logos1 Reviews

Ad Astra (2019)

2001 Meets Apocalypse Now

[7/10 · 30 September 2019]

Let me start by saying I was not sorry that I saw this movie. Going for it has attractive visuals, some genuinely tense moments, and it still holds your attention to the end. Against those strengths lies an often plodding pace, bad science to the point of incredulity, characters whom we only get glimpses of and are left wanting more (even, I would say, Brad Pitt's Roy McBride).

The two films that came immediately to mind while watching it were 2001 - A Space Odyssey and Apocalypse Now. 2001 because of the unsubtle commercialization of space shown (here even more over the top) and the mystery lying in the outskirts of the solar system.

Apocalypse Now for the constant references to an unseen character whose intentions are uncertain (Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, Tommy Lee Jones' Clifford McBride here) and who believes himself to be right in the face of all who say otherwise. That character is only truly revealed at the end of the movie. A further parallel, the main character is on a mission to end his life.

The movie is frustrating in many ways because it clearly has the potential to be more - hence a 7 instead of an 8 or a 9. But it's still worth watching.

Spectre (I) (2015)

We've been here before, haven't we?

[7/10 · 30 November 2015]

I am a big Bond fan and was disappointed that I hadn't had a chance to see this installment (which looked great in the promos) until last weekend.

While I wouldn't call this a disappointment by any stretch I would characterize it as formulaic. In some ways the picture is so busy paying homage to the Bonds of days gone by (including every one of Daniel Craig's turns) that it comes off a bit plug and play. Even the fight scenes come off as overly choreographed. The sense is that something from a previous Bond movie is being re-enacted at almost every turn.

None of that is to say that this is not a hugely entertaining movie - it is. Daniel Craig does Bond better than just about anybody else whose tried aside from Sean Connery and he is in fine form here. Little things like the adjustment of his cuff links prior to pursuing and killing a target just ooze Bond style. If the scenes are familiar there is also a comfort in that. Bond as renegade outside the system is getting a little tired (see Quantum of Solace), though.

Gadgets (and gadget cars) make a comeback in this installment as well to great effect. That said car ultimately ends up at the bottom of the Tiber River is also classic Bond. Other familiar elements include a hulking villain and a train fight with said villain (hello From Russia with Love). There is even a cameo by the same model Rolls Royce that Goldfinger drove.

Christoph Waltz as the villain is quietly menacing which he does as well here as in Inglorious Basterds. However, his screen time is all too brief and Bond's foiling his Moroccan fortress comes all too easily and unbelievably. Lea Sedoux is great as an archetypical Bond girl. Monica Belucci's turn is surprisingly short given the buildup. Bond's comrades including Ralph Fiennes' M do a credible job but they, too, feel a bit set piece.

One of the things that does standout about this film is the cinematography. From Rome at night to snowy Alps to the Moroccan desert the scenery is gorgeous and well shot.

In short this is a good but not great and certainly not original Bond film. Worth the watch but keep your expectations in line.

When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions (2008)

Nicely Done Summary of NASA's History

[9/10 · 12 March 2012]

As a certified space geek, I'm not sure how I missed this when it first aired, but I just finished watching the whole series on Netflix and was very impressed.

This series broke some ground that other similar documentaries have not. With respect to Apollo, perhaps the most novel thing was that they got Neil Armstrong to contribute commentary which he has steadfastly refused to do for any of the other documentaries such as "In the Shadow of the Moon" or "The Wonder of it All".

The astronaut commentary in general was excellent. The examination of Mercury was far better than, say, The Right Stuff. The focus on the vital role that Gemini played in the development of the capability to land on the moon was also very welcome. I enjoyed hearing from astronauts like Jim McDivitt, who was actually more highly regarded than Armstrong in his class, who have been absent from similar documentaries. It was good to hear from Frank Borman and Bill Anders as well as they, too, have been absent for the most part. The tip of the cap to Skylab was good, too. Both Pete Conrad and Alan Bean have said they were more proud of their work on Skylab than on Apollo 12 where they walked on the moon.

