Off the Cuff Movie Review - Captain America Civil War

Marvel delivers again with another powerful ensemble performance 

I have seen nearly all of the MCU movies, and enjoyed them so last night the family went to see Captain America: Civil War. Right away I can say I enjoyed it. This film has everything - action, suspense, surprise, humor, sadness, tragedy and does not ever descend into message fic while presenting Big Questions. I did not leave the theater happy, but I was satisfied.

Civil War and its titular predecessor, The Winter Soldier have the most realism of any 'superhero' movies I've seen, if one can use the term realism when talking about persons who fly and shoot lasers out of their hands/eyes/heads. Best quotable of the film:

"That thing doesn't obey the laws of physics at all."

I'll leave it to you to guess who says that, and about what. It was a terrific bit of Lampshade Hanging on the un-reality of superhero films. Anyway, back to the realism bit.

Off the Cuff Movie Review - Sleeping Beauty

Over the weekend my wife went with friends to see Maleficent. She enjoyed it, but I'll let her write that OTC review. For our Sunday evening movie, she decided it's time to watch again her favorite of the Disney animated films, Sleeping Beauty.

This picture is copyrighted by Disney. Like they'll let you forget that.

The Plot

So just in case someone doesn't know the story-line here, I'll give a brief summary. The Good King and Queen are celebrating the birth of their first and only child, Aurora. They invite everybody in the neighborhood, except for Maleficent, who rules some undefined region known as the Forbidden Mountain. She shows up anyway, and uses this social snub as a reason to be Really Evil, cursing the child to die on her 16th birthday. This probably would mean, in-story, that she would never marry, and therefore, the King's line would come to an end - he's arranged Aurora's marriage to the heir of the kingdom next door, to keep the family line going. This goes beyond pettiness about manners, Maleficent is trying a political power grab.

Among the guests are these three fairies, and one of them offers her blessing to partially counter-act the curse, changing it from death to unending sleep. The fairies, attempting to side-step the curse altogether, take Aurora away and hide her and them in a remote cottage, disguising themselves as mortals to escape Maleficent's notice.

Fast forward fifteen years, 364 days where the plot proper begins. Aurora is All Grown Up but doesn't know who she really is. Prince Philip, traveling to the castle for what he assumes is his wedding to the Princess, meets Aurora in the woods, and with both of them ignorant of the other's identity, they fall in love.
Shortly thereafter, Aurora gets told who she is and that she's got to get to the castle to get married. Philip also heads to the castle, but plans to return to the cottage later to meet up with Aurora. Now, due to the fairie's bumbling, Maleficent finally discovers where Aurora is, and learns of her meeting with Philip. So, in an impressive stroke of villainy, she gets into the castle and puts Aurora under the curse, as promised, and captures Philip, whom she tosses in one of her dungeons.

The fairies help Philip escape, he fights his way to the castle, defeats Maleficent and rescues the Princess with True Love's First Kiss.  Dancing, singing and rejoicing follows.

My Thoughts

Right from the start this film reminds me of the 'cast of thousands' epic films from the 50's, which makes sense, as this one came out in 1959. Like many of those epics, SB is a sort of musical. Princess Aurora and Prince Philip have one on-screen duet, which also serves as their "falling in love" scene. There are a few other song sequences, but all by off-screen singers. The majority of the background music, by the way, if Tchaikovsky's ballet Sleeping Beauty. It only makes sense, and boy, does the music work.

Maleficent, clearly the film's antagonist,  deserves to be credited as one of the best animated Disney villains ever: she is not just self-centered (like Gaston) or greedy (like Edgar the Butler), or of petty cruelty (like Cruella DeVille) she is full-on Evil cuz she likes it that way. Her entrance at the start of the film is impressive and meant to intimidate (it does), her dialogue with the king sounds civilized but keeps that "I could go mad-ape crazy on you any second" vibe that threatens no matter what she's saying. Her plan for prince Philip is just heartbreakingly cruel; she blasts her own minions for being stupid and turns into a DRAGON to stop Philip at the climax.

