge your interest by the coming attractions.

IMDb page

A Christmas Carol has become so ubiquitous that it’s almost impossible to do a new take on it.  There seems to be no shortage of listings on IMDb, including the Muppet version and a Disney video game.  Everyone knows who Ebenezer Scrooge is.  Everyone could tell you why there are three ghosts.  So, how do you do something that’s new?  One way is to do the story behind the story.

The movie is based on  Les Standiford’s book detailing the months before the publication of the now-famous story.  Christmas wasn’t what it is now.  Dickens’s publisher is reluctant to publish a book about a minor holiday, especially considering that he’s had three flops since Oliver Twist.  Dickens is intent on writing this book, even if it means self-publishing.  The fact that he hasn’t written a word yet doesn’t seem to deter him; he kind of needs the money.

As you might expect, he has all sorts of distractions.  His house seems to be in a state of renovation, despite the lack of funds.  He has a wife, four children and several servants, all of whom require some degree of attention.  On top of that, his parents decide to drop by, despite the fact that Dickens doesn’t really want them there.  Not only does he have an entire book to write, he also has to get his book printed.  What’s an author to do?

Since the story became famous, I don’t think I’m spoiling anything by saying that the book does get published.  I don’t know that the rest of the movie is known by as many people.  It goes into Dickens’s childhood and why he doesn’t get along with his parents, particularly his father.

To an extent, we also get to see what went on as to the inspiration for the book.  I’m sure a bit of it is fictionalized.  I’ve seen that Dickens did ‘talk’ to his characters, as shown in the movie, but movies do occasionally take liberties with certain facts.  (For instance, to what extent did Dickens ’invent’ Christmas?)  Truth can sometimes be mundane.  I don’t necessarily mind.  It’s just one of those things I always wonder about.

This isn’t a movie I’d have seen on my own.  Having a Christmas-themed movie out for Christmas is just a little cliché.  Having a movie about a Christmas-themed book out just in time for Christmas and releasing it just before Christmas is a bit much.  I will say that it did entertain.  It’s probably not a movie for the kids.  There are scenes of mild violence and there are a few scenes that might be overly scary.  I think mostly, it will be the kind of movie that children would feel that they’ve been dragged to.  This is more a movie for the adults.

IMDb page

WARINING:  I’m going to give away details of the movie, including the ending.  If you haven’t seen the movie, you might want to wait before reading the review.



I’ve had the urge to watch old movies again.  I saw Field of Dreams many years ago.  When it became available on Netflix, I wanted to see if the movie would change with perspective.  I remembered a lot of it, but I wondered if the context had changed.  Is there anything that I’d pick up on now that I wouldn’t as a teenager?  The short answer is no.

For those that haven’t seen it, Field of Dreams is a movie about Ray and Annie Kinsella.  They buy a farm and live there with their daughter, Karin.  One day, Ray hears a voice telling him, “If you build it, he will come.”  Ray has no idea what it is supposed to be.  He’s given a vision of a baseball diamond, which he builds.  Apparently, Ray and Annie are hovering around the break-even point with their farm.  They have to clear their cash crop for the diamond, which will most likely bankrupt them.

They do it anyway.  Months pass and nothing happens.  One day, Shoeless Joe Jackson shows up in the diamond and asks if he can play there.   Jackson even brings the other players involved in the 1919 Black Sox Scandal.  Ray then gets another message from the voice:  Ease his pain.  Who’s pain?  Ray and Annie eventually come to the conclusion that the voice is referring to Terence Mann, an author who didn’t have an easy time with fame.  Mann also wanted to play baseball when he was younger.

Ray visits Terence in Boston.  The two eventually go to a baseball game, where Ray receives another message:  Go the distance.  He also sees stats for Archibald "Moonlight" Graham, who had played in just one game.  When Ray and Terence visit Minnesota to find Graham, they find that Graham had died years ago after becoming a doctor.

Ray is able to go into the past and meets Graham, who explains what the one game was all about.  Graham refuses Ray’s invitation to come back and play baseball.  Ray returns to the present and eventually goes back to Iowa with Terence.  On the drive back, they pick up a young hitchhiker names Archie Graham.  When they arrive on the farm, young Graham joins the players for a game.

The next morning, Annie’s brother, Mark, arrives to urge Ray to sell the farm, which he’s been refusing to do.  (Mark can’t see the baseball players.)  Ray knows that any subsequent owner will likely not maintain the baseball field.  An accident with Karin forces Graham to walk off the field, becoming the man that Ray saw in the past.  He helps Karin, then walks off into the corn field.  Mark is then able to see the players; he urges Ray not to sell the farm.

After seeing the movie again, I found that there wasn’t any special message hidden away.  It’s simply about a man who listens to a mysterious voice’s vague messages.  The one thing that had me wondering is how one baseball field would bankrupt the farm.  Granted, they were on the brink, but it looked like they Kinsellas had a pretty decent sized property.  I don’t know how selling corn works.  Are you able to get several crops during a season?

How would such a small part of their corn crop cause them to miss several mortgage payments?  I’m kind of wondering if this was done to give Ray something to worry about.  There’s no clear antagonist, so they had to have Mark try to get Ray to sell the farm.

I didn’t think the movie that great.  It’s not a story of conflict like you’d find in other movies.  The only real threat Ray has is the mortgage, which he deals with by ignoring.  Ray doesn’t seem to do much to earn additional revenue until the end of the movie, when it’s implied that he could charge admission.

Ironically, the actual diamond used in the movie still exists.  I’m not sure what kind of burden this placed on the actual farm, although the property has been sold at least once, according to Wikipedia.  There’s no fee for admission or parking, although there is a souvenir shop.

The movie is based on a book, although I’m not sure how true the movie is to the source material.  There do seem to be some differences, though.  In the book, Ray has a twin brother.  Terence Mann was actually J. D. Salinger.  (The name change was due to Salinger implying he’d sue if the character made his way to an adaptation.)

I’m not really sure what to make of the movie.  It’s enjoyable, but it’s not the kind of thing you’d watch over and over again.  It’s the kind of movie they might play in a waiting room.  It’s safe for most people.  It’s rated PG, mostly for some language in one scene.  (A woman accuses Terence Mann of masturbation and calls his work pornography.)  There’s also some cursing.  The only four-letter word is spelled out at PTA meeting.  Other than that, it’s mostly damn and hell.  It’s basically a great movie for streaming.  Unless you’re a baseball fan, I’m not sure if you’d want to buy it on DVD.

