You may wonder what films we’ve been watching the last month. I got the Clint Eastwood collection for Christmas, and with some added additional Eastwood films (such as the No Name Spaghetti Westerns), worked through most of the filmography of Clint Eastwood. Clint primarily portrayed two characters, the first being the silent cowboy who shows up from nowhere and disappears into the sunset. In the meantime, he could shoot a handgun with precise accuracy and immense speed, thus terminating all opponents. His western films would be labeled revisionist, in that the good guys were the indians and the outlaws, and the bad guys were the government officials. Older westerns would have a moral theme, but revisionist westerns remain morally ambiguous. Thus, John Wayne would typically refuse to star in Eastwood’s films as an objection to the revisionist genre (although John Wayne rarely portrayed a morally pure character himself).

The other character of Clint is the quiet cop or detective who bucks authority, somehow seems to have the criminal figured out beforehand, usually has incompetent bosses and political figures telling him what to do, and Clint eventually solving the issue by working around the authority, usually terminating the criminals.

A lesser character of Clint seen is later years is the cranky old man, who knows better, but has to put up with the younger crowd. Such movies as Million Dollar Man and Gran Torino fit this category. Clint often has religious scenes, usually Catholic, many of them with him contending with the priest, or going against the advice of the priest. In a very strong way, Eastwood suggests that being mister tough guy and standing up for yourself is the most important thing in life. All of his movies, regardless of his role, portray this character and theme. Sadly, as good as many of Clint’s films are, they all fail to offer any suggestion of a higher morality or virtue. It is just another form of Nietzsche’s Übermensch. Hitler would have loved Clint’s films.

I find that except for the spaghetti westerns and Dirty Harry series, Clint’s early films are generally quite bad. There is a significant improvement in the quality of his later films, though even then a moderate number are not worth watching a second time.

These films are reviewed mostly in the order in which they were watched, which was in alphabetical order. The chronological order would have been a more natural way to watch his films, but the alphabetical order allowed for a better mix-up of Clint’s films. Because of the length of this post, it is given in three sections.

Absolute Power ★★★★★

This is one of Eastwood’s later films, and is a mishmash of the Nixon scandal mixed with the scandals of the Clinton administration.  The president is observed by a break-in artist (Clint Eastwood) in a rape/murder, which is covered up by the secret service. Realizing that he (Clint) cannot go to the police to report the crime, he then devises the means of bringing down the president. The action is fast and suspenseful, and the plot is unpredictable but a touch realistic.

Any Which Way You Can ★

Clint Eastwood is a retired prize fighter, now pursued by the syndicate to do one last fight, against his own personal will. He, his orangutan, and girl friend eventually resolve matters. This is supposed to be a comedy, but we didn’t find it to be very funny, and really didn’t have any significant plot or objective.

Bird ★

Clint Eastwood does not star in this film. It is supposed to be a biographical sketch of Charlie Parker, one of the great Jazz saxophonists of the past. The action is very slow moving, and is constantly taking chronological jumps as Charlie relives his past before committing suicide. Betsy and I were unable to endure more than 40 minutes of this film.

Blood Work ★★★★

Clint Eastwood as aging FBI officer has a massive heart attack while chasing a man and requires a heart transplant. He eventually learns that the heart came from a murder victim, whose sister is now asking Clint to solve the case. The plot is great with multiple unexpected turns until the case is solved.

Bridges of Madison County ★★

The Red Green Show once commented that the Bridges of Madison County failed as a movie since nobody was killed, and none of the bridges were blown up. There is truth to that statement. The only reason this movie received two stars is that the acting by both Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep was superb. Two middle aged people are going through the remains of their just-deceased mother, and discover that many years ago she had an affair. This affair is the main body of film, which occurred when a photographer (Clint) stops at a farmhouse asking directions to a bridge. The remainder of the family is off to the Illinois State Fair, and so she then spends the next four days in an increasing relation with him and they separate for good. Many parts of the film go so slow that we had to fast forward them. It was torture to watch this film. The message of the film unavoidably states that anything is okay as long as nobody finds out. The higher values of truth and purity are forgotten.  This is not a film worth watching.

Bronco Billy ★★

Clint Eastwood stars in Bronco Billy, the ex-convict who is now head of a roving circus cowboy show. It’s a rather lame film, with various characters getting in trouble with themselves and the law, mixed in with a somewhat spastic rich lady whose husband runs off on her, and she is left to live with the low lives of the circus until she realizes that they have something she doesn’t have with her wealth.

Changeling ★★★★★

This is the last film Clint Eastwood produced, and he does not star in the film. Supposedly, this film is based off of a true event. Angela Jolie is a single mother with a 9 yo son in 1928 Los Angeles. The son is kidnapped, leading Angela to seek for the child using the LAPD. A child is produced, which is very clearly not the son, even though the LAPD insists that it is. When Angela pushes the issue, she is committed to an insane asylum. Through the work of a Presbyterian pastor who was fighting corruption in the police system, she is released, and eventually a reasonable clue is found as to what happened to her son. This movie is unusual for Clint Eastwood, in that Eastwood’s characters are usually police that take the law in their own hands since the city and courts are incapable of that function. The roles are here reversed, where the police are found to be too aggressive. The common theme in Clint’s movies is the ultimate corruption in government, and this point is well made in this movie. It is only wishful thinking to imagine that matters aren’t any better nowadays – just different.

City Heat ★★

Burt Reynolds is a private detective, and Clint a police lieutenant, Clint rescuing Burt from various entanglements of the syndicate, in a film set within big city gangster town of the prohibition 20’s. Clint definitely proves a better actor than Burt in this otherwise very mediocre film.

Coogan’s Bluff ★★

Clint Eastwood is an Arizona cop sent to NY to return a criminal that he caught (how he got to NY wasn’t explained) to bring back to Arizona for trial. In the process, the NY police give him great grief, the criminal gets away, and Clint goes on a lengthy manhunt process independent of the NY detective agency. Clint tends to sexually attack every female that comes into his presence, which I guess makes him cool.

Beguiled ★★

Clint Eastwood is now a wounded union soldier, who ends up in a private girls school at the end of the civil war. The head mistress ends up keeping him and nursing him back to health, all the while preparing him to be picked up by confederate soldiers to be hauled off to prison to die. Meanwhile, he falls in love with a number of the girls in the school, and is caught making love to one of the older students. This leads to a series of tragedies since he was caught, ultimately leading to his demise. Poor Clint.

Dead Pool ★★★★★

Clint stars in the last of the Dirty Harry series, and this film is at his mature best. Lists of celebrities were published with wagers as to the greatest number of people who would be dead in a given span of time. Started as an innocent game, it turned bad when it was realized that somebody was individually picking off characters on the list. Dirty Harry happens to be on the list, and proceeds to eventually find the killer and terminate him. A second story line is Clint having to contend with the press, including an obnoxious female.

Dirty Harry ★★★★★

This is the first Dirty Harry film with Clint Eastwood. A sniper if knocking off people in the city of San Francisco, with a monetary ransom to have the killing stopped.  The killer and Clint interact, and then is released on legal technicalities. The killer then frames Clint for police brutality. Eventually the killer hijacks a school bus with children, only to be rescued by the ever-resourceful Dirty Harry.

Eiger Sanction could have done better on the plot, with Clint acting as a retired hitman, called back into duty to the service of his country to knock off several killers involved in an international spy ring. Strangely, Clint needs to perform this action while climbing the north face of the Eiger. Clint eventually discovers that he was deceived but comes out in the best. The most spectacular part of this film with the video of the Eiger climb, which unfortunately led to the death of a climber assisting in the filming.

Enforcer ★★★★

This is the third Dirty film. Dirty Harry is teamed up with a female that he considers incompetent in an effort by the city to make the police force more diverse. This episode, they have to fight a militant revolutionary gang, that leads them all over the city and even out to Alcatraz, Clint also having to do battle with the SF mayor, until he is required to rescue him from the gang.

Escape from Alcatraz ★★★★★

One of Clint’s better films, illustrating a breakout from Alcatraz. The head jailor is in best form, as Patrick McGoohan (Secret Agent/The Prisoner). The acting is superb, the story line is superb, the description of the very inhuman life in prison is notable, and you end up cheering for the prisoners that got away.

Every Which Way But Loose ★

This film was absolutely awful. It is a prequel/sequel to Any Which Way You Can, with Clint acting as a prize street fighter. The entire film was nothing but casual sex (not seen visually), bad language, beer drinking, indiscriminate violence, but worse of all, country-western music. Clint falls in love with a country western singer who doesn’t let on that she has no interest in him, until he’s chased her all over the country. A sick motorcycle gang, renegade policeman, and others are after Clint. Ho-hum.