The fairies, according to my wife, are the actual protagonists of this film. When it comes right to it, Aurora, the title character does pretty much nothing through the whole film.  Philip turns in probably the most old-school heroic performance by a Disney prince ever (who else in the Disney canon can claim the title Dragon Slayer?) but even he is really a secondary character to the fairies, who get far more dialogue and screen time. So I find it very interesting the way Disney portrays the fairies. They are not all-wise all-powerful demigods, it is a real struggle for them to carry on as mortals during their custodianship of Aurora. When one first suggests that they raise the child in secret, another objects that they don't know how to do such things, not without magic. The first responds "If humans can do it, so can we." The fairies are actually inferior to humans - they are limited by their magic.

Relations to other films

Tangled. Oh my goodness, Tangled. Philip's horse, Samson is clearly the inspiration for Maximus the horse, both in personality (Philip talks to him, and Samson responds) and in actually being useful to the plot - he never shies away from carrying Philip to his princess, no matter what crazy stuff Maleficent throws at them. Also in both Tangled and in Sleeping Beauty, the princess doesn't know she's a princess, grows up essentially alone in the forest, with only animal friends and her mother/aunt figures, with none of them being actual relations. Both fall in love with the first guy they meet, which happens on their first 'adult' birthday, and both are just naturally charming to both people and animals. Both princesses are separated from their parents soon after birth, but both are reunited by the film's end, after being rescued by the man they love.
A scene of Aurora singing with the birds in the woods is parodied in the first Shrek film, which also employs the "princess in a tower" trope. 

In Conclusion

The artwork on this film alone makes it worth seeing. This is all traditional cel animation, and it is gorgeous. The music, as I said before, is terrific, particularly the Tchaikovsky ballet. The duet between Aurora and Philip is good and is one of only a few direct man-to-woman love songs in Disney's animated canon. The voice acting is solid and enjoyable all around, and many of the voices are familiar to Disney fans - all they were missing was Phil Harris.

Is this my favorite Disney animated?  No. That would be Robin Hood or Beauty and the Beast. Is it good? Definitely. It has all the right story elements - humor, pathos, excitement, a hero & heroine to cheer for and a villain to cry "fie upon thee". The story may be straightforward and not very complex, it is a much more coherent story than some recent Disney films (yeah, you, Frozen).  Good triumphs, the two lovers get together, the kingdom is secured and a major villain is vanquished.

Best line in the movie: "Father, you're living in the past. This is the fourteenth century!" Yeah, Philip said that.

Update on Frederica Bio-pic

I recently got an announcement from Frederica regarding a change of plans with the documentary. As follows:

Big changes with the documentary! It's no longer just a 30-min film about me. There are people in Hollywood who think it could be a feature film, and expanded to include other folks who break the conservative mold.

So the Kickstarter campaign is being suspended temporarily, while we work out new plans. If you've contributed, thank you and "hold that thought."

Here's the update from John Gleason, the filmmaker; click this link to stay in the loop.

<<Dear friends,
Thank you so much for your support of our film! What has started as a small documentary is quickly evolving into a much larger project. The film has recently gained the attention of several people in Hollywood who want to see this become a feature film seen in theaters and film festivals across the country. We are happy to announce that actress Shawnee Smith and others have joined our team of producers and will be instrumental in making this a reality.
We have decided to postpone this Kickstarter campaign in order to accommodate further planning in light of these recent changes. But we still need your help! As we work on version 2.0 of this project we would like to update you on our progress, and a revised crowdfunding campaign that should be up in a month or two.

All the best,
John>>

the original post is here. 

Frederica: The Life and Work of Frederica Mathewes-Green

Khouria Frederica Mathewes-Green

 
I have known this lady for several years; she and her husband are friends with our priest & his wife, and she has spoken at our parish several times. She writes for Beliefnet, Christianity Today, NPR's All Things Considered, National Review, Books & Culture, Touchstone as well as many newspapers. She has written 9 books, and has been interviewed on all the major news networks. Recently, she sent out this message via email, and I'm sharing it here:

OK, this is going to sound weird, but back around Thanksgiving a young filmmaker in Los Angeles wrote and asked if I would be interested in being the subject of a documentary. He thought my conversion to Christ, and change of heart on the abortion issue, might be inspiring to others. His name is John Gleason, and he's with the film production company Movie to Movement, which produced "Bella" a few years ago--I liked it a lot.So we did some filming in NY and he made a trailer--you can see it here:
Kickstarter:Frederica documentary

and also shot some footage last week at the March for Life and St. Vladimir's Seminary. He plans to film me this weekend at Biola Univ in LA, and at other speaking events over the coming months.