I usually know what to make of a movie’s plot.  I may not always like it or completely understand it, but I have some sense of where the writer is coming from.  Get Shorty is an unusual movie in that I’m not entirely sure what it’s supposed to be about.  Is it just a comedy?  Is it some sort of satire?  Is it supposed to be some sort of indictment of the movie industry or an in joke?  What’s the story?

It starts with Chili Palmer in Miami.  He’s a loan shark who works for someone out of New York until he dies.  Suddenly, Chili finds himself working for Ray ‘Bones’ Barboni.  Ray means business.  He wants Chili to collect on a debt owed by a dry cleaner.  Chili points out that the dry cleaner in question is dead.  That’s not Ray’s problem, considering that he had a wife who’s very much alive.

The wife reveals to Chili that her husband is very much alive in Las Vegas  Chili manages to collect the money and pick up a side job in California.  So, Chili travels to Hollywood to meet a producer named Harry Zimm.  Harry has problems of his own.  Chili’s job came from a casino that Harry owes money to.  On top of that, Harry blew $20,000 of his investor’s money.  Chili and Harry become fast friends, but they still have to worry about the investor, Bo Catlett.

Part of my problem may be that the story is a little complicated.  The movie goes from East Coast to West Coast very quickly.  If you blink, you might miss a few important details like I did.  There are also a lot of subplots going on.  Chili has Ray to worry about.  Harry has Bo to worry about.  Bo has a drug dealer named Mr. Escobar to worry about as well as the DEA.  All the while, Chili and Harry want to make their own movie based on the movie’s events so far.  They just have to convince Martin Weir to star in it.  I can’t blame you if you get a little confused by it.

There do seem to be a few jabs at actors and writers.  I’m not sure how much of this I’m supposed to get.  Selling the story within the story allows the characters to comment on the story-making process.  Martin talks of getting inside a character’s head, although he doesn’t seem to be that good at it.  (It’s not that he’s a bad person.  He just seems to lack empathy.)   Since most of us aren’t privy to how a movie is made, I don’t know how much of the conversations went above my head.

I also wonder how much of it is dated.  One of the running gags was Chili getting a minivan from the rental agency and having to make the best of it.  The movie came out when minivans were a big thing.  Now, it’s SUVs.  I’m not sure if the joke would play out the same way.  (I suppose it’s better than a station wagon.)

It’s interesting to hear some dialogue about Miami in the beginning of the movie.  I would like to point out that when Chili mentions Biscayne Boulevard and Federal Highway, he’s actually talking about two different stretches of US-1.  In Miami-Dade County, US-1 is called Biscayne from Downtown north.  When you reach the Broward County line, it becomes Federal Highway.  Just a little bit of trivia there.

I’m not really sure who the movie is going to appeal to.  There is a certain off-beat element to the story.  I remember liking the movie years ago when I first saw it.  I don’t remember how I felt about it specifically.  I just remember a few scenes.  Having watched it again, it was still entertaining.  I’d probably wait a while before watching it again.

IMDb page

A lot of things happened before I was born.  I’ve always known small computers that could do calculations at a rate impossible for a human.  Before iPhones, there were machines that would fill a room.  Before those machines were human calculators like Katherine G. Johnson.  She, along with Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson, worked for NASA when NASA was trying to put a man in orbit.

Everyone knows John Glenn.  He’s the man that America put into orbit.  Not everyone knows the team that put them there.  There were buildings of scientists trying to figure out the math necessary to not only put John Glen in orbit, but get him back safely.

There was a very narrow window with which they had to work.  Too steep and angle and he’d burn up on reentry.  If his descent was too gradual, he’d bounce off the atmosphere and go back into space.  There was also the issue of making sure he landed in the ocean.  Given the magnitude of what they were doing, the smallest of errors could be catastrophic.  This is assuming they can even figure out the math necessary to do the calculations in the first place.

Being that the movie is based on historical events, I’m not ruining anything by stating that John Glenn completes his mission safely.  Being that it’s a movie, I don’t think I’m giving away anything by stating that some liberties were taken.  Yes, Glenn specifically requested that Johnson be the one to verify the computer’s calculations.  Word is, though, that this was actually done well before his mission.  You don’t risk someone’s life like that unless you’re certain.

The movie isn’t so much about the history that everyone knows.  It’s about the people that never really got the credit that they deserved.  Johnson was both a woman and a person of color when culture didn’t favor either.  It still doesn’t necessarily favor either, but the movie shows Johnson having to run to a separate building to use the ladies’ room.

Jackson wanted to become an engineer, but had to go to court just to be allowed to take the courses necessary to even be considered.  Likewise, Vaughn was trying to become a supervisor.  She was already doing the work of a title that she was repeatedly denied.  She also saw the writing on the wall when the IBM computers were being installed.  She took it upon herself to learn FORTRAN for the job security.  (She also took it upon herself to get the machines working.)

All three women have to go above and beyond just to get noticed.  They are all fortunate to have superiors that eventually listen to reason, or at least recognize that the women are correct.  Vaughn might not have been taken seriously had she not actually gotten the computers to actually work.

The movie, like the women, walked a tight rope.  In several scenes, they have to curtail their anger.  Instead of getting mad, they get better.  There are moments when they’re told no, but they’re also eventually told yes.  They do make permanent progress, not only for themselves, but for others.  The one scene that may best exemplify this is Jackson telling a judge that she wants to be the first female engineer, just as he was first in a lot of respects.  The judge is impressed enough to grant her request.

I’d recommend watching it if only to learn who the people were.  I find it odd that it took more than fifty years for a movie to be made about this.  The Apollo and Gemini missions have been shown in film.  Those instances have usually focused on the people who went up into space.  There’s so much more to the story.

IMDb page

Every so often, I find a movie or TV show that I watched as a kid.  I remember watching the live-action He-Man movie only to realize how much my perspective changed as an adult.  The same thing happened with the NeverEnding Story.  I remember liking it is as a kid, but it doesn’t quite stand up as much as an adult.

The story is about a kid named Bastian.  He recently lost his mother.  As you might imagine, it’s taking him a while to get over it.  The best advice his father can give is to suck it up and get over it, which doesn’t help.  Add to that three bullies with nothing better to do than harass Bastian.  You’ve got a kid in serious need of help, or at least an escape.