Few Dollars More ★★★★

Clint Eastwood starred in a number of spaghetti westerns in the late 1960’s, this being one of them, and also included in the “Man with No Name” trilogy, which includes “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”, and “Fist full of Dollars”. Here he teams up with Van Cleef as bounty hunters after the big nasty gang located along the border of the US and Mexico. Van Cleef has some awesome acting very much the equal of Clint, and a young Klaus Kinski shows up in this movie. The biggest winner in the Trilogy is the music of Ennio Morricone, who deserves an Oscar of his own for the genius of the accompanying music.

Firefox ★★★

Clint is a retired fighter pilot jock, called back from retirement to assist in the theft of a highly secretive high-tech stealth airplane of the Soviets (pre-1990). The graphics are good, the plot is suspenseful, the action is quite exciting, the acting is somewhat mediocre, and the reality of the plot is marginal, making the film a three-star. Though Clint does a better “top-gun” than Tom Cruise, between playing secret agent man, top-gun, and himself, he fails.

Fistful of Dollars ★★★★

Another of the spaghetti westerns, and the first of the No Name trilogy with music by Morricone.   Clint is a Whitey that rides into town along the Mexican border to find a feud between two clans is leading to the death of the town. By pitting the clans against each other, he manages to eliminate both clans. There is a wonderful mix of suspense and humor in this movie that makes up for an otherwise short story line.

Gauntlet ★★★★

Clint is a policeman in Phoenix sent to go up to Las Vegas in order to pick up a criminal to be delivered for testimony in court back in Phoenix. It ends up that both the police chief in Phoenix and the mob set him and his prisoner (Sondra Locke) up to be eliminated. There is much shooting and tough guy action as Clint and Sondra work their way back to Phoenix to establish real justice with the police chief. Much of the story line is not terribly believable, such as a bus driving through many streets of firearm, and Clint on a motorcycle escaping by bare centimeters firing from a sharpshooter in a helicoptor. But, things get blown up, so the movie is worth watching.

Good, Bad, and the Ugly ★★★★★

This is one of Eastwood’s best films, a spaghetti western and last of the “Man with no Name” trilogy, staged during the time of the civil war, where three gents, one being Clint, and another Van Cleef, are in search of buried gold. The tales of finding the clues to the location of the gold, the interactions of “the good, the bad, and the ugly” characters create suspense in a film that is entertaining even after watching a number of times.

Gran Torino ★★★★★

Betsy and I had low hopes at the start of this movie, thinking it was going to be just another Clint Eastwood “adoration of the fictitious self” movies. It looked like he was going to racing cars, or something of that sort. It instead turned out to be something quite other. Clint is a just widowed old man who had a heroic war past, but now sits on his porch drinking beer and smoking cigarettes and watching the neighborhood being taken over by foreigners. The next door neighbors are Hmong people. Slowly, he gets to know them, and eventually comes to their rescue by offering himself up totally for them. There are Catholic religious references throughout the film which suggests that Clint has no idea about true faith, but that doesn’t denegrate from this film, which actually suggests a moral lesson. I particularly liked the Clint character, a gnarly old man, similar to a few that I know.

Hang Em High ★★★★

Clint is a ex-lawman now rancher that was lynched and hung, only to rescued by a lawman in the Oklahoma territory. He is now out to get the nine men that lynched him, after he is re-made a lawman. Seeing much injustice in the system, including a couple of kids caught cattle rustling and hung, he finds it hard to adjust to his role in the system. He eventually gets most of the lynchers, but only after they shoot him up. The action line is very irregular, and incomplete, in that he doesn’t get all nine players. Also, there is a lengthy hanging scene where hymns were sung and the preacher active, all of which seemed to make mockery of religion, without realizing that that religion is what instilled a sense of justice to begin with.

Heartbreak Ridge ★★

Clint is an non-cooperative drill sergeant with war experience now assigned to a young group of Marines in boot camp. He establishes his presence going against authority, and eventually proves himself in the Grenada invasion. If Clint is supposed to be the Marine role model of the tough – guy, he fails miserably.

High Plains Drifter ★★★

Clint is now a no-name cowboy, that rides into a lonely town in the early west where the people refuse to defend themselves from roving gangs. An old gang is supposed to return to town, and they pay Clint to defend the town. For inexplicable reasons, he has flashbacks of a previous episode when the town allowed their sheriff to be whipped to death without lifting a finger. Clint gets even by knocking off the gang, but also by knocking off the town. Ho-hum.

Joe Kidd ★★

Just another Clint western, with him as a good-bad guy Joe Kidd, who is supposed to help a dishonest wealthy man knock off a renegade Mexican who seems to be doing nothing more than trying to honestly defend his land. Eventually Clint takes the side of the Mexican and helps knock off the rich dude and his henchmen.

Honkytonk Man ★

This is probably the worst Clint Eastwood movie of the bunch, with nothing good to say about it. Clint is a country singer in the depression 1930’s of Oklahoma. He wants to go to Nashville to sing in the grand ole Opry and takes along his nephew and uncle. On the way, he teaches his 11 yo nephew to drive, since he is too drunk to get behind the wheel. He then teaches his nephew to drink, steal, and visit whore houses. The movie has no redeeming moral lessons, and worst of all, the viewer has to be tortured with country music, even worse from Clint himself. Don’t waste your time on this film.

In the Line of Fire ★★★★

One of the late films of Clint, he is a secret service agent protecting the president. He is being tracked by an ex-CIA agent who plans on assassinating the president. In his typical role, Clint is the outsider who figures out eventually who the killer is and manages to stop the assassination by jumping in the line of fire. Though many of the elements of the movie are predictable, it does make suspense and is well filmed and acted.

Invictus ★★★★★

Clint directed but did not star in this film. The stars were Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon, both of whom had superb acting. This movie was based on a real historical event, though the details I’m sure were Hollywood fictions. It is the story of Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela, being released from prison and becoming president of the country, but being able to set aside the long-standing grievances of the past, using Rugby to spirit the nation into breaking down the racial divide. The movie is quite moving, and wonderfully enacted by Eastwood’s direction.

Kelly’s Heroes ★★★

This is a WWII not to be taken seriously, with many anachronistic elements, like Don Sutherland playing a 1960’s hippy. Actually, Don Sutherland was probably the funniest actor in the movie. A small group of GI’s discover that the Germans have a load of gold in a bank 30 miles across the front line. They work out an effort to retrieve this gold without their commanders knowing what was happening. The film had too many unreal aspects, such as an unorganized group simply breaking through the German offensive line, and a pile of gold sitting around practically unguarded. How they got a number of well known actors to participate in the movie is a mystery to me. It was pretty bad, but at times, funny.

Letters from Iwo Jima ★★★★

This is a story of the Iwo Jima from the viewpoint of the Japanese, and mostly from the eyes of a young kid who was a baker in Japan, but pulled away against his will to fight in the war. He remained one of the few survivors of the bloodbath. The movie was mostly in Japanese with under-titles. The filming was excellent. Clint directs but has no acting in this film. One wishes he would have cameoed himself like Alfred Hitchcock used to do.

Magnum Force ★★★★

Clint stars in the second Dirty Harry film in Magnum force. Clint is out to solve the mystery of a rash of assassinations of prime crime suspects that defy conviction. He eventually resolves that it is a group of four rookie cops led by in boss the lieutenant. There is lots of fast action and stunts making it enjoyable to watch, but is typical Dirty Harry.

Apparently this movie is based on a book relating a true story of a murder in Savannah, Georgia. Clint directs but does not show in the film – his daughter does some acting in the film. A upcoming extremely wealthy young man is convicted of murdering his employee. Much of the film takes place in the trial, where truths about the wealthy person are exploited, but eventually exonerating the man of murder save for self-defense. Many other themes are woven through the book includes a voodoo practitioner, a transvestite, wealthy society women and haute society life in Savannah. It gave one a good feel for the superficiality of life in the South, where appearances were more important than reality. I presume that unless one has read the book, the movie tends to drag a bit. The directing is superb, but many scenes did not contribute to the flow of the movie, though probably made sense in the book itself, such as the graveyard scenes. Many of Clint’s later movies are better than this one.

Million Dollar Baby ★★★

Clint runs a boxing center, and trains the pro boxers. He has a girl pestering him to have him become her trainer, which he initially refuses to do. She goes on to great success, only to have an attack from the rear by her opponent long after the bell rings, rendering her quadraplegic. She eventually gets Clint to pull the plug on her since she doesn’t wish to live. The movie has lots of slow action, and unnecessary scenes, making it drag, and a terrible moral ending that suggests that killing (euthanasia) is occasionally ok. Otherwise, it wasn’t a bad movie. The acting is superb, including that of Clint, Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman. The movie does an excellent job of portraying the agony of one who makes decisions against his better judgment and then has to live with the consequences of those decisions.

Mystic River ★★

Three childhood friends eventually grow up and go their separate ways. One of them has a child that was murdered, another was the suspected murderer, and the last is the detective trying to solve the case. The movie begins in a very slow and confusing fashion, and we almost turned it off out of boredom. The movie does a good job of psychoanalyzing the effects of child abuse and broken relationships, yet never offers ultimate redemption for any of the characters.

