samos

My father and I saw Tora! Tora! Tora! at the Virginia Premier at a showing for Pearl Harbor survivors. Needless to say there were a lot of comments about how realistic the movie was.

There were also comments about what was wrong with the movie, most of which couldn't be helped. For example, the PBY aircraft that was being flown was a later version, but none of the aircraft of the type that were actually at Pearl Harbor survived to when the movie was being filmed.

There were also some minor issues with uniforms but I can't remember all of that, except for the scene on the U.S.S. Ward where enlistedmen are on the bridge in working uniforms and not whites. I was told that was a definite error in the peace-time Navy.

An earlier comment about how the aircraft carrier scenes were filmed. The production company rented the U.S.S. Yorktown and flew the aircraft off of it. The Yorktown was decommissioned about a year after the movie was filmed.

If you look closely in the background, there is a destroyer with an American flag. Further behind the destroyer is a Russian trawler who came along for the ride.

Most of the aircraft that are seen being destroyed on the ground are mock-ups built for the express purpose of being destroyed. That's why they look so real.

The battleships U.S.S. Nevada and the U.S.S. Arizona are one in the same. It was a full sized model that was mounted on a barge. It was used as the U.S.S. Nevada for the initial attack and then for the run across the harbor.

At the end of the filming, it was destroyed to similate the destruction of the U.S.S. Arizona.

Another interesting point about the movie, the scene of the B-17 landing on 1 main wheel is real. The plane had a hydraulic failure during the filming and was forced to land on 1 main wheel. The plane was heavily damanged but was repaired and flew again, but not until after the movie was completed.

I was about half way through the movie when I realized that although Rene was good, she would not have been my first choice for the role as Bridget Jones.

My first choice would have been Letitia Dean (Sharon) from the BBC Soap Opera Eastenders. Just watch her one the TV sometime and you'll know why.

Still, even though it had the wrong person in the lead I enjoyed the movie.

I've read many of the comments about Godspell. I saw the movie when it was first released (1973) and enjoyed it very much. It was a fun movie to watch and I enjoyed the soundtrack.

Since then I've seen a road-show production, several High School productions (which I understand the ACLU won't let be done anymore - Separation of Church and State), and several productions by Churches - the most recent one last weekend in Stafford, VA.

While the movie lacks the intimacy of the stage it is still a good production that captures the essence of the stage production.

Back when Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar were first on the scene, (Godspell on the stage and Jesus Christ Superstar was a concert production) there was a lot of talk about their being sacrilege by the various churches. I don't think the world, or at least most churches, was ready for a smiling, happy Jesus who could make his disciples laugh and amuse his following. Add the outlandish costumes and makeup. Jesus as a clown, entertaining the masses...

The question was put to none other than the Rev. Billy Graham (if I recall correctly) about both of them. He said he hadn't seen (or heard) either of them, but he wouldn't condemn either production because it was presenting the Gospel in a way that the young people seemed to understand. Enough said on that!

My own personal preference between Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar has always been Godspell because I liked the easy way the message was presented. I always felt Godspell ended with hope while Jesus Christ Superstar left you wondering.

The tunes in Godspell were more singable than those in Jesus Christ Superstar. We've even sung some of them ('Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord' and 'Day by Day') in a Baptist Church as a Choir special.

The costumes, while very hippy, reflected the times. It was still a time of rebellion when the stage and movie were produced. I didn't have any problem with the costumes then and I still don't after viewing it again just a few days ago. The most recent production I saw (last weekend) used costumes that could have been used in "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown" but they were still used effectively.

Overall the production was quite good. The New York City settings while well known were also well used. I don't know how they managed to get the city so devoid of people but even that's used quite effectively. The World Trade Center was still under construction when Godspell was filmed so that adds some tragic elements in light of recent events.

The cast was relatively unknown at the time the movie was made. I've seen many comments about Victor Garber's fame since Titanic but he had been in other movies and TV shows. I've also watched the late Lynne Thigpen's career (she died just recently) with interest as she progressed into a fine actress. I wondered why so many of them didn't go onto other productions since they seemed to be so talented.

My two sons (both under 10) and my wife watched the movie the day after seeing the production on stage. They both enjoyed the movie and the only question they had was why the movie and the stage show had some different music and the sequences (parables) were not in the same order. I couldn't answer that question.

It was a good, enjoyable, movie. Entertaining with a message.