While hiding from the bullies in a bookstore, Bastian finds a book, which the store owner says is like no other.  Bastian takes it, promising to return it.  At school, he ends up in the attic.  He decides to read the book, only to find a very involving story of the land of Fantasia.  Fantasia is in trouble because The Nothing is taking over.  The Childlike Empress is sick and needs someone to find help.

The movie comes across like an epic children’s tale.  The story is meant for younger audiences, but the movie has a PG rating.  There is some violence, which ranges from Bastian being thrown in a dumpster up to a knight being killed by electrical bolts.  As a result, it’s kind of in between a children’s movie and an adult movie.

I’m not really sure what the target audience is supposed to be here.  Adults will probably find the story a little too simplistic.  You have The Nothing invading Fantasia.  Many of the places have simple names, too, like The Ivory Tower and The Swamp of Sadness.  I can forgive a few because it looks like at least some effort was put into the name.  (The Ivory Tower is better than just The Tower.)

At the same time, it may be a little too much for those that are really young.  Most of the imagery is safe for children.  There are a few disturbing images, though, like the knight that gets killed.  We catch a brief glimpse of his face.  I don’t think it’s going to give most people nightmares, but it is worth noting.

I think this is one of those movies where nostalgia is going to be your primary motivator in seeing it.  If you watched it as a kid and you can get it on demand, you’ll probably give it a shot.  I would advise doing this before buying it, as I’m not sure how well it will hold up for you.  I don’t think I’ll be watching the movie again any time soon.

Everyone’s heard of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.  They were the first two people to walk on the in that order.  You may not know the name Eugene Cernan.  Of the twelve people to have gone to the moon, he was the last person to leave.  He was the one to turn off the proverbial lights.  I hadn’t heard of him until this documentary showed up on Netflix.  I actually found it around the time of his death earlier this year.  I’m not sure why I held off on watching it until last night.

The documentary covers his life, starting with him joining the Navy when he was 22.   He was eventually selected for the Gemini program, which dealt with low Earth orbit.  He then joined the Apollo program, which was about getting to the moon.  He was on Apollo 10, which was a test run for Aldrin and Armstrong.  It wasn’t until Apollo 17 that Cernan got his chance to set foot on our only natural satellite.

I’ve always had a fascination with going into space.  It seems kind of depressing to think that there’s this entire universe out there and we haven’t sent someone past the lunar orbit.  Sure, we’ve sent probes to Mars.  We’ve even sent two machines out past our solar system.  I hate to think that we won’t actually send someone to another star within my lifetime.

I think that may have been why I put off watching the documentary.  Cernan was the last person to leave the moon.  When visiting a launch site, he regrets coming.  The site had been unused for decades and he didn’t want to remember the Apollo missions that way.

The documentary is partially clips like that, showing Cernan with friends or at a rodeo.  There are also historical clips, like the module going down towards the moon or coming back.  There are also interviews with Cernan, his family and from other people who worked in the space program.

Cernan admits that being an astronaut wasn’t great for his family life.  The training was intense and the trip to the moon was three days  each way.  It was difficult on his wife to have to sit there hoping everything went right when we were doing something that was entirely new.  There was always a sense that something catastrophic might happen.  In fact, catastrophic things did happen.  Equipment didn’t always work.  Human error was always a possibility.  Being an astronaut wasn’t that easy.  I imagine it still isn’t.

IMDb page

With any time-travel story, there’s always the question of the Earth moving around the Sun and the Sun moving through the galaxy, which is itself in motion.  This is usually ignored in the narrative, as I’m sure most authors don’t think of it.  When you’re writing a story, you’re probably trying to focus on other aspects of the plot.  Plus, I’d like to think that anyone smart enough to build a time machine would be smart enough take this into account.  What a shame it would be to go through all the trouble of building a time machine only to get lost in the void of space.

In the book by H. G. Wells, an unnamed person builds such a machine and visits Earth in the distant future.  It’s supposed to be more a commentary on class division, with the Evil Morlocks taking advantage of the peaceful Eloi.  This movie, released in 1960, takes many of the same plot points.  The ultimate destination is still 802701.  The story is still set in England.  You still have the Eloi and the Morlocks.  A few details have changed, though.

The movie starts on January 5, 1900.  Four men have gathered at the house of a friend named George.  George is absent, which they consider somewhat rude, as George is the one that invited them all for dinner.  At least George was kind enough to leave worth to let them start without him.  (Dinner has already been prepared by George’s housekeeper, Mrs. Watchett.)  Just as they’re about to begin, George stumbles in, looking like he’s been through a war.  As in the book, he recounts his tale.

It begins a few days earlier, on December 31, 1899.  All five men are gathered together in George’s house, where he’s telling them about a time machine that he’s built.  He plans to go ahead to see what becomes of humans.  His friends don’t believe him, even though he has a scale model that he sends into the future.  Shortly after the friends leave, so does George.  He goes a few hours into the future, then a few years.  He goes to 1917 and 1940, both years that England is at war.   He then goes to 1966, where he witnesses the destruction of his immediate area by lava.

He narrowly escapes to the distant future of 802701.  He hasn’t moved from his original spot, but everything is different.  Humans seem to have regressed to a group that lives off the land.  They don’t have a care in the world, even when one of their own falls into a river. George saves and befriends the woman, who gives her name as Weena.  She tells George that her people are called the Eloi

When everyone gathers to eat, George joins them.  He asks all sorts of questions that the Eloi seem to regard as strange.  They have no sense of history or any desire to plan for the future.  They play and eat.  That’s about it.  It isn’t until that night that George finds the Morlocks, who use air-raid sirens to get the Eloi to go into a building, never to return.

George discovers that humanity has branched into two groups.  The Morlocks are what became of the industrial people.  They control the machinery and make clothing for the Eloi.  The Eloi descended from those that stayed above ground.  With no technology, they’re dependant on the Morlocks, which comes at a very high cost.

George is dismayed at what he has found.  Humanity hasn’t progressed.  We’ve let buildings deteriorate.  We’ve let books turn to dust.  There’s nothing left that George recognizes as human any more.   We’ve evolved, but that isn’t always a good thing.  Evolution doesn’t go in one direction.

He’d return to 1900, but George has had his time machine stolen.  (Fortunately, he held on to a key component.)  He’s stuck in a paradise run by monsters.  Since the movie started with George telling his story, we can assume that he found a way to get back to his own time.   It’s simply a question of whether or not he’ll save the future in the process.