Outlaw Josey Wales ★★★★★

This was a western starring Clint that is truly a decent film. Clint is a farmer in Missouri whose farm is overrun and family slain by renegade union men just after the civil war. Clint seeks justice, but finds that the Union remains deceptive and corrupt. Plus, the union now has a price on his head. Running from bounty hunters and ex-outlaw partner, he is continually placed into tight situations where he narrowly escapes, but befriended by indians and settlers who also are fighting for existence in a land without justice.

Paint Your Wagon ★★★

This is a fairly lame musical, even having to bear with Clint singing. He doesn’t do too bad. The cinematography and scene setups are awesome, but then, beaucoup bucks were spent to make this film. The scene is the Sacramento area during the gold-rush, when Clint and Lee Marvin stake out a profitable region yielding much gold. They also end up with the same wife, purchased off of some Mormons. The story leaves much to be desired. Worth watching once.

Pale Rider ★★★★

The scene is in the gold rush basin of central California, and a downstream mining company is harassing the upstream settlers to leave. Clint comes into town as a preacher man, and eventually settles matters, when the mining company decides to hire a gang of renegade sheriffs to remove Clint from the scene. All are exterminated, and Clint goes riding into the sunset. Actually, this is a rather well done film, with good acting, and a good flow of action.

Perfect World ★★★

A couple of jail breakers kidnap a young boy, Philip. Kevin Costner, one of the jail breakers, kills his partner, and then runs off with the kid. A massive police search is done, with Costner adequately evading capture while creating havoc and murders along their path. Costner is the main star, engaging in conversation with the kid, learning that he had a “deprived” childhood, since his mom was a JW and would not let the kid celebrate halloween or Christmas, etc. So, Costner endears himself to the child, painting a fantasy world to him.  Eventually, Costner is wounded by Philip, and then is cornered by the police, with Clint in charge. Costner is again shot against Clint’s instructions, and the child goes home with mommy. The worst part of this film is that it painted fantasies that children should experience or else they would be “deprived”. The kid was a good actor.

Pink Cadillac ★★★

Clint fills the bounty hunter role in the 1960‘s of seeking out a lady who skipped out on paying her bail bonds. This leads him into getting entangled with a gang of outlaw soldier of fortune dudes hiding out in the Sierras with the kidnapped child of the lady. They eventually get the baby back. The movie had much humor giving it 3 stars, but the typical worn-out Clint dodging bullets, driving recklessly, and managing an uncontrollable female all at the same time.

Play Misty for Me ★★★★★

This movie is “Fatal Attraction” before that movie ever came out. It is a suspenseful psycho-thriller of a lady who falls in love with a disc jockey, and then pursues him relentlessly to her ultimate demise. Clint is quite young at the time, and I’m told this is his first movie that he directed. He definitely ran a low budget but brilliant directing and acting created a masterpiece.

Rookie ★★★★★

While not within the Dirty Harry series, this film fits the Dirty Harry tradition, with Clint playing an aging cop, and Charlie Sheen as the rookie. In a break with Dirty Harry tradition, the rookie doesn’t get knocked off, but becomes a Clint Eastwood clone. The action is great, and Charlie does a superb job of acting his role. Clint and Charlie are cops in LA snaking out auto thieves, and stumble across a ring of thieves. At first, Charlie makes a series of rookie mistakes, but learns quickly in order to get the bad guy.

Space Cowboys ★★★

Clint becomes a space shuttle pilot in this episode. He happens to be the sole designer of a guidance system for satellites, that is now long outdated. It just happens that the Soviets stole his guidance system plans and used them in a supposed communications satellite of their own. This guidance system has gone haywire and the satellite in orbiting on a crash course with earth. For some unknown reason, the Soviets call on the US to repair their satellite. And, it happens that Clint and his three pilot buddies have a grudge with NASA being “dissed” 40 years previously. So, they train, struggle through bureaucratic baloney and finally make the flight. In space, they discover that the satellite is not a communications satellite but loaded with six nuclear rockets aimed at the US, which explains why the soviets wished to have it fixed. They finally send it to the moon, but, people die and Clint flies the space shuttle home to Florida without a scratch. The graphics were nice in this film, the the story was just to hokey to be reasonable.

Sudden Impact ★★★★★

This is the fourth Dirty Harry film. It seems like the later Dirty Harry films are better than the first. Clint is trying to solve the mystery of a series of killings, which are occurring from a lady (Sondra Locke) who was gang-raped. She is out to do justice. Eventually the killers are knocked off, and Sondra not identified as the killer except by Dirty Harry, who lets it all slide.

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot ★

Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges play Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, two criminals seeking for their next heist, when old ex-partners of Clint’s enter the scene and complicate matters. They eventually stage a heist of a bank vault, find previous heist money, and only Clint ends of getting away and surviving. Not exactly a thrilling film, with even a worse message.

Tightrope ★★★★

Tightrope has Clint has a detective on the murder squad in New Orleans. He is tracking down serial rape-murders, where the murderer has a past history with Clint and thus is trying to pursue the females that come into Clint’s life. The film starts with a lot of inappropriate nudity from the rape-murder scenes, but evolves into a very intense psycho-thriller. Good acting from both Clint and Clint’s daughter Alison.

True Crime ★★★★

Clint is an aging reporter working for the newspaper in Oakland. He’s troubled by a past of heavy alcohol use, and a present life of cheating on his wife through liaisons with a coworker’s wife. Then he smells out that a black man is wrongly convicted of a murder that he didn’t do, but the execution is scheduled for 12 hours from now. In the course of 12 hours, he proceeds to solve the mystery of the killer, and save the man from execution. It is a good story line, which isn’t helped by painting the main hero (Clint) as a drunken, philandering godless man.

Two Mules for Sara ★★★

Clint is wandering through Mexico, when he runs across a nun named Sara (Shirley McClaine) who is being raped by three gringos. He frees her, then they begin a collaboration to help throw out the Mexican resistance throw the French out of Mexico. This they accomplish though with the inclusion of a number of side events, such as Clint being shot in the chest with an arrow or when Clint discovers that the nun is actually a prostitute. The movie makes for light entertainment but is not your best western.

Unforgiven ★★★★★

Outside of his No Name Trilogy, this is Clint’s best western. He is a “retired” gunman and reformed by his now dead wife. A young kid comes to his place seeking bounty money paid by a group of whores in town to seek revenge on two cowboys who cut up one of the girls. Clint, the boy, and his “partner” head off to find the two cowboys. A secondary theme is a renegade sheriff in town who tends to do more harm to innocent people than to criminals, and making law only to protect himself. Clint and the kid eventually get the two cowboys, but return to town to find that the sheriff killed the “partner” for no good reason. Clint eventually gets revenge on the sheriff, and then moves himself and kids out to San Francisco.

Where Eagles Dare ★★★★★

Clint Eastwood and Richard Burton are the two main stars in this film. They are a part of a covert operation to bring back a General held captive in Schloss Adler (supposedly Kehlsteinhaus – Hilter’s hideout in the Bavarian Alps). Between incredible cinematography, stunts, superb acting, a fast paced story line, and a highly unpredictable outcome, the film deserves five stars. It’s most serious problem is that it has an unbelievable story line, with Richard and Clint singlehandedly resisting and knocking off squadrons of German soldiers without getting hardly a scratch. If that can be forgiven, the film becomes quite awesome to watch – one of Eastwood’s better films.

White Hunter, Black Heart ★★★

Clint Eastwood plays a rough, eccentric Hollywood director working on a film in Africa. He arrives before the producer, and decides to go on an elephant hunt. He can’t get the elephant hunt out of his head until the black guide is killed by the elephant Clint was trying to hunt. The movie portrays Clint as a worst possible movie director, irresponsible, inattentive to the producer, and irresponsible for other people’s lives. The movie left you hating the Clint character. Not a bad film.

This movie is supposed to be based on a true story of a smallish race horse, destined to be rejected, but purchased by a person willing to give the horse a try. The horse was run at the Santa Anita Racetrack in the 1930′s depression years, going on to become a winning horse in spite of various tragedies to both horse and jockey. It is a spirited film that gives one a good feel to the world of horse racing.

This is supposed to be a film version of the uncovering of one of the worse security breaches in US history. It is the story of Robert Hansson, who had been selling secrets to the Soviets, resulting in the death of several Soviet agents that were working with the US. There are questions in Amazon.com reviews about the accuracy of historical details in the film, though it seems to follow the Wickipedia storyline quite well. The movie starts slow and you wonder at first where it is going. The action never speeds up, but it remains spellbinding to the end, when Hansson is finally caught in the act. The acting is superb, especially with Chris Cooper as Robert Hansson. The storyline slowly intensifies, as Phillippe acting as the young FBI operative who uncovered Hansson slowly realizes what he is doing. My appreciation to Dr. JL who introduced me and Betsy to this film.