The coverage of the later years was excellent as well. Some nice work on the development of the Shuttle. Good summaries and insight into both the Challenger and Columbia tragedies. I had forgotten what a scandal the initial Hubble deployment was and how much effort it took to fix it (and how much was on the line with the repair).

People have questioned the omission of Apollo 15 and David Scott from coverage and the commentary. I wondered about that as well and missed it as it was one of my favorite missions and, as others have said, was the first use of the rover. Those who posited that it had to do with the stamp scandal may be right. However,aside from NASA's collective memory being long, it may also have been a case that the Discovery Channel simply wasn't willing to pay him enough (or anything) for his appearance and he refused. That would be in keeping with the portrayal of him in Deke Slayton's autobiography.

Some people have really been rough on the music for the series written by Richard Blair-Oliphant. I actually liked the music and thought it set a good background for most of the story. To each his own, I suppose.

On balance, though, an excellent piece of work and a good orientation for anybody who would like an overview of NASA's manned space flight history. It's a shame that that history has come to a halt.

Moneyball (2011)

I loved it - you might not

[8/10 · 10 October 2011]

Being a baseball fan and longtime reader of The Baseball Abstract by Bill James, this was a movie I knew there was a good chance I would like. Having now seen it, I'm happy to report that it did not disappoint.

Billy Beane's application of baseball metrics I had long believed in and then experiencing success with it was a vindication of the way I looked at baseball (often to the derision of my other baseball fan friends). As such, this is an engrossing and compelling story to me. I remember well the details and actual people involved. Given all that, it could still have been done poorly but, happily, it was not.

Brad Pitt is compelling as Beane and Jonah Hill is a scene stealer as Peter Brand, the nerdy statistics analyst who serves as Beane's inspiration to try something different and then his right hand man. Some of the peripherals of the story (Beane's personal life, for instance) could have been tightened up but serve to chronicle the pressure on Beane from all sides as his new approach fails miserably at first.

The movie kept me interested throughout and told a story I already knew in a compelling way, at least to me who knew the background. A word of warning, though, my family who saw it with me was evenly divided between sports fans and non-sports fans, with the non-sports fans finding it boring and way too long.

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

It took me a while to like this film

[7/10 · 11 April 2011]

First off, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a huge Tom Clancy fan - so much so, that this was the only one of his early novels that I didn't originally buy in hardback the week (or even the day) it came out.

That being the case, there was almost no way for the film version of The Hunt for Red October not to disappoint me. And, yes, I was duly disappointed by the film when it was first released as, on a number of key points, it wanders from the novel in ways that blunt the believability of Clancy's narrative and I was furious at the choice of Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan.

However, having gotten over my initial inevitable disappointment with the film, I watched it several years later and was surprised how much more I liked it. I just watched it again on Netflix and have warmed even more to it now 21 years after its release.

Yes, while Clancy's story is at least plausible in most respects there are a number of small things, particularly about the Navy, in this film that make you roll your eyes. But, in all fairness, a film with high fidelity to the book would last no less than 3 hours and probably closer to 4 and be completely commercially unviable.

Taken on its own merits, this is an entertaining and engrossing film that will not lose the part of the audience who really could not care less about military accuracy. Sean Connery does a wonderful job as Ramius, accent notwithstanding. He does border on the almost mystical at times (like with a torpedo chasing him in an underwater canyon) but for the most part towers over everyone else in every scene he's in. Even Baldwin is palatable in his portrayal of Ryan. I actually agree with others that he's much more believable than Harrison Ford in the role.

And this is, by far and away, the best adaptation of a Clancy novel (don't get me started on the disaster that is Clear and Present Danger). As much as I've warmed to it, however, it still remains an object lesson in the old adage that if you want to enjoy both the movie and the book, see the movie first. The book's still better here.