Having read the book there are a few differences I noticed.  Some involve major plot points that I don’t want to give away.  The rest are minor, such as leaving out a few scenes.  (In the book, the time traveler goes beyond 802701, well into the future.  The movie skips that.)  I suppose it’s natural to have to make modifications.  You’re trying to tell a story in a different medium.  Not everything translates well.  Not everything can make it due to technological constraints.  The director and writer are also going to take certain liberties.  You can end up with two different products.  This is especially evident that the movie was made about 60 years after the book was written.  The movie has access to history that the book didn’t.

There are a few things that always get me, such as the Eloi speaking English.  Consider that English as we know it didn’t exist 1,000 years ago.  Imagine what people will speak 800,000 years from now.  For that matter, consider what they’d look like.  All of the Eloi are basically short, blonde white people.  I’d like to think we’d look different than that after 800 millennia.

Another thing that’s always struck me while watching the movie was the bubble that formed as George was going into the future.  He was pretty lucky that that happened.  He could have been killed.  (On that note, it wasn’t mentioned what it would look like to an outside observer.  Did people see a bubble form in a mountain or was it solely for George’s benefit?)  I don’t suppose there’s any good way to test the machine.  Today, we could probably automate the process.  With Victorian-era technology, George just had to risk it.

This was one of those movies I’d always catch on TV growing up.  There’s no cursing.  There’s also very little violence.  The Morlocks would probably scare small children, as would the fighting towards the end.  The effects look like what I’d expect from a 1960’s movie, so I can forgive this aspect of the movie.  A lot of the scenes are done in miniature.  It’s obvious to someone who has grown up on CGI.  (I’ve always wondered if it was as obvious to audiences of 1960.   Then again, I also wonder what modern effects will seem obvious 60 years from now.)

Ultimately, it’s a product made 60 years ago based on a story that was published 60 years prior.  We’ve had all manner of time-travel books and movies.  There are all manner of visions of what our future might look like.  There are all manner of great and not-so-great stories about going to the future and to the past.  We have everything from Back to the Future and Doctor Who to Time Changer and Future War.

This is one of those movies that has a certain nostalgia factor for me.  As I mentioned, I grew up watching the movie.  I’m not sure most people will feel the same way.  It may come off as overly cheesy to younger audiences.  I would recommend at least reading the book.  Your local library should have it.  I’m sure Amazon has a few dozen versions of it.  If you can’t get this movie streaming, your library may also have a copy of it if you’re interested in checking it out.


IMDb page

I used to work at Wolf Camera years ago.  One thing I remember was the mantra “Give yourself a raise.”  It meant that you could always be selling more of the things that got you sales incentives or commissions.  You could always sell more extended warranties or loyalty cards.  You could always sell more accessories.  Basically, it felt like I would always have the carrot of better numbers in front of me.  There had to be a point where it stopped.  (If I sold everything in the store with the maximum warranty, would they have me special order stuff?)

Such is the world of The Mother and The Daughter.  The Mother is anxious to see her daughter get into a good school.  They even have an answer for their expected Big Question.  However, when she’s asked a different question, The Daughter gives her rehearsed answer anyway, oblivious to the fact that it doesn’t make sense.  This necessitates a move to the same neighborhood as the school.  The cheapest house happens to be next door to The Aviator, a man that the neighbors (and police) seem to avoid whenever possible.

The Daughter and The Aviator become fast friends, as The Daughter tries to avoid her rigorous schedule.  You see, The Daughter has a lot of studying to do if she wants to do well and eventually get a good job.  The Aviator is an adult, but hasn’t grown up yet.  He sees in The Daughter someone he can tell his story to.  That story is the story of The Little Prince.

Never having read the book, I’m not sure how well the movie stays faithful to its source material.  In the movie, The Aviator tells of meeting The Little Prince, who claimed to be from an asteroid.  The Little Prince tells of his life and some of the people he’s met, like a businessman.  While on Earth, he meets a fox and a snake.  He has a good time, but eventually has to go home, which saddens the Aviator.  However, The Little Prince tells The Aviator to simply look up at the stars to remind him of their time together.

In the present timeframe, The Aviator tells The Daughter that he’s happy that they met, as he now has someone to pass along the story.  The Daughter infers that he may be leaving or even dying, which The Aviator denies.  She even gets upset with him for having such a sad ending.  When The Aviator is taken away in an ambulance, The Daughter takes it upon herself to find The Little Prince so that The Prince might help The Aviator.

The tale of The Mother, the Daughter and  the older Aviator seems to have been made for the movie.  From what I can tell, the book was meant as a children’s book for adults, warning of forgetting how to be a child.  The Mother and the other adults seem to have forgotten this, but The Aviator hasn’t.  He sees in The Daughter the opportunity to let her be a little girl for a few minutes.  The Mother means well, but she doesn’t seem to see that her daughter might want an hour or two to play.  (Isn’t hard work what being an adult is all about, though?)

It’s appropriate that the film uses CGI and stop motion.  Animation is typically seen as being for children.  Many adults seem to have forgotten how to enjoy an animated movie.  For years, I’ve been trying to get my parents to watch movies like Up and Zootopia to no effect.  I don’t know that they’ll ever take the recommendations seriously.

IMDb Page

It’s not uncommon for someone to go into the family business.  Some companies are family owned for several generations   You may even see a company name along the lines of Smith & Sons.  Likewise, you may find police officers that have siblings, aunts and uncles, parents and grandparents that are also police officers.  (At least, that’s the way it is in television and movies.)  Normally, no one would think anything of someone doing what their family does.

Things are a little different for Frederick.  He’s a doctor, like his grandfather.  Frederick doesn’t want the association, though, as his grandfather is none other than Dr. Viktor Frankenstein.  Yes, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.  The idea of reanimating a nervous system is ridiculous.  I know it.  You know it.  Frederick knows it, too.  Yet, everyone keeps pestering him about it.

It doesn’t get any easier when Frederick inherits the family castle in Transylvania.  So, the young Dr. Frankenstein goes to see what he’s inherited.  When he gets there, he’s greeted by Igor, also the grandson of the corresponding character in the book.  He introduces Frederick to beautiful lab assistant Inga and the horse-scaring Frau Blücher.  Frederick wants to find his grandfather’s work, but Frau Blücher denies any knowledge of the work.  It’s with the help of Inga that he’s able to find a secret passageway and, eventually, a book called How I Did It by V. Frankenstein.