This is a series that started poorly, and should have ended after the second episode. The plots are as follows, Planet of the Apes – Charleton Heston is stranded on a strange planet after traveling into the distant future from his rocket ship sent from earth, only discover that the planet is now ruled by apes. He is taken captive, and eventually escapes with the help of two chimpanzees, only to discover that the strange planet is planet earth. Beneath the Planet of the Apes, a second rocket ship crashes, and the sole survivor meets up with Heston in underground caverns, which are clearly the ruins of NY City. The human inhabitants here are invaded by the apes, who decide on mutual destruction of all by setting off an atomic bomb which destroys the world. Escape… two the chimpanzees who helped Heston land in a rocket ship on the shores of Los Angeles, going back in time, and are discovered as talking apes. They reveal the scenario of the future so it is decided to kill the apes and save the future. A sole newborn chimpanzee survives. Conquest… it is now 1991 and all pets have been killed by man, so monkeys are now the predominant other species, used as pets, slaves, etc. The talking chimpanzee baby leads an ape revolt which takes over mankind. Battle… it is now many years later, and the first chimpanzee baby (Caesar) is now old, and there are battles between chimpanzees and gorillas and humans for control of civilization.

The films are rather benign, though there is much unnecessary obscenities and language used. There is a lot of ridicule of organized religion, and evolution is considered a given. The story plot is quite lame. It’s hard to criticize acting, when most of the actors are wearing monkey suits and acting like apes. My only wonder is how they made so many sequels until somebody got the idea that it was a stupid series.

This series is a set of three boxes that take one through the original Star Trek series. Since then, multiple spin-offs have occurred, but the original series endures. The films are well preserved, and for those who enjoyed Star Trek, it is a delight to once again view many of the episodes again. I have several complaints about this series as it is offered. The packaging is worthless, and was immediately discarded. The episodes were not presented in order, I’m not sure how they decided on the order of presentation of episodes. I remember episodes that did not seem to be included in any of these three seasons, and wonder if they were intentionally left out. Finally, in regard to the film content itself, the series seemed to diminish in quality over time. By the second and third season, many ideas were repeated, such as placing several of the Enterprise crew member into a historical earth scene. The series transformed from being a simple science fiction film to being a socio-political statement. I became nauseous every time I heard Captain Kirk comment “We come in peace!”. I’ll never be a trekkie, but these films are quite enjoyable to watch, especially if never seen before.

Star Trek Feature Films including

The Motion Picture ★★★ This film is very slow moving, playing on mostly special effects. The plot is simple. A massive energy cloud approaches earth, and Kirk/Spock eventually discover that this is a massively advanced configuration of the original Voyager 6 “V-ger” space probe.

The Wrath of Khan ★★★★ This was the most suspenseful film. Khan returns from a tv episode in an attempt to pay retribution on Captain Kirk. Spock dies.

The Search for Spock ★★★ Spock just sort of died, and the intention of this film is to get Spock’s thoughts, which were transferred to McCoy, back to Spock, wherever in the universe he might be. Kirk steals his Enterprise spaceship to accomplish that and Spock is rescued, though the Enterprise is destroyed.

The Voyage Home ★★★ Kirk and Spock are now federation bad boys, but a space probe has approached earth and trying to destroy it. Spock and Kirk figure out that it is calling out for extinct whales, and they must journey back two centuries to earth to pick up several whales and save the earth. In the process, Kirk and crew are redeemed.

The Final Frontier ★★ The Enterprise is called on to rescue several ambassadors from a remote planet, only to have the space ship taken over by a bunch of hippies. The resolution of the conflict involves Kirk proving to the hippies that there is no Nirvana or Heaven to go to.

The Undiscovered Country ★★★ The Klingons have gone bankrupt and sue for peace. Kirk must escort the Klingon ambassador to the peace meeting, when things are sabotaged and the ambassador is murdered in a strange fashion. Eventually, it is discovered that junior officers working in conjunction with Klingons sought to dismantle the peace process, but only after many unusual adventures and last moment rescues.

A recent conversation with Jeff Banker during a hike/climb of Flattop Peak in Anchorage, AK led to the issue of free will and providence. This movie came up in the discussion. It is suggested that there is a bureau of people who have enough insight in the makeup of all people in order to ultimately have plans for their fates, as well as the fate of the world. It is as though they are god, yet, unlike the Christian God of the Bible, is constantly changing his plans, not totally aware of the future, has no actual control over anything, can be worked around, has no prevailing moral code of operation, and is limited in his insights, judgement, and power to actually determine the fate of events. Damon is not his best in acting, and was much better in the Bourne series. I am quite sure this movie reflects a sense of providence/predestination equivalent with most people’s thinking, including Christians of the Arminian persuasion. This movie is an excellent argument that such a god is no god at all, but rather just a little more powerful version of the human being.

The Three Stooges (8 volumes) ????

This series of the Three Stooges as presented on television goes from the earliest episodes in 1934 up to the final episodes with Joe Besser in 1959. The Three Stooges offer their own commentary of wit and humor. Many people who watch the Stooges in action feel that they are too violent, and I’m sure Leonard Maltin or Woopie Goldberg would not approve for the violence, but as they also tend to make fun of racial and ethnic stereotypes. The greatest disappointment with this series is that the last few years offered mostly remakes of previous episodes, often with only minor alterations in order to make it a new episode. In addition, Joe Besser simply cannot compete with Curly or Shemp. I remember watching the Three Stooges on television when I was 5 or 6 years old, and they were transfixing then. When I let the grandchildren watch them, they find them still amusing. Much of the wordplay is missed by kids, but makes the Three Stooges equally humorous for children and adults alike.

This is a bad movie to watch late at night, as it will haunt you. It is the story of a young wife in a small village in Iran, as told through the voice of a journalist who was passing through the village. Apparently, it was based on a true story, as this story mirrors what happens many times throughout strict Muslim countries. Soraya is mother of two young boys and two young girls, but whose husband has found her to be less than satisfactory, in spite of her hard work and virtue. He decides to get rid of her and marry another girl in a neighbor village. She takes up the job of helping to care for the children of a neighbor widower, encouraged by the town officials and holy man. Through this, the town officials and holy man assist in devising a false trumped charge of adultery. The widower is threatened with his life if he fails to assist in this plot, and so contributes to the deception of the charge of adultery, attesting that she was found lying on his bed. The final verdict was the death penalty, and all men in the village, including Soraya’s sons throw stones. Justice is finally served when Soraya’s husband discovers that the other girl is not available to him and he is left without a wife, and that the journalist brings the story to the rest of the world.

The intention of this movie is to alert the western world as to the mistreatment of women in Muslim countries. The film inadvertently portrays a much deeper evil that lurks throughout the Muslim mindset, which is unfortunately turned into a virtue by the Muslim faith. In the Judeo-Christian ethic, a person that leads to the death of another in a trial by bearing false witness is also condemned to death (Deut. 19:15-20). Integrity and truth are considered integral to religion and worship of God. In the Muslim faith, the worship of Allah is divorced from the ethical environment. A hierarchy of values are generated whereby one evil may justify the performance of another evil.Thus, suicidal terrorist acts, the organized mistreatment of women, the debauchery that occurs in all Muslim countries are all condoned since the ends justify the means. My experience of having spent time in several Muslim countries (Bangladesh and Northern Africa) confirm this through observations of women essentially having the same social status as animals. This is not superficially observable as many Muslim men treated their wives with respect, even though they still remain second class citizens in the society. Attempts have been made to accuse Western society for demeaning women, yet, the difference is such that females are considered equal but different, contrary to feminist ideology that considers females not only equal but not different. Either is a far cry from the Muslim world, where a female might be imprisoned for driving a car, or speaking out in public.

The director of this movie did a brilliant job of character development, scene portrayal, and plot flow. It will hold you by the seat of your pants, in spite of the fact that I have just given away the plot of the movie. I highly encourage you to watch this film at your first chance.