Click on through to see the trailer, and maybe you'll think about making a donation too? 

Frederica Mathewes-Green www.frederica.com

 

Off the Cuff Movie Review - The Hunt for Red October

     This week it was my pick for movie night, and I felt the boys were old enough to enjoy and understand one of my favorites, 1990's The Hunt for Red October. Based on the Tom Clancy novel of the same name, The Hunt for Red October is a political/military/technological action movie, set in the early 1980's. The Red October is a Soviet submarine (Typhoon class) captained by Marko Ramius, the Soviet's top submarine commander. (Of course he's the best, he's played by Sean Connery!) The Russians call him "The Vilnius Schoolmaster". His new submarine boasts a new technology that makes them inaudible to sonar, which makes them very dangerous.
     Raimius is Up To Something, and the movie's title comes from both the Russians and Americans trying desperately to find the Red October before Ramius can put his plan into action. But what is his plan?  After reading his official orders, Ramius kills his political officer, burns the orders and substitutes his own, and get the second essential missile launch  key from the dead man. He tells the crew they're sailing to Cuba by way of the American coast. The Russians are afraid he's trying to defect, and the Americans are afraid he's trying to make a sneak attack. So both sides want to find the Ramius and the Red October, and won't hesitate to sink him to stop him.
     American CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) thinks he's guessed the truth, that Ramius is trying to defect, but he has a hard time getting anyone to believe him. Eventually Ryan finds himself aboard the USS Dallas (Los Angeles class) trying to convince captain Bart Mancuso (Scott Glenn) to communicate with the Red October once they find her. The film reaches its climax in a submarine battle above one of the deepest spots in the Atlantic, with the Red October fighting to survive being pursued by both the Russians and the Americans.
     This film has a lot to commend it. It has a good exciting story line, detailed and realistic sets, uniforms and military protocols, great characters and actors [James Earl Jones, Scott Glenn, Sam Neill, Tim Curry, Stellan Skarsgaard, Fred Thompson], lots of dramatic tension, and given its Cold War setting, a lack of stereotypes of either the  Russians or the Americans. There is a 2-second shot of a Russian sailor, a Russian Orthodox Christian (who were persecuted by the Communist government), making the sign of the Cross after witnessing some of his comrades being killed. The underwater chase scenes are packed with drama; at one point the Red October is maneuvering through an undersea canyon to escape a torpedo that was launched at them. They must flee at a speed far above what is safe for the tight quarters, and you can see the fear on the faces of all the crew. An officer protests Ramius' wild maneuvering:  "Captain, if we're out of position by so much as a boat length . . ." he doesn't finish, but you can tell the rest is "we will crash into the canyon wall and die."
     The underwater scenes are dark and it is sometimes hard to see what's happening, and all the subs look a lot alike. So when the scene cuts back to a sub interior, the writers did a good job of explaining the action through the characters. Crewmen aboard both subs ask what happened, and an explanation is given first in Navy jargon, then again in plain English. For example -  Commanding Officer: "Why don't I have a detonation?"  Weapon Officer: "The weapon enabled on the far side of the target. It passed (target ship) before it armed." Ah, so that's what just happened. A few characters, Ryan included at some points, serve as the audience expy to ask the questions, and allow another character to explain.
     I always try to point out a movie's flaws, and this one does have a few. Some consider the film's near total lack of female characters to be a flaw. Most of the characters are sailors, and they talk like sailors, which means there's an amount of cussing going on. I was concerned that we would have to have a talk with the boys after the film about not using rude words, but I was surprised by my younger son. Right in the middle of the movie, he called out Jack Ryan for using irreverent language (taking the Lord's name in vain). Near the beginning, Captain Ramius kills one of his officers, who would have interfered with his plan. It's a gruesome scene, which could easily be nightmare fuel, so I muted the sound and asked the boys to shut their eyes until it was over, then explained simply what had happened. Kids who are not old enough to know some 20th century history probably wouldn't follow what was going on in this film, but my boys do, and I enjoyed watching an old favorite again, and also watching my boys go from disinterest, to mild interest, to being totally absorbed.
     My favorite line, uttered in astonishment by one of the Red October's officers: "Torpedo impact . . .now?"

Off the Cuff Movie Review - Brave

For our Sunday movie night this week, we watched 2012's Brave.  I have now, I think, watched all of the Disney Princess films. Did I mention I have no daughters?