After reading the book, Frederick realizes that it’s not so far fetched.  He might actually be able to reanimate a corpse.  So, he and Igor rob a grave.  Igor is also sent to get the brain of a noted scientist.  The townspeople, however, are rightfully concerned.  Yes, he’s a Frankenstein, but there’s no proof that he’ll follow in his grandfather’s footsteps.  That is, until he reanimates the corpse.  Now, it’s up to Frankenstein and Company to protect the new life.

The movie is in black and white.  It’s even set up like Ye Olde Horror Filmme of Yore, with credits in the beginning.  (Having seen some older movies, I get the reference, but I’m not sure how many references I’m missing.)  With Frankenstein being something that everyone knows about, even minimally, most people will get many of the jokes.  There’s the obligatory angry mob waiting to happen, for instance.

The book doesn’t seem to parody the book directly, but seems to use the story as a backdrop.  It’s almost like an unofficial, comedic sequel of sorts.  Probably the one scene I remember best is where Frederick tries to show off The Monster by having him do a demonstration that ends with a performance of Putin’ on the Ritz.

This ultimately leads to The Monster being taken away by the police. The Monster eventually escapes and meets some people while on the run, like a girl who doesn’t seem frightened by him.  There’s also the blind man who desperately wants company.  The Monster doesn’t hurt anyone unless provoked, which usually involves someone taunting him.

This isn’t the kind of movie you’ll watch week after week, but it does hold up after repeated viewings.  Some of the humor is meant to work as a surprise.  Other jokes, like Putin’ on the Ritz, can be viewed multiple times.  It’s the kind of movie you’d watch when you catch it on TV or maybe watch in class the day before school lets out for break.

The movie is rated PG, mostly for sexual references.  Frederick mentions huge knockers, referring to a door.  There are also a scene where The Monster has sex with Frederick’s bride to be, although no nudity is shown.  There are also scenes of violence, like The Monster choking Frederick.  It’s a comedy, so there’s little threat of the main characters being permanently harmed.  The worst of the violence is seeing a man hanged. It’s generally safe for teenagers and above.

IMDb page

We tend to assume causation where there is none.  There may very well be correlation, but it’s possible that both things have a common cause.  It’s also possible that both things are totally unrelated.  There’s an entire Web site dedicate to this premise.  Freakonomics is a documentary that shows a few examples of this.  There was a case where polio was believed to be linked to ice cream, as both tended to spike during the summer.

The first segment deals with the effect that a child’s name may have on their future.  In one case, a child lived up to an unfortunate name.  In another example, brothers Winner and Loser proved to be the opposite of their names.  The truth is that names tend to be a reflection of your parents and your surroundings.  True, ethnic-sounding names do put you at a disadvantage for jobs and housing.  However, if you have the kind of parent that puts effort into your name, you have the kind of parent who will put effort into other things.

The second segment deals with corruption in sumo wrestling.  The sport is supposed to be pure, but there are incentives to throw a match if it’s believed that there’s some benefit.  Wrestlers get paid extra if they have a certain record.  If two wrestlers go up against each other and one needs the win whereas the other doesn’t, the wrestler needing the win tends to win the match they need more often than they should.  Statistically, it looks like players are throwing matches.   (It turns out that this is, indeed, the case, as several former players have come forward stating as much.)

The third segment shows a correlation between abortions and crime rates.  In a country where women were required to have unwanted children, the crime rate went up 15-20 years later.  Similarly, 15-20 years after Roe v. Wade, the United States had a corresponding decrease in crime.  While this hasn’t been proven conclusively, the theory is that unwanted children tend towards crime more than wanted children.  The authors of the book point out that this isn’t an endorsement of abortion.  They’re simply pointing out that if a woman can wait until she’s ready to be a mother, it helps the children later in life.

The final segment is on attempting to bribe ninth-grade students to do better in school.  The segment is set up with a story about one of the authors rewarding his daughter only to have her game the system.  Two students in particular are followed; the experiment works with only one of the two students.  The results for this one are inconclusive.  (If a student is doing so poorly that they’re already talking about a GED, is $50 per month really going to motivate them?)  The point here seems to be that an economic incentive isn’t always the best thing, especially later in life.  Is it better to motivate them earlier?  Is it better to use other means?  If offered the money, I’m not sure I would have done much better in school.  Most kids tend to live for the here and now.

The movie is interesting.  I watched it having read the book already.  I didn’t really expect anything new.   In some regards, you may be better off reading the book by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner.  There are more chapters and each goes into more detail.  If you have already read the book, you’re probably not going to find many surprised here.  The segments are based on chapters of the book.

However, if you have the ability to rent or stream the movie, it is interesting.  It gives a basic look at some areas that you might not otherwise think about.  The movie is geared towards an adult audience, but most teenagers should be able to grasp the basic contents.

The PG-13 rating comes from some of the language and a few violent scenes.  If I recall, most of the violence depicted was in the third section, which dealt more with violent crimes.  There was also a scene of a strip club with strippers’ names covering their otherwise bare breasts.  That’s the only scene I’d be embarrassed to watch with my parents.  Much of it is stuff would make for good discussion with your children.  I could almost see this being optional viewing for a college course.  Some of the material is controversial, but I don’t think it would cause anyone’s head to explode.

I was able to get this streaming on Netflix.  I’m not sure that I would necessarily expect or want special features.  As I said, you can get the book for more detail.  There’s also the Web site for Freakonomics, which seems to be for all of the various related media.  It’s definitely worth a watch.

IMDb page

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

Normally, I’d put a spoiler warning here, but I doubt that there are many people that don’t know how the movie will end. Even those, like myself, that haven’t read the Bible know that Jesus was crucified. Everyone knows that this movie is about the last hours of the life of Jesus, so it should come as no surprise that he’s crucified at the end of the movie.

Before the movie came out, I had heard a lot about this movie. Mel Gibson really wanted to make a movie about the Jesus’ final hours. Gibson really wanted to make something that was inspirational and accurate. When it opened in theaters, those that had seen it fell into two groups. One group felt that the movie was inspirational and accurate and were moved by the movie. The second group felt that it was anti-Semitic and unfairly portrayed the Jews. This is why I decided to wait until the movie came out on DVD to see it. I couldn’t see myself sitting in a theater full of people that were driven either to tears or rage. I didn’t want to put myself in the middle of that.