This film is labeled a documentary, but its entire format is really that of a sermon by Rev. Algore. There is very little documentary here. Included are also occasional testimonials by supposedly notable figures. There is much political jabbing, some of which is justified, but most of which is not. Approximately 95% of the entire film has at least 40% of the screen filled with Rev. Algore’s face. There are multiple clips that just don’t relate to the thesis of global warming, such as a complaint about how the votes were tallied in Florida, with the subsequent Supreme Court ruling, and no explanation as to what this had to do with the “inconvenient truth” of this film. The film is entirely about global warming, but unknowingly shows how Rev. Algore is particularly skilled at depleting carbon units, although he is exempt since he alone is allowed to consume mass quantities of energy. I can’t imagine the energy required to run Rev. Algore under the North Pole in a nuclear submarine and surface through the ice, just to add a 2 minute episode to the sermon. I could go on and on. Rev. Algore sanctimoniously suggests that the family farm quit growing tobacco because of the concern over lung cancer, yet it almost certainly was a result of declining reimbursements from tobacco. Rev. Algore’s tone of voice, inflections, and speaking style were much more like a sermon than a documentary. The fools who gave this film an Academy Award fail to offer how this film stood out in quality and credible research. The entire thesis of the film is based on supposed rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, while Rev. Algore maintains a schoolboy belief in the accuracy and significance of the data and its extrapolations, without any questioning of the data. It shows the absurd fallacy of having a lawyer/politician pretend to be doing credible science. There is no doubt that there is some truth to what Rev. Algore is saying. There is a retreat of glaciers in the last few decades. There are certain interesting climate changes. Yet, Rev. Algore fails to substantiate the exact causal nature of these events, and chooses instead to promote emotionalism and extreme reactions, exactly what he accuses the Republican party of doing, though on other issues. If Rev. Algore didn’t make so many hard jabs at his political opponents, he might have gained a few more sympathetic ears. Making the weather a political rather than a pure environmental issue makes Rev. Algore ineffective and suspect as to his true intentions for making this film. It is thus hard for me to give this film even one star. It is not worth purchasing, though a single viewing is of value only to see the many gorgous faces of Rev. Algore. Global warming supporters may have a credible argument, but it certainly is not given in this film.

It’s a cartoon, but it’s intended for adults as much as for children, so that both will appreciate and laugh at the jokes and antics. Bullwinkle is a moose without too much of a brain, and Rocky is his partner the flying squirrel, with only slightly more intelligence. Together, they fight the arch-criminals Boris Badenov and Natasha from Pottsylvania. Between the Rocky and Bullwinkle story is multiple other features, such as the fractured fairy tales, Aesop’s fables, Dudley Do-right, Mr. Know-it-all, and other small fragments, mostly featuring Bullwinkle. If you remember any of the Bullwinkle series, this is very much worth sitting through. Eventually, the last (5th) season will be made available. Until then, we’ll continue to enjoy most of the antics of the dynamic duo fighting crime and evil.

This film is a quasi-historic depiction of life in Bangladesh just before the 1971 independence. It selects out a family whose father turns hard-line Muslim, sending his child off to Madrasa (Muslim education school), and depending on Allah during a child’s illness, leading to the death of his daughter and alienation from his wife. There wasn’t much of a plot– this is more a depiction of daily life and the struggles for faith and country that a typical Muslim household might have experienced in the pre-war years.The movie attempts a gentle and supportive rendering of the Islam faith, but instead shows it as a cruel uncaring religion before a merciless god. Sadly, most reviewers of this film on Amazon didn’t see it as such. The film has its strengths in showing regular life in Bangladesh, which is little changed since independence. Being a strict Muslim country, it still possesses much of the religious behavior that is shown in this film, though the intellectuals of the films were wiped out during the war with west Pakistan which I feel has led to an even more oppressive and depressive public ethos. The film ends in tragedy, which is exactly what a combination of hardline Muslim faith and war among Muslims will do. I enjoyed the film as being one of the first that was spoken mainly in Bengali, and I even was able to understand a few words.

This has to be one of worst films that I’ve seen in recent times. The only reason for two stars is that the graphics are incredibly well done.  The story is how a group of earthmen (mostly Marines and scientists) have need for a certain ore on a distant planet Pandora occupied by tall blue people called Navi. The earthmen have no regard for the environment of the planet, and run ripshod to tear up “sacred” landscape in order to obtain their ore. Eventually, the natives win out and are able to drive out the earthlings. So, what’s wrong with the film? 1. Character development: acting was poor. None of the characters in the film could be called admirable. Most were sullen, angry people (or Navi) bent on idolization of themselves. Sig. Weaver was a worn out hag. The Navi were angry, never happy, quite war-like and certainly not at peace even with themselves. The military marines and scientists were painted at thoughtless, brain-dead, clueless. The earth “traitors” that went over to the Navi side lacked any sort of insightful virtue. 2. Plot. This film has often been criticized for portraying developers and industrialists against environmentalists. That is too simple of an analysis. It one looks at the  Navi, they are essentially dressed with African animistic paraphernalia, and the thematic structure of their “religion” is essentially animistic and pantheistic, with the world “force” emanating out though every living being that is connected to the “mother”. Animism didn’t get the Africans and other primitive tribes too far, and fantasy films are now necessary to promote such religion of animism that is taking over America by storm. In total, this film make it for its graphics arts effects and not for its story, and so barely deserves two stars.

Claude Chabrol Collection ????

Each of the films will be reviewed separately. Chabrol has a very distinctive style in his movies, and oftentimes uses his wife as the main female character. Many of his actors are repeat players, and it’s fun to meet different people playing differing roles.  All in all, the collection deserves four stars, though with its criticisms. These are very unlike American films! All the films are in French, with English subtitles optional. The speaking is usually not too difficult to follow in French, though the subtitles definitely help.

Juste avant la nuit ????

This is the story evolves around a central character Charles Masson secretly murdering his best friend’s wife after having an affair with her. Charles is riddled with guilt, initially telling his wife, and then his best friend, both offering acceptance and forgiveness. Regardless, Charles is unable to psychologically cope with this guilt, which ultimately leads to his ruin. The gist of the movie is the absence of an absolute morality, and that psychological internal factors are our judge. Chabrol is masterful at exploring the psychology of guilt in this movie, similar to that seen in Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors. Though the movie starts with a brief episode of female nudity, the remainder is clean enough for general viewing, and would be a shame to refuse a good film thinking that the film was going to mostly be off-color.

La femme infidele  ????

This is a suspenseful story of a lawyer from Paris living in the countryside close to Versaille, who discovers that his wife is having an affair with somebody in town. He learns of his identify and then murders him. The police remain on the track of the murderer, who never solve the murder mystery. His wife does discover that he is probably the murderer but remains silent. Chabrol is skillful at holding suspense but never in an on-the-edge-of-your-seat fashion. Thus, the art of a slowly unfolding plot that never is obvious as to direction.

Le Boucher ????

The film starts at a wedding, at which the young but well-known butcher in town Popaul encounters the town head school mistress Helene and falls in love with her. Simultaneously, a series of brutal murders takes place. Slowly, Helene sorts out that it is Popaul who is committing the killings. Eventually, Popaul commits suicide. Though a simple plot, the story unveils in a Hitchcock style that holds suspense while typically leaving one unsure as to who-done-it. This is considered one of Chabrol’s best films.

Les Biches ???

This is an odd film, entertaining the mixing of complex though maladjusted characters. A rich woman Frederique encounters a street artist (Why) in Paris and falls in love. They go live in a villa in St. Tropez where a third person, a male architect is encountered, first falling in love with Why, and then soon after with Frederique. When the architect and Frederique decide to return to Paris without Why, Why murders Frederique. Chabrol artfully develops this dark drama, bringing in other characters, such as a gay male couple living at Frederique’s estate in St. Tropez. I rated this movie a 3-star, since Chabrol attempts profundity through what are essentially shallow characters. This is not one of his better films.

Les noces rouges ???

This film is a very strange story, though in many ways similar to the other Chabrol movies. Here, the wife of the mayor of a town is having an affair with the mayor’s chief assistant Pierre, who is having a terrible marriage of his own. Pierre eventually murders his wife, and then the mayor in order to allow their relationship to go unhindered. Yet, the mayor’s daughter detects what is happening, and turns mom into the police, causing both to be arrested. The movie is most interesting simply for the way Chabrol weaves the flow of the story line in a most unpredictable fashion.

Madame Bovary ???

Chabrol’s version of Madame Bovary, well acted, though Madame Bovary not exactly the seductive vixen that she is supposed to be. Otherwise, this is well acted and holds reasonably well to the story line of the novel.

Nada ????

Nada is the name of a revolutionary organization in France, which has just kidnapped the ambassador to the USA. Eventually the police discover the whereabouts of the group in a distant farmhouse, though use heavy handed means to corner the group, leading to the death of the principals of both the police and the terrorist group. As typical of Chabrol, the outcomes are not predictable, except that one can be assured that his films will never end with a happy end, this film included. Nada does hold ones attention for the unveiling of the plot as a police detective film.

Que la bête meure ?????

Known in English as “This Man Must Die”, this is probably my favorite film of the collection. It is a suspenseful thriller that starts with a young boy being killed in a hit-and-run accident. The boy’s father Charles slowly weaves out clues that lead to the killer, who is an influential businessman in Northern France. The killer has a most repugnant character, and all who know him wish for him to be dead. Thus, the complexity of sorting out the murderer in the end, when the killer is found dead by poisoning. Chabrol does excellent character development and flow of action in this film, with the usual French characteristic of most films of leaving the films’ conclusion not entirely certain and thus to the imagination, but definitely not a happy end.