    Brave is Disney/Pixar's 13th film, set in semi-mythical Scotland. The plot concerns the free-spirited daughter of the king, who would rather ride & shoot than become a lady and get married. She tries to cheat her way out of it via a magical spell, and creates Big Problems. Then she has to find a way to undo what she's done before it costs her more than she thought.

      Merida, the oldest child of the king Fergus and his queen Elinor, is a outdoors loving girl who can ride and shoot very well. An archery contest in the opening act shows off Merida's skills, which are of Robin Hood proportions. Seriously, Merida pulls off one of Robin's signature arrow tricks. It is curious to me, then, that after this point her signature abilities play very little part in the plot, and none in the climax. I guess Pixar wanted her to have some ability to demonstrate her competence and independence.

      The main conflict of the film is between desire and duty, between mother (duty) and daughter (desire). This is a familiar theme in movies aimed at children, but it is not a theme that draws me in; I'm on the parent's side every time. In this film, the mother, and although he's less directly involved the father also have the clans' traditions on their side.  There is no other word than selfishness to describe Merida's attitude. She simply cannot see that the people around her have a legitimate claim on her behavior. She lives in a society, a culture, but initially insists on autonomy – taking the benefits of belonging to a community without bearing any of the responsibility.

      Merida does not seem to have a problem with marriage generally; just with being suddenly told that it's going to happen to her. I appreciate that Pixar did not make her a straw feminist whining about being 'some man's property'. Her mother is clearly not dominated by her father, nor is the reverse the case. Fergus and Elinor seem to have a loving marriage, equitably dividing the duties of leadership.

      I was glad to see that Merida got to see at least a foretaste of the consequences of her refusal. The heads of all the clans, who are vying to marry their sons to Merida, all get offended and it looks like the kingdom is going to have a 4-way civil war over who gets the right to marry the princess. This is not played as a romantic gesture, this is jealousy and war.

       At least there is a mother in this movie, and it seemed from the outset that she and the father were both going to survive the film. This is odd for a Disney film, but that's a discussion for another day. The three young men who are presented as suitors barely come into the story, as the plot revolves around Merida and her mother. Maybe this is why the three are little more than caricatures: a slacker, an Emo and a doofus.

      Most of the humor in this film comes from the father, the other adult males and the triplet brothers. I can handle that, it is a film for young people, and kids like seeing adults acting like children. I like Fergus, Merida's father. He's a boisterous bruiser, who also clearly loves his wife and children – and trusts his wife with the formal public speaking. One of the few emotional connections I felt to this film was with Fergus' terrified reaction when he thought his wife had been eaten by a bear. 

    Taken as a whole, I enjoyed the movie, but it will not be included in my Favorites list. Merida did act bravely once or twice, but I don't think that theme was explored enough to make the title fit. Merida was not introduced as a fearful child (beyond what would be normal in the flashback scenes where she very young) so she had no cause to prove that she is brave. She screamed like a girl (well, that would make sense) when confronted with the villain of the film, and ran away the first time, and was saved by her parents the second time. Hardly an exemplar of bravery. I also don't think she really changed her mind about accepting responsibility and growing up. The film concludes with Merida still unmarried and having fun like she was at the beginning. 

     The scary scenes in this film were not scary enough to seriously undermine my kid's enjoyment of the film. There is a bit of rude humor on the fact that the Scots wore no underclothes under their kilts. No private parts are seen, but a well-endowed serving woman has things dropped onto and into her bosom for comic effect. Magic is employed, but the magic user is not the villain, rather a disinterested party who performs for a fee. None of this bothers me, but the body part humor is not my style. The film is up to Pixar's standard for color, texture and visual appeal, even though much of the film happens at night, or in darkened interiors.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

This is NOT an Off the Cuff Movie Review. But maybe I will do this one some day. This is a modern 'trailer' for the classic British comedy, done over to make the movie look like an awesome action epic. Enjoy.

For those of you who have never seen this film, please consult the IMDB page. and then go rent this movie immediately.