Spy Game (2001)

Enjoyable and thrilling escapism

[7/10 · 23 November 2010]

I just watched this movie again on Netflix and was reminded how much I liked it. Robert Redford turns in one of his better later performances and is a believable character as the CIA field agent Nathan Muir on his last day. Brad Pitt, too, gives one of his better turns as Tom Bishop, an operative recruited by Muir with growing disillusionment.

The two of them are reason enough to watch this. In typical Scott fashion, the story moves fairly quickly and the camera angles border on producing motion sickness as they swirl around the characters (much like scenes from Man on Fire). If you watch this without thinking too much about it but rather allow yourself to get caught up in the finer points of the story, you will find the movie to be an enjoyable diversion.

However, the film cannot rise above 7 out of 10 because the story itself does not bear up under anything resembling close inspection. The goofs that are chronicled on this site give a pretty good accounting of the things that undermine the story's believability. You don't have to follow world events very closely to know that the U.S. never had an embassy in Hong Kong (or in West Berlin, not technically ever a part of West Germany, for that matter). For those who speak German, using Hungarians to pose as "Vopos" (Volkspolizei - East German Police) is a disappointment. From the goofs, apparently those facile in Chinese will also be disappointed.

You can dwell on such things and allow them to spoil the movie for you. However, if you chose to overlook the absurdities, this is an enjoyable tale with compelling characters.

The Losers (I) (2010)

Like the A Team. Only not as good.

[6/10 · 21 July 2010]

I don't know if I'd appreciate adaptations like this one more or less if I were familiar with the original comic which generated it. Not being familiar with the original, I found this a not altogether unpleasant diversion, but pretty thin and predictable.

I watched it because I liked the basic premise (soldiers burned and looking for revenge) and Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Zoe Saldana. Unfortunately, Morgan was put to much better use in the last comic adaptation he appeared in (Watchmen) and Saldana was much deeper and more likable in Star Trek.

The action's not bad in this, but the plot is even less believable than that of the A Team (which is purposely fanciful to some degree). The bad guy is over the top evil, having no qualms about wiping out 25 children, and is getting a quasi sci-fi weapon. The bulk of the movie is taken up by Morgan and his comrades seeking revenge against him and redemption with the help of Saldana.

There are a couple of twists that come across as having been telegraphed which don't deepen a shallow plot very much. It's not bad as mindless diversion, but don't expect much more.

Up in the Air (I) (2009)

Over-hyped and too subtle as satire

[6/10 · 28 June 2010]

Given the relentless marketing that accompanied this movie into theaters, expectations are necessarily going to be high. Unfortunately, for me those expectations set the bar too high for something I might have found more enjoyable absent the hype.

Part of what made it hard for me to enjoy this movie was that virtually every character was over the top. On reflection, I see that that they were, in fact, caricatures and not meant to be believable characters. However that satirical aspect was a bit too subtle and they all came across as simply "jumping the shark", as it were. It wasn't billed as satire, it was billed as a tour de force for George Clooney and, as such, it falls somewhat short.

Seen in the right frame of mind, I think this movie could be an enjoyable diversion. However, if you are expecting the movie of the year (or a feel good movie), you'll likely be disappointed.

The Pacific (2010)

Band of Brothers, this ain't

[7/10 · 19 May 2010]

When something bills itself as being produced by the same people who made Band of Brothers and also focuses on World War II, comparisons are more than inevitable, they're essentially demanded. And this production suffers greatly in comparison to Band of Brothers.

Unlike Band of Brothers, which was a tight story following one group of men from training through D-Day, The Pacific meanders widely to its detriment. It takes several episodes to even figure out who is who beyond the three main characters (and even, to some extent, who they are). It wasn't until the end where we get the obligatory "what happened to them" that I was even fully able to get some characters and their names fully straight.