Now that I’ve seen it, I can’t say that I really see what the big deal is. I’m not religious. I’d classify myself somewhere between atheist and agnostic. You might be asking why I saw the movie if I feel this way. Feeling as I do is no excuse not to see the movie. I figured that since I have Netflix, which is a video rental service paid for by the month, I might as well watch it and see for myself what the big deal was. Now that I’ve seen the movie, I can’t say that I fit into either of the two groups that I mentioned before.

The people most likely to be moved by the movie are those that identify with Christianity. This isn’t to say that a non-Christian can’t take something away from it. However, I don’t really understand much of the mythology. I did find certain aspects of the movie to be confusing. There were a lot of unnamed characters that would be recognizable to someone who’s read the bible. (The Devil is one example.)

However, there are many things that someone could take from this movie. There are several flashbacks in the movie, one of which involves Jesus telling his followers to love your enemies. I also feel that many of the scenes could deliver the same emotional impact regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof. For instance, seeing Jesus accused, brought to Pilate and eventually tortured and crucified still had an impact on me, even if I didn’t interpret it the same way that a Christian might. Just because you’re not religious doesn’t mean that this movie holds no value for you.

I can understand not being interested in the movie, as well. This movie isn’t for everyone. There is a lot of violence and gore, which are both too much for children. The scenes where Jesus is being whipped leave nothing to the imagination. I also don’t think that children will be able to understand the movie, even if they are raised as Christians. This is a very complex and intense subject.

As for the anti-Semitic aspect, I didn’t get the impression that the claims had any merit. The major claim was that the Jews were shown as the ones wanting to crucify Jesus. Showing that in a major motion picture might incite or perpetuate hatred of Jews. I don’t think so. Instead of making Jews out to be villains, I felt that the villains happened to be Jewish.

Yes, I’m dealing with semantics, but bear with me. In the movie, the Jews want to crucify Jesus (who was a rabbi, mind you) for insisting that he’s the Son of God. According to Roman law, the Jews weren’t allowed to execute anyone, so they had to go to the local Roman official, Pontius Pilate, for permission. The official wanted no part of it and sent it to King Herod since it was really his jurisdiction. Herod wanted no part of it, either, so Jesus was set free. Jesus is sent back to Pilate, who is in a real bind. If he condemns Jesus to death, one part of the population will revolt. If he doesn’t, he’ll have another part of the population revolting and Caesar has made it clear that there are to be no uprisings. Pilate does the best thing he can, which is to punish Jesus, but not kill him.

It’s kind of like saying that when the guards beat Jesus, it’s an anti-police message because the guards beat him to within an inch of his life. It’s not only police brutality, but it’s also state-sanctioned police brutality. You could just as well say that it’s calling the government prejudiced because Pilate is willing to let the guards attack Jesus. You could also say that it’s calling the government apathetic because both Pilate and Herod want no part of it. Since this is taken from the Bible, you might as well call the New Testament anti-Semitic, as well. I just don’t see it.

Now I have to decide if I’d recommend the movie. This is one of the few movies that I can’t give a definite yes or no and is case in point for why I don’t like the fact that I’m required to give a yes or a no as to recommending the movie to a friend. Ultimately, I think faith is going to be the compelling factor for most people. I can’t say that all Christians will want to see it or that all non-Christians won’t.

However, if a friend of mine was having trouble making up their mind, I’d tell my friend to see it. The movie was done well, even though I probably missed a great deal of it and I wasn’t really impressed by the special effects. Subtitles were a big plus. I wouldn’t have been able to watch more than five minutes without subtitles. However, if I had a friend that didn’t want to watch it, I wouldn’t try to get them to watch it. I know plenty of people that definitely wouldn’t like it, either because of the religious basis of the movie or because of the gore.

I personally give the movie three stars out of five. It was a good movie, but I didn’t think it was great. I don’t regret having seen the movie. I was curious about it and I figured that if I’m going to like or not like a movie, I should at least see it. As for whether or not you should see it, I leave that decision to you. 

IMDb page

It’s easy to forget that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz has over a dozen sequels penned by L. Frank Baum.  In fact, when he wrote the book, he intended it to be just the one book.  I don’t think he could have seen the countless radio, TV, film and stage adaptations that followed.  The 1939 film with Judy Garland is probably the most famous, but I do remember seeing other movies based on the works.  One such movie was Return to Oz, which was based on two of the sequels.

Another that I vaguely recall seeing was The Wiz.  The Wiz is based on a stage play of the same name.  (Well, the full title was:  The Wiz: The Super Soul Musical "Wonderful Wizard of Oz".)  The play opened in 1974 in Baltimore and made its way to Broadway in 1975.   The Wiz was released in 1978 with only Mabel King and Ted Ross making the transition.

I should warn you that I’m not going to worry about spoilers.  This movie follows the 1939 movie fairly closely.  (I was born in 1976, so I’m too young to have seen any of the early stage productions.)  In this case, Dorothy is an  African-American woman living with her Aunt Em and Uncle Henry in Harlem.  Aunt Em wants her niece to get a better job teaching, but Dorothy (played by Diana Ross) is happy where she is.

After Thanksgiving dinner, her dog, Toto, runs outside into a snowstorm.  Dorothy goes after him only to be picked up by a tornado and taken to Oz, where she promptly kills the Wicked Witch of the East, freeing the Munchkins.  Dorothy is told by the Good Witch of the North to follow The Yellow Brick Road, which she has trouble finding at first.  With the help of the Scarecrow, played here by Michael Jackson, she’s able to find her way.

They make it to an abandoned amusement park, where they find Tin Man, played by Nipsey Russell.  This leaves only The Cowardly Lion, who is played by Ted Ross, to be found in front of the New York Public Library.  The four of them head towards The Emerald City, each wanting something different.  (Again, there are no surprises if you’ve seen the 1939 movie or read the book.  Dorothy, of course, is looking for a way home.  Scarecrow wants a brain, despite being quite intelligent.)

When they make it to The Emerald City, they’re sent to kill the Wicked Witch of the West, who is running a sweat shop.  Instead of using a bucket of water, Dorothy is able to pull a fire alarm, causing the Wicked Witch to melt and thus saving the day.  Upon returning, The Wiz, played by Richard Pryor, is revealed to be a fraud.  This isn’t to say that Dorothy doesn’t go home.  The slippers she had on all along could have brought her back at any time.