This is Harrison Ford at his best, filmed mostly in Chicago. It is a suspenseful thriller, Harrison Ford playing the role of a vascular surgeon, Dr. Richard Kimble, falsely sentenced to death for murdering his wife. He manages to escape while being hauled to prison, and then weaves a tale of running from the detectives, while sorting out the identity of the actual killer of his wife. There were a few unbelievable sections, such as when he survives a leap into the spill-out of a dam, and the solitary persistence of the detectives on pursuing Dr. Kimble, with Dr. Kimble remaining only a few steps ahead of them, both parties seeming to know exactly where the other party was going. Even so, it makes a great story and thrilling plot. Mostly, I enjoyed seeing Chicago again. I left Cook County Hospital in 1990, and this was filmed in 1993. Clearly, the insides were not completely Cook County Hospital, but there were recognizable characters, such as Dr. Roxanne (Rocky) Roberts, who was several years ahead of me in residency and stayed on staff in the trauma unit. As an aside, I was glad to hear that they are NOT going to tear down the old County Hospital, but leave it standing for other purposes.

Doctor Zhivago, loosely based on a novel by Boris Pasternak, is now produced as an epic soap opera occurring at the time of the Revolution in the Soviet Union. Through a complex mix of many characters, including Dr. Zhivago, Tonya (Zhivago’s wife), Larissa (Lara), and others, a complex tale is weaved, from a novel mostly commenting on the nature of the Bolshevik revolution, but turned into a soap of Dr. Zhivago, who, through many encounters with an unusual woman Larissa, eventually develops a love affair with her, but then separated by the vicissitudes  of the Revolution. The film can be rightly praised for the awesome filming, even though most of it was filmed in either Italy or the United States. There were many in-the-face shots, characteristic of either soap operas or director David Lean. The music tended toward mono-thematic, with nothing other than Lara’s theme being repeated again and again, in a Wagnerian Leitmotiv fashion, though with only one Leitmotiv. The acting is superb. Oddly, the filming gives poor reason why Zhivago would betray his wife; most odd, because the film character for Tonya was far more attractive and a nicer personality than Larissa. So it goes with movies. It was noted that Klaus Kinski played a small role in the film-I missed him completely. This is a long movie–over three hours–with an intermission after the style of movies in the 1960s.

Zulu ??

Both of these films were very well rated on Amazon.com, a mystery to me, since they were both horrible films. Some Amazon reviewers comment on the historical accuracy and others on the remarkable historical inaccuracy of the films. Knowing Hollywood, they probably got the facts slightly right. Both films were done by the same director, and so they shared a very similar style, and both were filmed in Natal, where the action historically occurred, using Zulu actors. One cannot criticize the cinematography. Both films have a long and arduous lead-up to the final battle, in Zulu Dawn, the British regimen was annihilated, and in Zulu, a small remnant survived. The historical commentary suggests that the British were invaders into the Zulu lands, and invaded the large Zulu kingdom in an unprovoked attack. The historical facts of British dealings with the Zulu are one of many black stains on the Victorian rule in building a world-wide empire. These films attempt a minor commentary on British actions in Natal, though done in rather poor style. Too much of both films included overly silly scenes, such as the preacher scenes in Zulu, or the hospital scenes. There was too much lengthy filming of army movements, or clumsy falls. The officers are painted as inept and rank and file troops as undisciplined. Only the first (inept officers) is probably partially true. Don’t waste your time on either of these films–they are not worth the 90 plus minutes each that you will have to endure on each film.

Herzog and Kinski made many films together, though the reportedly did not get along too well with each other. Most of their films will leave an overwhelming impression on you, and this film is no exception. Amazon reviewers either left it 5 stars or one star. I could argue both ways with this film. Kinski has to be one of the ugliest, brutish actors to ever hit the stage. It is amazing that he had such a beautiful daughter. His acting included almost no speech, and much of the movie is passed with silent imagery of soldiers marching through the Andes, or sailing down a tributary of the Amazon. Yet, the film tends to be very effective. It is quite a depressing film, where a expeditionary team of one of Pizarro’s army, attempting to find El Dorado, the city of Gold, ends up with mixed intentions and internal rivalry, ultimately leading to the destruction of the entire expedition. This is reportedly based on a true story, though I’m not certain as to it’s faithfulness to the historical narratives. The film was in German, though it is available in dubbed English, and could be enjoyed by American audiences. Don’t watch it as a film to lift your spirits. It won’t.

The best part of this movie is watching a bridge get blown up. Any movie that has bridges should eventually have those bridges blown up. This movie orients very loosely around the actual story of the building of several bridges over the Kwai River in Thailand by forced British and American war captives. It is true that the Japanese were modestly kind to their captors. It is not true that they allowed the British to essentially run the show. It is true that the bridge(s) were destroyed, but not by secret agents sent up the river; instead, it was aerial bombing which destroyed the bridges. It is true that the main theme song (Colonel Bogey march) was a war song, but it was a war song about Hitler, not about the Japs. This movie, as well as the effort to make it a classic soon after it was released for viewing, represents the brutal arrogance of the British. Included in the arrogance was the notion of officers defiantly refusing to work, but then NOT offering resistance to their captors. It made for a wonderful piece of literature regarding the value of integrity, but reflected on the dismal naiveté of a public who would actually swoon to that rhetoric. In actual fact, the leading colonel encouraged sabotage as much as was humanly possible, and for every attempt to escape as was possible. Most arrogant was the notion that the Japs were technical ignoramuses that required British leadership in order to do anything right, including, how to build a bridge. In actual fact, the Japanese were quite technologically capable of engineering feats without the help of British buffoons. All in all, the movie doesn’t deserve a 5-star rating, let alone the distinction of being a “classic”. The acting was good, the scenery (in Sri Lanka) was gorgeous, and the story line flowed well, saving the movie from a 1-star rating.

These three films receive a uniformly 5-star rating by Amazon reviewers, and there is much to commend for this series, superbly well performed and directed. They are separate tales, but tied together by the French themes of liberty, equality, and fraternity, which is actually demonstrated very weakly in the series. The first film (Bleu) is about the wife of famous composer, whose family, including her composer-husband and young daughter are killed in a tragic automobile accident. She goes on to try to free her life from her past, but eventually discovers more to the life of her late husband than she expected. The second film (Blanc) is about a polish hairdresser involved in a messy divorce, with his wife mercilessly dumping him while living in Paris, he being unable to capably defend himself owing to language problems. The remainder of the film takes him from destitution to ultimate revenge on his ex-wife. The third film (Rouge) depicts a young model who chances across a retired judge who now spends his life eavesdropping on his neighbors. Ultimately, a deeper relationship is developed between the two, as they interact with the past of the judge and future of the young model. Kieslowski nicely incorporates the thematic colors in his films in an interesting sort of way. In Bleu, there are blue rooms and blue chandeliers and many blue objects, in Blanc, emotional episodes show a screen white-out, and in Rouge, there is an equal profusion of red, such as a large red banner announcing a fashion show with the star character imaged. I reduced the rating by one-star because of the overwhelming morose mood throughout the entire series. Only Blanc showed any humor at all. All were moderately dark, deeply-foreboding films, quasi-tragedies of ruined lives desperate for significance and meaning, and the films never offering a way out. Ultimate liberty, equality or fraternity are never achieved, but a cheap imitation. These are not films to soar with, but will put you in the gutter and leave you there. They would be nice films for conversations on philosophy, but not for conversations on a life of higher aspirations.

I’ve always liked the acting talent of Gerard Depardeau, and he is at his best in this film, playing the role of Auguste Rodin. With Adjani capably serving as the title role of Camille Claudel, this film follows the historical fate of Claudel in the late 1800′s to her death in the mid-twentieth century. Camille was an aspiring artist, dropping out of school, and eventually working/studying in the workshop of Rodin. Becoming his lover, and then breaking up, she develops a paranoid delusion of Rodin constantly plotting to ruin her. In return, this paranoia leads to her institutionalization for most of her life. It is a sad but true tale, all too true because it actually happened, but also because it represents life’s drama in so many of us who look for false sources of significance. Acting in this movie was superb, the cinephotography excellent, the French was not too difficult to follow, especially with the help of sous-titles, it was R-rated for some sexual depictions-but never in an obscene way, and the “fill-in” on the known historical facts of Camille C. to make a movie version seemed fairly reasonably as to what one would expect. Thus, a highly recommended film, though not for children.

This collection represents essentially five seasons. Each episode is 1/2 hour, except for the fourth season, where the episodes lasted an hour. Narrated by the familiar face of Rod Serling, and with over half of the episodes written by him, you cannot help but appreciate a distinct style throughout the collection. The seasons seem to evolve over time, with the productions being done a bit more professionally, with fancier props as time goes on. The first few seasons have a very distinct moral twist to each and every episode, something that partially lost as time goes on. In comparison to today’s television shows, many of these episodes would be considered too moralistic or “prejudiced” or “religious” to permit broadcast. Pity. Compared to the Outer Limits t.v. series, the Twilight Zone is not nearly as frightening, though some classic episodes exist that could be considered downright spooky.  Who cannot forget the episode where bandages are taken off the face of a young lady, only to be greeted with horror as she appears completely normal — until you finally see the faces of the physicians and nurses, who have completely disfigured, ugly faces. Even then, Serling presents it as a strong lesson that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Twilight Zone should be considered a must-see if you haven’t seen the series before. If your only viewing was in the early 60′s when they were first broadcast, it is quite worth another viewing to realize how trashy prime-time television has become.

