Judger Reviews

The Visitor (I) (2007)

Not possible

[2 May 2008]

People that view this movie need to be aware that the events portrayed are unlikely in general and impossible to have occurred in NYC.

New York City has a policy of not inquiring about immigration status and reporting on immigration violations to the INS so as to not discourage cooperation with the Police. This policy has remained in place despite a 1996 Federal ban on "Sanctuary Laws" that protect illegal immigrants from being reported to the Feds.

In 2003, Mayor Bloomberg made a minor change in the policy to allow NYC employees to inquire about immigration status, but only during the process of awarding benefits.

This is an extremely controversial policy and I would be shocked if the makers of the film were not aware of it.

The Bill of Rights (1939)

Entertaining "cartoon" version of history

[6/10 · 13 March 2005]

This little film was shown on Turner Classic Movies (TCM) as part of their "One Reel Wonders" series.

There was a lot of very good history told in this story of how the concepts enshrined in the Bill of Rights grew out of the American Revolution. However, the good history is wrapped in a broad cartoonish story with sweeping caricatures.

In a nutshell, Founding Fathers good and British rulers bad. Interestingly, the story does attempt to draw a distinction between the British rulers, embodied in the Virginia Governor and King George, and the British people by portraying Edmund Burke's famous speech before Parliament in support of the colonists.

With the possible exception of the "The Patriot", you don't see this type of raw patriotic fare anymore from Hollywood. And for good reason. Modern sensibilities have to be struck by the hypocrisy of the Virigina landed gentry demanding their freedom while denying freedom to the negro slaves.

However, I believe that the reluctance to paint history in such broad is strokes is one reason that children are woefully ignorant of history and so many Americans are unappreciative the great heritage that we all profit from.

Education must begin with the simplistic before it can address the complex. By focusing only on complex and contradictory issues, such as how Thomas Jefferson could call for the freeing slaves while not free many of his own, we lose sight of the obvious. From today's histories you would never know that prior to Jefferson there was no abolitionist movement at all and he was unquestionably its inspirational founder. The fact that he was a flawed man doesn't change that.

Simply speaking, yes indeed, the individual rights enshrined in the bill of rights are very good and the alternative can be very bad.

We could do worse than show this film to our kids.

Nichols (1971–1972)

What an ending!

[19 July 2003]

This seems to be a forgotten series, but like the other comment I remember being really taken by it.

What I will never forget is the series finale. Very unexpectedly, James Garner's character (Nichols)is killed. I forget the details, but he was shot and blown off his feet some distance.

That made an impression on me at time.

The twist was that Nichols had a twin who appeared to be taking over the lead of the story. I guess they were considering retooling the show and keeping it on the air with a character with a different personality.

That didn't happen, but it was as series finale that I'll never forget!

Path to War (2002 TV Movie)

Portrait of a Debacle

[8/10 · 28 May 2002]

This movie is a painful watch for those of us who lost loved ones in Vietnam. I was just eleven when my oldest brother was killed there, but his loss still resonates through my life.

The film explores the decision making in the Johnson Administration that led to horror and stalemate in Vietnam. Based on the promos for the movie, the people in charge of the production have a liberal bent, but I have to give them credit. The film tells the story straight, which is the tale of an unmitigated disaster.

On a personal note, I knew Alec Baldwin in college and have followed his career closely. I disagree with his political views, but I have to give him credit for an excellent portrayal of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. He displays the warts and failings without demonizing the man.

The liberals would love to shift responsibility for the War away from Lyndon Johnson so they can resurrect him as the leader of the Great Society. To some extent, Johnson is portrayed as a victim of his advisors and circumstance.

However, the film gives evidence to what I've felt for a long time. The buck stops with the President. At several points in the film, the military and his advisors tell him what it would take to win the war, such as cutting off the supply lines in Cambodia and bombing the dikes in North Vietnam. Johnson rejects the advice for political reasons, which may have been valid. He was afraid of reactions by Russia, China and the public. I'm not sure Johnson was correct about the reactions he feared, he had to accept them or not to proceed with the War at all. Instead, he demanded a different solution. What he got from Westmoreland and McNamara was by definition plan B, a plan that they thought "could" work not would work.

Instead of an all out campaign on North Vietnam, they relied on a massive show of manpower in the South and highly selective bombing of the North. Targets were personally approved by McNamara and reviewed with the President. Hit that factory, no don't you'll hit a school up the road. The school becomes a metaphor for the slippery slope, and it eventually succumbs to US bombs.

When it became clear, relatively early in the war, that it was not working they had no plan C. Only more and more of the flawed plan. The consensus these days is that the war was "unwinnable". I really don't think this film proves that case, and history simply does not provide for "do overs".

The movie illustrates what we basically already knew: that Johnson was a Captain with an unsteady hand who set an unsure course, and risked foundering rather than turn back.

Spider-Man (2002)

Can't wait for the sequel

[9/10 · 3 May 2002]

My son works in a movie theatre and we were able to go to an advanced screening last night.