Off the Cuff Movie Review - The Lone Ranger

     No, sorry, not that Lone Ranger. I'm talking about the 1956 film of the TV Show staring Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels. With all the ads about the current feature film, my boys wanted to know about this Western hero. So we found on Hulu or Netflix that we could watch episodes of the 1950's vintage B&W TV show. The boys love it, and I've been enjoying the show as well. Good guys wear black (masks)!
    Now, the story in the film is, quite plainly, an extended length TV episode. No origin story, no startling revelations or world-changing plot twists. Just our eponymous hero and his faithful friend riding hard to save the day for settlers and the Indians. I know that some of the expressions, especially racial epithets and stereotypes, used in that era are not acceptable any more, so I'll try to avoid using them, but they are not enough reason to not see this film.
    The story opens in an unnamed territory out West, with the territorial Governor coming to visit an influential rancher. The territory wants to apply for statehood, but the Governor is concerned that “Indian trouble” will be a stumbling block to that process. You can tell almost right away who the film's villain will be. Rancher Kilgore gets a minor-key musical motif, and his name (Kilgore= kill + gore) implies wickedness.
    The Governor also has a secret meeting planned while in town, and eventually he meets up an old prospector who show him a silver bullet as his credential. After establishing that the Governor is on the up-and-up, the prospector does a quick change into the Lone Ranger! Clayton Moore does a great character switch; I really did not know he was both characters until the LR dropped into the prospector's voice to convince the Governor. The two agree to work together to maintain peace between the two sides, and root out the source of the trouble.
    LR & Tonto go to visit the local reservation and meet with Red Hawk, the aging chief, and his ambitious junior, Angry Horse. Is that supposed to sound like Crazy Horse?  Maybe. Anyway, the Indians (no tribal name is given) have their gripes with the Territorials, violations of their land, especially the Sacred Mountain, which is taboo for everyone. Tensions are on the rise, and the younger braves want to fight.
    Kilgore's men start up a cattle drive. The herds cross Indian land, the ranch crew steals cattle from another farmer and kills him, to further demonstrate who the bad guys are. At the other end of the drive, Kilgore's henchmen pick up a shipment of dynamite on the hush-hush, so you know they're up to no good with it.  Later some more of Kilgore's men disguise themselves as Indians and start a dangerous brush fire. The final straw comes when Kilgore sends his daughter away to keep her from danger and her carriage is attacked by the Indians. The Territorials form a posse behind Kilgore to get her back and punish the Indians.
    Our heroes, having discovered Kilgore's ultimate goal (surprise!) in causing all the strife,  ride ahead to the reservation to secure the girl's release. LR debates with Angry Horse, saying that he doesn't have the wisdom needed to be a leader of his people. The two get a good fight in, with the girl's release dependent upon the victor. You can guess how the fight ends.
    Unaware of all this, Kilgore leads his posse towards the reservation to start the war. LR & Tonto find themselves in the middle of the two warring sides. Do they survive?  Is a happy ending possible?  Of course, and I won't spoil it.

    One of the things I appreciate about the TV show and this movie is that there is a balance – people on both sides want to fight, and people on both sides want to live in peace. Yes, Kilgore is the designated villain, but he's not the only source of ill-will and even he gets some sympathetic treatment. The local sheriff and Indian Agent want to maintain peace and respect the Indian's rights even against the sentiment of many of the Territorials. The gunplay is exciting but unbloody & the Ranger does a lot of his trademark trick shooting. There is one near-lynching of an Indian which is clearly meant to seem unfair and unjust to the audience.  The Ranger's simple and humble heroic career is a refreshing change from the modern penchant for jaded anti-heroes.  This movie is a fun, fast-paced adventure with lots to cheer about. It remains to be seen if the current feature film can live up to this standard of good guys, good friends and justice over vigilantism.

p.s.    As to the stereotypes, we've used them as starting points for conversations with our boys about how we, especially as Christians, treat those who are different from us, and recognizing & respecting virtue no matter who displays it.  

Off the Cuff Movie Review Eight Below

Move over, Air Bud. The Real dogs are here.

      As I've mentioned before I do not as a rule like movies featuring animals, as they can be silly and full of sentimentalism. 2006's Eight Below is what a Disney movie starring animals should be. It's a great adventure story, full of beautiful scenery, suspense and emotional impact. Stories do not get much simpler than Man vs Nature, or in this case, Dog vs Nature. There are humans in the story, but the plot focuses on the eight sled dogs, which act like real dogs – no cute slapstick or funny tricks. The dogs in Eight Below are working dogs.