This movie is NOT a faithful reproduction of the Lewis Carroll narrative, but rather is a fanciful political statement based roughly on the Alice in Wonderland story. It is definitely British, and definitely 1960′ish, even with the background music of Ravi Shankar. The movie is in black and white, and very choppy in its movement from scene to scene. Apparently, it was made by the BBC as a low-budget Christmas film. The Alice actor is rather bland, though most of the other characters are quite humorous in their bizarreness. The film holds a surrealistic vision of upper-class England, yet treats the Queen as quite tawdry. Perhaps the producer caught the spirit of Lewis Carroll in this rendering, yet it is a little too bizarre for modern viewing.

This film was watched at brother Dennis’ request. It was a film that Betsy actually enjoyed watching, and laughed most of the way through. It is a tremendous spoof on sci-fi films and movies, especially the  Star Trek series.It starts at a Star Trek groupie-like convention, where the main actors did not get along with each other, nor take serious their roles. That is, until real space aliens, the Thermians, take them away, to help save them from the enemy, General Sarris. The subsequent adventures are hilarious as they save themselves and their alien friends. I won’t give the movie away, as you need to watch it and enjoy it.

These are two series which illustrate that too much of a good thing usually goes bad. Unfortunately, in this case, it was a lot of a mediocre theme. Both series can be criticized for very poor character development, characters being more trivial and immature than super-heroes or super-villians. The first Batman film is excellent only in that the Joker with Jack Nicholson was superb. Nothing else about the film was praise-worthy. The remaining Michael Keaton series attempted to wow the audience with high tech graphics while forgetting about story lines that are meaningful or consistent. Unfortunately, the films often made the worst of good actors, like Arnold Schwarznegger playing Mr. Freeze. It was especially unnerving when the immature and irresponsible characters of Robin, and then Batwoman come on the scene. There were more than a few ipecac moments. The second series lapsed into its own problems, the first film attempting to offer a realistic start for Batman, where he goes off to the East to learn the disciplines of the Buddhist Kung-fu experts, only to discover that they were the ultimate enemies of Gotham City. All in all, the story line was simply stupid and inane, not really worth watching. Again, both films of this second series show an inability to maintain a quasi-realistic story line, or develop real characters. The second series did flow better, especially the Dark Knight, which is why it received three rather than two stars.

This is a 14 part series based on a historical novel about the last days of the British rule in India. It is really three interwoven stories in one, first, the story of Indian independence, second, the story of the British in India at the same time, and third, the complex interweavings of a few British folk living in India at the time. The story starts with a Indian Hari Kumar who grew up and schooled in England returning to India, and finding himself a misfit, rejected by the British for the color of his skin, and by the Indians for not being Indian enough. He falls in love with an English girl, the girl who is eventually killed, and the blame placed by an incompetent overbearing police person Ronald Merrick on Hari. Hari is imprisoned, not to make a showing until the very last two minutes of the entire series. In the meantime, you follow the friends and acquaintances of R. Merrick and the deceased girl through the years 1942 to 1947. One gets a feel of the caring, yet also the pompous arrogance and racism of the British living in India at the time, and the Indian public response to that. Unlike the film Ghandi, which is mostly from the Indian perspective, this film offers primarily the British perspective, yet is fair enough to paint the the British not only for all their virtues, but also for all their faults. The story line sometimes drags, thus giving the series a 4 rather than 5 star rating. Otherwise, it will keep you interested up to the end, especially as to the person you most hate in the story (Ronald Merrick), finally offering due justice to him. This film is supposed to offer a fair perspective of India in the era of independence. Not having been there, I could only assume that those Indians that recommended the film were accurate in that assessment.

I will occasionally watch and report on somewhat more controversial films, and certainly this is one of them. I realize that there are films that might be considered simply not suitable for viewing at any age. I saw the Exorcist when it first came out with a group of friends from church. It stimulated thought back then, but now brings other thoughts into reflection. This is not a movie for everybody. The first time I saw it, there were certainly nightmares that followed. The production is well done, though at times, one could easily see the errors in make-up of Regan, or other faux-pas. The first half of the film portrays physicians. Interestingly, much of the medical tests which were performed were on radiological instruments or with tests, like cerebral angiograms, which simply are not performed any longer. The movie at least had a somewhat kindly view of physicians, though their bedside interactions were somewhat sterile. Well, this is not a movie about doctors, but devils, though some people may consider them to be one and the same. C.S. Lewis’ quote on devils is quite apropos here, inexactly restated by me, that the problem with our belief in devils is either to not believe they exist, when they actually do, or to believe and think too much about them. Using the devil for entertainment purposes runs a precarious risk of exercising both extremes of C.S. Lewis. It would be easy to dismiss the devil as an invention of Hollywood or the Catholic church, and thus offer him the regard most improper of him. The movie story entails a 12 year old girl, who dabbles in Ouiji boards and a few things, and eventually becomes possessed. Her mom, who is a movie star, seeks first medical, then psychiatric help for her daughter to no prevail, as she becomes progressively worse. Finally, it is recommended that she seek a priest for an exorcism. Two priests come to the aide of the mother, and eventually are able to cast out the demon, but at the cost of their own lives. So, two thoughts on this movie. First is its’ portrayal of demon possession. Possession turns a person into a raving maniac, with bouncing beds, heads that rotate 360 degrees, and projectile bilious vomit, not the thing that actually does happen to a demon possessed person, at least, as is portrayed in Scripture. This extreme portrayal may cause one to loose sight that demon possession may be manifest in many other ways, such as, in the kindness of a person like Barak Hussain O., who is evil to the core, but presents as sweet as pudding. The other thought was how various inanimate objects were treated as possessive of special “charm”, such as the consecrated water, the crucifix and rosary, the words of incantation for exorcism, and the statue of Jesus. Protestants fall into error of “charming” other objects, though for the bad, such as trinkets or amulets, which they hold might be possessive of evil or harm. In reality, nowhere in Scripture are we told of an inanimate object possessing Spiritual qualities, and indeed are instructed that they absolutely do not and cannot have an ability to convey a curse of carry a demon with it. Yet, many Christians continue to believe such a thing. Pity. I would recommend this film, though not as a piece to amuse ones self, but rather, as a jumping off point in contemplating the roles of demons and the devil in this current world.

RoboCop, RoboCop II, RoboCop III ???

At the end of Robocop III, it was easy to see that the movie was terminated with the possibility of a sequel. Not making the mistake of the Alien series, we were spared that torture, and the movie studios let a good thing end gracefully. This is not really a “tough guy” film, like Rambo or Die Hard. It is more appealing to the Marxist-Socialist types in America, in that it suggests that corporate America generates the evil that oppresses the freedom loving poor of this world, and that this corporate entity either lives in bed or pressures the government to do wrong. Robocop was a cyborg, invented by a corporate firm, contracted to defend the streets of Detroit. Already, the film becomes a no-brainer. Detroit, even in the 1980′s, was not a city worth defending. All the same, the creators of Robocop attempt to use this half-policeman half-robot to their advantage. Robocop II and III show the development of more sophisticated Robocops, yet our hero, Robocop I, continues to find a way to gain ultimate victory. The action is good and the story line is reasonably well written to allow an absence of predictability and hold ones’ interest; thus the three stars. All in all, not the worst film, and moderately entertaining, though the prevailing message is usually confused.

Actually, I’m being a touch kind about my rating, but the graphics were fairly decent, so an extra star is given. It seems like this series should have stopped with the first, as each episode was increasingly poor quality. In particular, the plots were very contrived, if not disjointed or just plain silly. The acting was particularly horrid, and I got rather tired of highly masculinized females running around like paramilitary militia with oversized weapons that were larger than they were. Character development was shoddy, including with Sigourney herself, so that when she “sacrificed” herself at the end of the third episode, there really wasn’t a feeling of regret. When she returns in the fourth installment, it’s almost a let-down. Each episode shows increasingly bad language, unnecessarily so, and increasing sexual innuendoes, which don’t contribute to the plot. From the first episode, people rarely ever spoke to each other, but usually yelled at each other. Most of the men were portrayed as either idiots or evil, while the women were caring or lesbian, as seen in the past episode. I saw parts I and II about 30 years ago when they first came out, and was quite disappointed to imagine that I actually liked those films at that time. I guess a touch of maturity also gives discernment. These films are not worth renting nor watching—don’t waste your time on them.

Mad Max Road Warrior Series, starring Mel Gibson ???

