Change Your Image
sindiana-28257
Reviews
The Four Feathers (2002)
Almost on par with the recent Lone Ranger and Green Hornet movies.
The most just rating is a comparison to previous iterations, foremost on my mind the book, and by this metric the film performs poorly.
I don't find fault with the actors, so much as the writers, and to a lessor extent the director.
Thw film opens with a parallelism between sport and war, cutting down on the backstory of the main character and his military lineage and the expectations of his father, to build a sense of camaraderie, achieving one admirably, but no doubt erring somewhat in the sacrifice of the proper measure of Victorian propriety. I thought it frankly influenced by the Gilbert and Sullivan scene of Chariots of Fire, which though also an Empire era film, takes place in a different time period.
And personally, I think Kate Hudson is ravishing here.
Where the film really starts to fall apart, is when they leave England.
Quite frankly, this film is in a higher taxon than mere political correctness. It is a white guilt film, joining such others like the recent Green Hornet and Lone Ranger films, where a perfectly good hero is ruined and made to play second fiddle to whatever minority character can be found, whether or not that character had really been done any injustice.
The good whites must establish their bona fides by preventing their evil brethren from hurting or impugning the other races, it seems. The bad ones, well, we don't care what happens to them, do we?
The photography is not exactly Lawrence of Arabia but pretty uninspired. One scene has the Mahdi's forces rise up from their hiding places underneath the sand, where they would have been cooking quite well. I saw this same scene more or less in the Costner Robin Hood film, in temperate England where it made more sense.
There are many continuity errors.
The main character seems to bumble from one scene to another, saved each time by his more heavily pigmented and thus more capable friend. Not an Arab, as in the book, but a black to more properly service the feelings of white guilt. He is tied to a post and whipped like a slave by an evil white, in one seemingly meant to be cathartic scene.
Our new main character, spends a lot of time shirtless to show off his black skin and impressive muscles, but let us not forget this is an equatorial sun, and no man in his right mind would be caught shirtless.
Of course, all this is really forgetting that it was the Arabs who were the slavers and the British who fought them (under Christain influence, no less!) to destroy the slave trade, as much as was practical, for one can still find slaves today in many parts of the world.
The one likable British soldier, with one or two good scenes, is the blind man, a character performed admirably. But, alas, they leave out the small homage to the blind traveler (a real life character who traveled thousands of miles, sightlessly, on his own) that was in the much superior book.
If one wants to see a movie version, the '39 film is a good adaptation.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
The force awakens. The audience is put to sleep.
"A New Hope" had a very gentle fairytale-like segway "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." that lulled the audience in. By contrast this film, which follows the original trilogy, feels very jarring and discordant with it. Wasn't the Empire defeated, after all? How did what must be a smaller force have the resources to build a much bigger, planet- sized death star? And why did it need to be bigger?
Stylistically, (other than BB-8) this is a very lazy film. Desert Planet. Ice planet/death star. Nazi iconology.
Plotwise, it is also very lazy. Other than the stormtrooper defecting (very humanistic, countervails some of the missteps of faceless, stakeless clone and droid armies), the rest of the plot is pure rehash, but much more filled with holes.
Princess Leia in her day was enough. Rey is simply heroine ad nauseum: a contrived apology to women everywhere. (Not that Star Wars needs to apologize) Not only does she need no rescuing; she even gives a sound thrashing to the guy who tried to rescue her. BTW, she is also a mechanical genius, a heck of a firsttime pilot, a jedi master (without any training or practice). Did I mention she knows droid, as well as wookie- speak? (perhaps just to move the plot along?)
The Emperor and Vader exuded subtle menace out of every pore. Our villains here don't. Ren needs to be angry and have hissy fits. Snoke's hologram needs to be gigantic.
Once again, the whole darn galaxy seems to revolve around the Skywalker family and the evil and good that it does. Once again, all we have is orphans and broken families. No real, functional, biological family. Remember when Han and Leia had a thing together? Well, it was really just a fling, even though they had son.
This movie is not, as some have said, better than RotJ. Philosophically, it is debatable if it is even worse movie than the prequels, which had at least one good new villain (Darth Maul), one good saber fight, and one memorable new score (duel of the fates). Thankfully, there are no midichlorians, yet there isn't much reverence for the Force: Rey is instant master. Gone too are the child actors destroying the mystery of beloved villains like Fett and Vader.
No one could say no to Lucas; someone should have said no to Abrams.
Dolly Parton's Coat of Many Colors (2015)
Values on TV!
I watched this movie on a whim, without any foreknowledge of it, and was pleasantly surprised.
Too often, producers search for universal appeal by eschewing universal truths. This film is a very rare exception. Not only does it target the Christian viewer, but it does so with a fairly good narrative, which centers on family, love, and the power of redemption.
The acting is good, and the beautiful Appalachian scenery and talented singing are both notable.
There are references to the Bible, as well as one to Lucy Maud Montgomery (the writer of "Anne of Green Gables"). I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see open appeals to faith on TV.
By contrast, I recently saw an animated Christmas special which was blatantly ashamed of Christmas, but somehow still misappropriated the word in its title. "Coat" is not properly a Christmas special, as it does not specifically revolve around that day, but, if anything, this helps prevent it from falling into clichés.
How Murray Saved Christmas (2014)
A Christmas special which is embarrassed about Christmas.
This special really highlights the emptiness of forced secularism. It could more properly be called "How Murray Saved the Winter Solstice", if not for its exploitation of the word Christmas.
It is composed of a lot of rhyming but not much else. Those who are looking for a meaningful character arc, an original plot, or anything approaching a spiritual significance will be deeply disappointed.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!
Our story begins in a snowy town which seems to have been constructed specifically to trivialize Christmas and to put it among the other holidays for Federal and state workers/greeting card/parade/ethnic celebration/practical joke days.
Even the Santa we are introduced to makes one question why people celebrate Christmas. He is quite honestly a forceful, robber-baron type, without any of the redeeming qualities of Krampus. He virtually breaks the back of his worker elves, while offering them hot cocoa (but only at an outrageous price.)
Since he is clearly such a jerk, there are several non-sequiturs here. Firstmost: why does he even give gifts to children? Secondly, how did he attract such a multi-ethic workforce? (as any rational person would realize they would have had to immigrate and there isn't much attractive about the Far North) Also, how does he pay his elves? (he must pay them—if he is trying to make money off them). And lastly, if he is such a slave- driver, why is it the main elf we are introduced to seems to be such a loafer?
Most of the audience is probably glad when he gets punched in the face and knocked out, setting up a empty place for our titular protagonist. I won't outline the rest of the plot—because there isn't one.
There's a slight yuck factor throughout the proceedings. Cupid is bare- bottomed. Diaper rash is mentioned—for both the old year and new. The Lord's Prayer (the lone mention approaching religious significance) is said to have been burped. There's a tired old joke about sexuality based on a dumb pun. (Yes, this is a Christmas special where sexuality is discussed). Did I mention, the groundhog (Groundhog Day) is a Woody Allen- type?
There's an obvious attempt to be inclusive here. Murray ends up giving toys to both the good and bad, even to people who don't celebrate Christmas (and whose ancestors never have!). Going back to the multi- ethnic elves: who the heck ever wanted to be a Christmas elf?
Five years from now this will be long-forgotten.