The Wiz didn’t do so well in the theaters.  This is despite the movie having a lot of talent.  (This may, however, explain why the movie did eventually gain a cult following.)  It is strange to see an older Dorothy, but it’s not completely out of line.  SyFy’s Tin Man also had an adult in the Dorothy role.

I would say that the movie is in line with the book; each of the characters wants something that they already have.  Ross did come across as meek and scared, which would be appropriate.  The story is partially about her finding herself.  The book had a lot more to it, but choices do have to be made.  The movie still comes in at over two hours.

I’m not a fan of musicals, per se.  However, I did like the songs.  The dancing was well choreographed and the songs were well written.  (One thing I remembered from watching the as a kid was one of the songs.)  One thing I noticed was that Toto had a very small part in the movie.  In many of the scenes, Toto is noticeably absent.  He only appears as the group is leaving.  Even then, it takes him a few seconds to follow.  Dorothy has an almost manic-depressive attitude towards her beloved dog.  One minute, she’s hysterical that something might happen to Toto.  Next, she pays no attention to him.  I had to wonder if maybe the dog playing Toto was difficult to deal with.

The costumes looked like what you’d expect of a Broadway musical.  Tin Man has some metallic components, but it appears that most of his costume is makeup and wardrobe.  The same goes for Cowardly Lion and Scarecrow.  The subway scene was a little surreal.  The group is attacked by trash cans and support columns.  I don’t know if these were actors wearing costumes or if they were mostly special effects.  There were a few parts that I’m sure were actors.  That could not have been easy for them.

I enjoyed watching the movie.  It’s almost as old as I am and Oz bears an intentional resemblance to New York, so some aspects are lost on me.  I’m also coming into the movie having seen other movies based on the book, which I’ve also read.  There was one big question I had, other than Toto’s recurring absence.  What was the deal with Scarecrow and his endless supply of strangely appropriate quotations?

IMDb page

You may have come across a meme showing Adolf Hitler screaming at several of his advisors in a crowded room.  (I think the name usually starts with something like “Hitler reacts to…”.)  There are a variety of topics, from Hitler finding out his Xbox account was banned to having to see Don’t Mess With the Zohan.  The clip comes from a movie called Downfall.

According you Know Your Meme, the director was amused by the usage.  The studio, not so much, although they seem to have eventually relented.  (There’s even one of Hitler trying to have the various parodies taken down.)  I have to admit that I’m somewhere in between.  Some of the videos are funny, but we’re talking about Hitler during the final days of WWII.  It’s a pretty heavy and loaded subject.

While looking through Netflix for movies to stream, I came across Downfall.  I immediately recognized this as the movie that spawned the meme.  I decided to watch the movie to put the clip in context.  (I noticed that the movie ran for over 2½ hours, so I decided to save it for later.)  I’m not sure that this should be your only reason for watching it.

The movie is primarily about the last days of Adolf Hitler.  He, Eva Braun, his closest advisors and a few others spent them in a bunker underneath Berlin.   Germany was losing at that point.  It was a matter of time before they’d have to surrender.  Almost everyone in the bunker was advising Hitler to leave Berlin, but he would have none of it.  Anyone who didn’t obey his orders was less than scum.

Outside the bunker, Berlin was in ruins.  (This suited Hitler just fine.  It would be that much easier to implement his  plan for an even better Berlin.)  People are hurt.  Troops and civilians alike are injured or dead.  Children are fighting for Germany.  Hitler even gives out medals to some of them.  He refuses to leave.  He refuses to surrender.

This is one of those movies where a spoiler alert isn’t really appropriate.  Anyone familiar with World War II should know the basic plot of the movie.  For those that don’t, you may want to stop reading.  This isn’t necessarily for fear of ruining the movie, but because the movie does go into some detail.  We see a doctor assist Joseph and Magda Goebbels in killing their children.  This isn’t even the scene that I find most disturbing.  We also see Hitler test a cyanide pill on his dog.  (The movie doesn’t show the dog actually dying, but it’s still clear what‘s happening.)  There are also several suicides towards the end of the movie.

As you might expect from the meme, there are a lot of scenes with Hitler yelling at people.  Those that follow his orders are golden.  Those that don’t deserve to die.  There are also scenes with him being kind to people.  The movie uses clips from an interview with Hitler’s secretary, Traudl Junge, as bookends.  (In the movie, she’s played by Alexandra Maria Lara.)  Hitler is somewhat pleasant with her.  There are several scenes where he is charismatic.

This isn’t to say that he was a nice person.  Hitler was someone that knew how to manipulate people.  What might appear to be kindness would have simply been a means to an end.  Bruno Ganz was effective as Hitler in letting that manipulative nature come through.  Hitler may be spouting pleasantries, but there’s still an underlying sense of malevolence.  (And then we’re right back to him screaming at people.)

I would set the movie aside for when you have a few hours to watch the whole thing.  It’s a long movie and is pretty densely packed.  It didn’t seem to drag so much as I would occasionally feel like I had watched an entire movie in over the course of 15 minutes.  It’s also a German film in German with subtitles.  (Netflix didn’t offer English audio, not that I would have used it.)  You may be able to watch the entire movie, but I had to get up a few times to walk around.

If you’re looking for movies dealing with Hitler, a few other movies come to mind.  One is Look Who’s Back, which deals with Hitler mysteriously appearing in modern Berlin.  There’s also Hitler’s Children, which looks at relatives of some of Hitler’s inner circle.  Downfall may be too intense for some.  I know my mother wouldn’t like it.  My father, who has an interest in World War II, probably wouldn’t be able to watch the entire movie.  As I said, don’t rent this just to see the one scene from the parody videos.  It does come early in the movie, but there’s a lot more to it than just that.  In that regard, it’s difficult to recommend the movie.  It was done well and I do think it’s something people should watch, especially if they have an interest in the movie.  Not everyone will be able to handle it, though.

IMDb page

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

What would you do if you could go anywhere just by thinking about it? David Rice is faced with such a question. The first time we see him jump, it’s to save his own life. He’s trapped beneath some ice and is being pulled away. Suddenly, he’s in the Ann Arbor library, still soaking wet, but safe. Abandoned by his mother at the age of five and left with a drunk father, David instantly realizes that he has the power to run away very quickly.

At first, he checks in to some hotel. Rice is able to jump to any location he wants. Instead of using his power for good, or even maybe doing some honest work, David decides to rob a bank. (This point is reinforced when David is presented with an opportunity to save some people trapped in the middle of a raging river, but does nothing.) I remember thinking that robbing a bank seems very high profile. He seemed to miss all of the security cameras, but he did attract the attention of someone named Roland.