The story of a post-apocalyptic venture in Australia, where motorcycle gangs and mad road rage dudes seek to dominate the diminishing supplies of gasoline available. These movies are best seen in a series, and are mostly bizarre episodes of war being engaged from ever more bizarre designs of road, rail, and air vehicles. Mel stars as a cop whose family was murdered by a motorcycle gang, and goes on to ever greater glory in each movie, conquering the bad guys. I’ve seen much better films of a post-apocalyptic nature, and these don’t really do it for me. Thus, three stars.

The Gods Must be Crazy I and II ????

It was fitting to watch these films on return from Africa. The first is the story of an African bushman, seeking to get rid of a coke bottle that his tribe thinks is bringing trouble to the tribe, a renegade revolutionary and his group of bandits, a scientist studying animals of the Kalahari, and a school teacher. Their lives all collide in a most interesting fashion in this film, reflecting the conflict of cultures occurring in Africa.

The Gods Must be Crazy II is a continuation of the same theme, this time also with multiple stories threading together, one with the bushman trying to find his children, another with elephant tusk poachers, another with a New York female lawyer accidentally stuck in the brush, etc. The story similarly resolves itself.

There is supposedly a GMBC III  which reportedly is not worth watching. These two films are entertaining but not in the top 100 of best films of all time.

Conspiracy Theory, starring Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts ????

This is a film that suggests a plethora of secret activities occurring by various governmental agencies, none aware of what the next is doing. Mel Gibson plays a taxi driver caught up in such an event, involved in psychiatric mind bending by a government official seeking to terminate various lives by various accidents occurring to them. Gibson then encounters Julia as a lawyer-investigator for the police force, caught in trying to figure out Gibson’s “psychosis” or delusionary patterns from that of actual reality. The movie is fast paced, and doesn’t end as expected. A film that is highly recommended.

The Manchurian Candidate, starring Frank Sinatra ????

This film is one of the first left-wing accuse the right-wing of manufacturing conspiracy plot films. A group of soldiers come home from the Korean war, having been unknowingly brainwashed by communists, but hailed as war heros. Over the course of the film, the loud out-spoken anti-communist Senator devises a conspiracy to use the hero of the soldiers to kill all opponents and thus achieve the candidacy for presidency. The acting is superb and plot riveting, though it fails to admit that the “sins” of conspiracy are guilty to all parties, and yes, there was communist infiltration of the government, just as there is Muslim infiltration of our government now, though not in a highly secretive masterminded manner. Recommended as a good film to watch. In B&W.

The Running Man, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger ????

Save for some harsh language and brief nudity, this film is not too bad to watch, if you don’t mind violence. Arnold is at his best in this film with the classic line “I’ll be back”. The movie is a futuristic scene of Arnold, though innocent, being held by the State, and then put on a game show to play to the death. In the end, Arnold wins, though the movie never goes beyond winning a game show to destroying an evil empire. Such sophistication is not to be expected. A good film, that keeps you on the edge of your seat for the film. The only bad aspect is the terrible acting by Maria Alonso, the hispanic girl in the film. She doesn’t contribute to the film at all and should have been differently written into the script.

Rosemary’s Baby, starring Mia Farrow ????

This film does not have suspense or anxiety similar to other “horror” films. The stars come from the superb acting of Mia Farrow. Otherwise, the plot is a little stale. The story was most fitting to the 1980’s when Hal Lindsey’s books like “Late Great Planet Earth” was popular, and everybody was expecting an incarnate form of the antichrist. Perhaps that will yet happen, but certainly not in the manner portrayed in this movie. The amount of witchcraft talk is kept to a minimum, and witches are sold as warm, friendly people. The baby is never shown at the end of the film. This unfortunately breeds a tolerance for Satanic activity as acceptable, save for the occasional murders and ill-effects that happen in the course of the film. Not highly recommended, and directed by Roman Polanski, who should be setting behind bars, if not worse.

Bruce Lee Series, starring Bruce Lee ????

02DEC2009  Enter the Dragon, Game of Death, Game of Death II, The Big Boss, Fist of Fury, Way of the Dragon. These films do not have any particular order, even if they seem to come across as sequels. Enter the Dragon was Bruce Lee’s last film. The acting in these films is absolutely horrible. The scene set-ups were a touch amateur. The plots are repetitive and predictable. The only thing that gives these films 4 stars is Bruce Lee himself. He is totally awesome, and indubitably the greatest Kung-fu master to ever make it into film.

This movie was watched while int he guest house at N’Djemena, waiting for our flight out of Chad, and most of the original review when the movie was fresh on my mind was lost in the iWeb crash. The stars were certainly quite select, though my impression was that of watching a soap opera more than that of seeing a serious movie. It was no fault of the acting, but probably more of that of the director. I was also somewhat taken back by the very contrived plot, especially with the end solution to the murder mystery. It was truly not a believable ending, leaving the entire story in question. I have not read any of Agatha Christie, but if her other stories are similar to this, I will find them all not worth reading. She might have called down little green Martians to be the murders, and the story would have been just as believable as her ending. A movie not worth watching.

Luther, starring Joseph Fiennes ?????

This is the third or fourth time that I have seen this film, but have not yet reviewed it. There are several video histories of Martin Luther that have been made, but I feel this to be the best. I have only seen the film in German. J. Fiennes makes a perfect Luther, and the script seems to not deviate too wildly from the history that we have of Luther in order to sensationalize matters. Luther does not need “Hollywood-ization”, yet they still did a moderate amount of this, such as with the mother of a crippled child, and the adulating crowds. Also, they tended to make Luther appear like a dolt in the Augustiner Kloster, yet most history reports him to be quite brilliant even at that time. So, the historical data was reasonable, but not perfect. This is a good film to watch, but hopefully, you also take the time to read books about the Reformation to find out what really happened, and the real theological underpinnings of the Reformation.

Les Miserables, Starring Liam Neeson ????

I’ve never read the book before. The other versions of Les Miserables that I have seen include the version starring Gerard Depardieu, and the take-off of John-Paul Belmondo, as well as the play by the name, which I saw in London. The London play would receive only one star. Gerard Depardieu was a better lead man Jean Valjean, though this production had superb filmography, and acting that truly could not be criticized. The John-Paul Belmondo is a 5-star worthy film, though is a take-off of the story set in WWII Paris. This version has some problems. 1. It reportedly does not follow the Victor Hugo text closely at all. 2. It turns Cosette into a spoiled brat. 3. The boy revolutionary leader is a girly-man– why does Hollywood love girly-men so much nowdays? 4. There is an abnormal sense of a love affair with Cosettes’ mother, which I doubt the book really portrays. 6. The movie never explores the rationale behind the Inspector finally turning Jean Valjean free and committing suicide. The version here is a version worth watching, if you are a Les Miserables fan, with the criticisms noted, it’s still worth 4 stars.

This is the story of a German (????Norwegian) bride to be moving to Northern Minnesota to be married in the early 1920’s farmland. The bride Inge encounters grave community vitriol, and marriage is refused until her husband to be saves the day, so to speak, at one spot. The story is based on a Will Weaver novel, and produced by Ali Salim. Unfortunately, having a father that grew up as a German immigrant in that area and time, things were not well depicted as representative of America. In effect, it was just another effort by Hollywood and Muslim producers to make American faith and religion appear unloving and cruel, when in actuality, though harsh, it was everything but was depicted in this film. The thought processes were a late 20th century projection of early twentieth century religious and community farm life. Indeed, one Amazon reviewer has is correct that the book author has only a superficial sense of what it was like to live back at that time. The movie never develops true depth to its characters, and even the attempt at foreign language fails, with gibberish being muttered for either German or Norwegian. The farming was ridiculous-they were harvesting corn but delivering wheat to the market. They used no horses, and two people hand picked 160 acres. Farm communities always tended to be closer than what was portrayed. I watched this film with an Englander in the group, who asked if this truly what America was like back then. Unfortunately, this sort of rubbish in filming only creates images of moral judgmentalism at a time when America held moral values but also strong hospitality and deep community spirit.   Truly Hollywood could have done better than that. Many Amazon reviewers suggested that this was a touching love story demanding Kleenex. I’m not sure about the Kleenex, but there were enough errors in the film to ruin a story that could have made a good film.

This film was rated R for violence. I saw the film in Cameroon, and some of the editorial was lost in the iWeb crash. I’ll do my best. There was a moderate amount of violence in the film, most of which did not contribute to the general flow of the theme, and placed mostly for entertainment purposes. It is a very quasi-historical depiction of some crusaders going to Jerusalem to retain the city following the first crusade. The main character was the illegitimate son of one of the princes in the Holy Land. The main character notes the depth of corruption of both the ruling class and clergy in Jerusalem, particularly the desire to continue to militarily rule the area. In the end, the movie makes the invading Arabs out to be the morally more righteous, and the Christians as the cheats, naves, dishonest fools. All renditions of Christian clergy were shown to be steeped in dishonor, greed, and corruption. While this is certainly partially true, it is hard for me to imagine the Muslim invaders as any more righteous in their behavior or deeds. Thus, the movie degenerates into a politically correct statement of love for Islam, but historically lacking.