Wow! It was kind of funny being a theater where they were smoking, drinking beer and eating Wendy's. It actually didn't bother me, despite being an old fart, I kind of enjoyed being with a rowdy crowd

It was a terrific movie, a real crowd pleaser. If you don't like this film, you have no business being at a movie based on a comic book. The movie reminds you a little of the first Batman film, partly because Danny Elfman did the music for both films, partly because of the awesome use of visuals and a city as a virtual character in the story, and partly because of similarities in the storyline. Overall, this is a much better movie than Batman. It's witty, well acted, has state of the art special effects and puts the effects to the exactly the right use.

Most of all, the movie captures the essence of the Comic. On the surface, Spider-man is just a blending of the Superman and Batman story. What made it unique, however, was that behind the hero was a less than super everyman who didn't always have his personal life in order and was misunderstood by the public.

The film gets this just right, and has a lot of fun with it. The transformation of Parker from high school geek to Spidey is handled perfectly, with great humor. There is also a parallel transformation of upright businessman Norman Osborne into the insanely maniacal Green Goblin.

In lesser hands, this could seem stupid and trite. Instead, the fast pace, great visuals, awesome score and solid acting make it easy to set aside the implausible premise and just enjoy the ride.

The music and special effects should get top billing, but they aren't just thrown at you for their own sake. They are there to advance the story. The makers of this film were smart enough to employ an excellent cast, and give them just enough to do to make you care about the characters.

The movie ends with the premise for the sequel all setup. I can hardly wait!

Baby Snatcher (1992 TV Movie)

Compelling, if standard fare

[6/10 · 13 July 2000]

This film illustrates why the "torn from today's headlines, woman in trouble" genre is such staple for made for TV flicks.

There is nothing particularly exceptional about this film, yet it is very compelling story. Not that the cast, that included some very good actors, are bad. It's just they are not the one's the carry this story. This is a plot driven tale that tugs at the most basic human emotions and there is nothing too subtle about it. The makers of this film were smart enough to tell this story very cleanly and not get in the way.

Longitude (2000)

Remarkably Good

[9/10 · 12 July 2000]

Who would of thought that a movie about Longitude could be so engaging? Great acting and a compelling story telling turn an historical footnote into a great drama.

The story flip flops back and forth between the life of a shell shocked (literally) 20th century academic and the tale of an 18th century clockmaker, John Harrison, obsessed with winning the Prize of Queen Anne for calculating longitude.

The surprising part is that the two loosely related plot lines work so well together, despite frequent and rapid cuts back and forth. This is a tribute to the great acting skills of the cast, including Jeremy Irons as the 20th century academic. At times, you have to wonder what the heck Iron's struggles with sanity have to do with the 18th century story, but it all seems to quietly tie together in the end.

Harrison knows that if he can develop an accurate watch, solving longitude was a breeze. This may seem academic, but the lives of British seamen were literally at stake. Developing an accurate timepiece was a far more difficult task than we can today imagine, and Harrison faced a skeptical board of theoreticians who preferred more complex scientific solutions than they thought could be provided by a humble clockmaker. The board utterly fails to grasp that the simple solution is the product of a profoundly complex and innovative device.

We think so highly of the great technological achievements of our times, and they are great. We need to be reminded from time to time, as this film does so well, that the breakthroughs of other generations were in there time quite profound. Moreover, we would not be where we are today without them. As the great Sir Issac Newton once said, "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the backs of giants".

Cutter to Houston (1983)

Great young cast in a short lived series

[13 March 2000]

This was a very short lived series that had great promise. Shelly Hack and Jim Metzler with the "name" actors in the series, but a young Alec Baldwin really stood out.

The premise of doctors in a Houston trauma unit was pretty routine, but the cast seemed to give the show life. Unfortunately, the show was buried in a bad timeslot and never really had a shot.

The Americanization of Emily (1964)

An Absolute Classic

[10/10 · 13 March 2000]

Unlike most WWII movies of this era, this movie wasn't afraid to take a dark but witty look at military establishment.

James Coburn character takes seriously a delusional Admiral (the great Melvin Douglas) who conceives of a "Tomb of the Unknown Sailor" Coburn assigns a devoutly un-heroic James Garner to storm Normandy Beach to film and retrieve the body of the first sailor killed on D-Day. In an unforgettable scene, a very intoxicated Keenan Wynne is assigned to the project and responds by saying "I may be drunk, but I'm not THAT drunk!".

The writing and dialog are some of the most intelligent and clever that you will ever see in a movie. Near the end of the movie, Julie Andrew gives a brilliant speach that takes Garner's anti-heroic philosophy and spins it back to him in a clever and unexpected way.

Bang the Drum Slowly (1973)

A movie find

[9/10 · 6 October 1999]

I first saw this movie when it was first released to TV in the early '70s. Although I had seen De Niro in some films, such as Mean Streets, he was really unrecognizable in this part as a Georgia Hillbilly. At the time, I thought the film was insightful, funny and extraordinarily touching.

I've seen he film several times over the years, and each time I've found the movie to be even more entertaining and moving. When a movie deals effectively with real life, as this does, the viewer will find different insights at different stages of their own life. The first time I saw it, I was struck by the insights into the world of baseball. As I've aged, I'm more impressed by the film's insight into the human condition.