Ironically, it probably over develops John Basilone (Jon Seda) and spends much of an episode focusing on him in the States. It was somewhat interesting, but not really what one would expect having watched Band of Brothers. Another whole episode is devoted to liberty in Melbourne, Australia. Again, not altogether bad in and of itself, but hardly a WW II. movie.

As for the war recreations, Tom Hanks' narration summarizes much but we end up skipping over much of the action. The battle scenes themselves, though, are very well done and do a good job of conveying the misery that was the war in the Pacific.

Having said all that, much of this is worth watching. I've actually studied some of the WW II in the Pacific but mostly focusing on air and sea battles. I learned a few things about some of the land fighting from this. The redeeming aspects to it are why I gave it a 7.

My sense is that, faced with a huge subject matter, the Producers had a hard time knowing what to put in. I'm guessing using two books as source material instead of one (as in Band of Brothers) didn't help, either. One way or another, though, this needed to be tighter and more focused. They could have tackled less ground in 5 episodes and it would have been better. Or, they could have spent more time actually in The Pacific and helped us get to know more characters better. The middle road they chose between those two options left those of us with very high expectations from Band of Brothers disappointed.

Trainspotting (1996)

It will grow on you

[8/10 · 26 February 2010]

I finally got around to watching this movie to see what all the fuss was about. I will admit that upon the first viewing, like many others who have reviewed it here, I did not like the film that much. I could see where it was going for laughs but I couldn't get too far past my visceral reaction to seeing people shoot up heroin. Plus, I'll admit I had some difficulty following it with the thick Scottish brogue.

However, upon a second viewing,I picked many more things up and it got to be much more humorous and clever, albeit still quite dark. It's not for the faint of heart, but if you can get yourself to look at it the right way, then the language and even the sex doesn't seem gratuitous but even integral to the movie.

Robert Carlyle is great as Begbie (I love the scene in the bar where he's recounting his game of pool with Tommy). It's really hard to believe that this is the same actor who played Renard in the The World is Not Enough just two years later. Ewan MacGregor simultaneously plays repulsive and engaging very well. Kelly Macdonald's speech outside the nightclub to him is also one of the film's better moments.

In all, it gets richer and richer with successive viewings. It will never be everyone's cup of tea, but it's worth the attention its received.

Body of Lies (2008)

Impressive visually but disjointed and long winded

[6/10 · 2 November 2009]

As a visual spectacle, Body of Lies often impresses. Leonardo DiCaprio's performance also has its moments in the movie. For other commentators, those factors seem to be sufficient to rate it highly. I, on the other hand, was tempted to rate it lower than 6 as I found it to fall completely flat as entertainment.

The movie is simply too long and too disjointed to be entertaining. It has an impressive buildup that whets your appetite for a great climax that never really comes. Even the torture scene referred to in other reviews was not credible for me.

It takes a long time for this movie to, ultimately, get nowhere. Russell Crowe is largely wasted in an unlikable, one-dimensional role. There are moments of excitement that make for great trailer material in this movie, but the thread that would tie them all together is not sufficiently compelling. My whole family agreed that they wished we'd rented something else.

An American Carol (2008)

Unfortunately, the whole is less than the sum of the parts

[6/10 · 9 October 2008]

I am a conservative who wanted to like this movie. I love Kelsey Grammar and a number of the others who make what amount to cameos in this movie. Unfortunately, even given all that, I can't enthusiastically recommend this film.

The movie certainly has its moments, though you have to be in the right frame of mind to appreciate them. The terrorist scene at the beginning was humorous, particularly the "instructional video." There were moments where I laughed out loud and other parts that were clever (moovealong.org being among them).

However, the movie as a whole has a greatly disjointed feel to it. Many of the scenes would have been funnier if they were tighter and the "Christmas carol" spirit motif was very unevenly applied. It just felt like some more effort on the writing end combined with some further editing and they could have created something much better from the general concept.

On the whole, I wish I'd waited for the DVD.