Roland likes to pass himself off as an agent of various government agencies. The truth is that he hunts Jumpers. He feels that only God should have the ability to be anywhere and everywhere at once. He also believes that the power that Jumpers have will corrupt them and David is proving to be no exception. Roland is part of a group called the Paladins. Paladins have the ability to keep Jumpers from jumping, which they use to allow them to kill Jumpers.

The entire movie basically ends up being a battle between Roland and David. There is one other Jumper featured in the movie, who’s name is Griffin. The only other Jumper seen in the movie is killed by Roland. Griffin has gotten pretty good at getting away from the Paladins. He likes to stay away from their attention most of the time. David seems to be pretty good at getting away, too. The trouble is that Paladins will also kill loved ones, including family and girlfriends. This really sets up the tension and gives David a reason to go after Roland and not just hide.

I could see the movie being a little better. From what I understand, it’s based on a book in a series, so it may have more movies to follow. However, when the first movie doesn’t do that much to draw you in, there’s no real motivation to see any sequels. There was very little back story in the movie. There are also some elements, like the science of it all missing. There was no sense of where the Jumpers or Paladins came from except that they had been fighting for a long time.

Don’t expect greatness from this movie. Mostly, it’s an action flick. This is why I’m giving it three stars. It definitely has potential, though. I could see the movie being developed into a TV series, much like Highlander. Granted, you wouldn’t have Jumpers fighting each other, but there’s a lot of room to write stuff. This can’t be a stand-alone movie. 

IMDb page

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.


WARNING:  I’m going to give away major plot points including the ending.  If you don’t like spoilers, you might want to watch the movie before reading this review.



Let’s say that you cleared away 300 years of coral growth and found a spaceship.  What would you do?  Well, you’d probably send down a team of experts to investigate.  Dustin Hoffman, Samuel L. Jackson and Sharon Stone play Doctors Norman Johnson, Harry Adams and Elizabeth Halperin, respectively.  They, along with a few other scientists, go down to said ship.  It’s so far beneath the water that it takes special equipment to get there.  Since it’s so deep, a quick rescue won’t be that easy.

What they find is a big, golden, metallic sphere.  (It’s said to be a perfect sphere despite having obvious ripples on the surface.)  Dr. Adams is the first to go in to the sphere and come back out.  Unfortunately, he doesn’t recall anything about it.  Also quite unfortunate is that strange things start happening and those strange things put the people at risk.

What’s even stranger is that the ship has signs in both English and Spanish.  Also, there are several log entries with dates like 06/21/43.  The team realizes that they’re on an American ship from the future.  Because the date is so vague, there’s no way to know if it’s from 2043 or 9943.  However, from what they can tell, someone in the future launches a ship from Earth to collect strange and unusual objects from across the galaxy.

On or around 6/21/43, it comes across a black hole and is sent back in time, where it crash lands on Earth around the year 1698, give or take a few decades.  The logs refer to it an unknown event, which leads Dr. Adams to conclude that no one makes it off the ship alive.  He reasons that if they did make it off the ship alive, they’d report it to someone.  That someone would then record that they found the ship and those in the future would know what happened to their ship.

When a storm hits the surface, the team has to spend a week on the ship or an adjacent habitat.  This gives the team a week to worry about something going drastically wrong.  Someone has to put a special code into their vehicle so that it knows someone is still down there.  If not, it goes back up to the surface with whatever data they’ve collected, presumably leaving them stranded.  At the very least, this means that someone has to leave the safety and comfort of the ship and expose themselves to whatever dangers lurk several thousand feet below.

There are also those strange things I mentioned, like a giant octopus attacking the habitat.  One of the scientists is also attacked by jellyfish.  Then there’s the alien consciousness that’s communicating through the habitat’s computers.  This whole death and destruction thing is starting to look more and more likely.  It’s definitely not a good day for any of them to be claustrophobic.

Now, you’re probably wondering if the team makes it back out alive.  Some of the people do die, leaving Adams, Halperin and Johnson to figure out what’s going on.  The thing I don’t like about Adams’s prediction is that it will likely go one of two ways.  Either he’s right or he’s wrong.  There’s no definitive proof what happens to them, which is ironically his only proof that they don’t make it out alive.  Even if they do make it out alive, there’s no reason to think that the reports won’t get buried under tons of paperwork or be forgotten about.  (The ship could have been launched 500 years from now.  How accurate are our records from 500 years ago?)

Here’s where I spoil the ending.  They do make it out alive.  They have to be put in a decompression chamber, leaving them plenty of time to ponder how lucky they were to make it out alive, which leads Adams to wonder how that happened.  He figures that they must have forgotten all about it.  Since this must have happened, they realize that they must have the powers to make themselves forget, so they make themselves forget before they can be debriefed.

I have several problems with this.  First, I can’t accept that they would be the only team to go down there.  No one in the movie explicitly states that it’s too dangerous to go back down.  Even still, you have a strange ship sitting at the bottom of the ocean with at least 40 years until the unknown event.  You can’t tell me that in all those years, not even an unmanned probe was sent down to investigate.

You’d think that they’d make up some story about how no one should go back down.  Maybe the writers figured that this was to cliché and wanted something different.  When they realized how much work this was, they went with the first thing that came to mind.

At the end of the movie, the golden sphere is seen leaving the ship and eventually the planet.  Yes, it’s possible that the sphere deleted the records, but this is something else that’s not explicitly stated.  I’d imagine that this is something that’s dealt with in Michael Crichton’s book, which served as the source material.  I would have liked some closure in that respect.  Either have someone say that no one else will be sent down or the ship was mysteriously destroyed or something.

The big oddity was that the golden sphere was the only odd thing down there.  Yes, it’s a big universe and most of it is a big void.  The future ship was a manned mission, meaning that there were people onboard.  This wasn’t some drone collecting rock samples.  We had people that could say, “Hey!  That looks interesting.  Let’s take that back with us.”

The movie was ultimately disappointing.  Yes, there was a lot of tension and suspense.  The ending was a big disappointment.  It seemed like an easy out, like they couldn’t figure out a better way to end it.  I don’t know how the movie differs from the book.  I’d imagine that there is a different ending or at least more explanation.  At least I got a review out of it.

IMDb page