      The story takes place in Antarctica, where Jerry is a sled dog teamster, working for the NSF to guide scientists around the Bottom of the World. Just before the onset of winter, a geologist shows up at his base with a mission for Jerry and his eight-canine crew, to ferry him to a distant location so the geologist can search for a special meteorite. A storm is approaching as Jerry and the team set off, and we get some fantastic landscape shots as the dogs mush along (the film was mostly shot in Greenland, but the scenery is just as amazing there).

      Along the way, disaster strikes, as the geologist falls onto some thin ice, which breaks, plunging him into deadly cold water. Jerry and the dogs are able to rescue him, but must rush him back to base, into the face of the oncoming storm. With the weather only threatening to get worse, the base crew must evacuate the geologist to a hospital and themselves to a safer location. But there's not enough room aboard the plane for the dogs as they are forced to evacuate ahead of their planned departure, but Katie the pilot (Jerry's love interest character) promises to come right back and pick the dogs up.

      The storm comes down hard, and it becomes impossible for the dogs to be rescued. All the Antarctica personnel are returning to warmer climes and won't be back for months. A distraught Jerry has to leave with them, anguished that his beloved dogs were left behind.

      The second half of the film goes back and forth between the dogs' efforts to survive in the harshest of environments, Jerry's struggle to come to grips with what he sees as his abandonment of his team, and searching for a way to get back down South, even if none of the dogs have survived.

      Loyalty is the major theme of this film. Jerry is loyal to his dogs, and they to him. He says more than once that he owes it to the dogs to return and learn their fate. Jerry's friends (Katie, his pal Coop and the geologist) get together to arrange an expedition which they hope can rescue the dogs. The Eight Below are also loyal to one another, and it is their teamwork that allows them to survive as well as they do. There are several very touching scenes of the dogs' loyalty to one another as they fight to survive.

      This film did it right. There was drama and suspense, but not so much that little kids would freak out. But expect at least one jump scare. The scenery was fantastic. There was lots of emotion,both positive and negative, but the film avoids the sentimentalism that often infects animal films. The human actors also avoid overplaying the angst of the situation. The film runs just shy of two hours, but never drags, and there's almost no distracting sub-plot elements to draw you away from the main story of loyalty and survival against the odds.

Off the Cuff Movie Review - Operation Petticoat

   If you've read many of my off the cuff reviews, you've probably gotten the idea that I like Cary Grant movies. This film is one of his later comedies, set during the beginning phase of World War II, but it ends in the modern day (for when the film was released). It co-stars Tony Curtis - I've already quoted or paraphrased him from this film in another post. 
     Anyway, Grant & Curtis are Navy officers aboard the submarine Sea Tiger, which got sunk in port within days of the war's outbreak. Captain Sherman (Grant) wants to get his boat repaired and back into the war, while Acting Supply Officer Lt Holden (Curtis) wants to get back to Hawaii, so he can marry his rich fiancee. Events conspire to make it difficult for either to get what they want, but Lt Holden manages at every turn to steal or bamboozle his way into "a better deal than what I've got now". By the film's end, one of them gets what he wants, while the other changes his mind about his goal. Along the way, a goofy cast of characters from the crew of the sub to South Pacific locals, to a group of stranded Army nurses create one headache after another for Sherman, and every move Holden makes to get them out of one jam gets Sherman deeper and deeper in Holden's constant scamming. It's hilarious to watch the usually calm & suave Grant play the progressively more perplexed and bewildered Capt. Sherman, to the point you wonder who's really running the boat. Despite the serious backdrop of the war, the film manages a breezy and fun-filled tone throughout. There's romance in the air for both Holden and Sherman, and even the ship's comically misogynist chief mechanic ("It's either her or me in this engine room!" he demands) warms up to the presence of the women. When the boat ends up being painted pink (it makes sense in context) suddenly both sides are out to get the Sea Tiger, assuming it's a trick of the other side. It takes all of Sherman's and Holden's wiles to get them out of this one. 
     There is nothing in this movie that I would caution parents about letting kids watch. A few sailors go shirtless, but it is because they're working, not showing off. The women are stared at appreciatively, but there's no leering or off-color talk. Lt Holden's scamming gets tolerated by Capt Sherman only because it is a practical necessity - the rest of the crew are concerned about getting caught stealing so much stuff, but agree that they will have to give up the ship as unsalvageable without it. Two characters kiss, but only briefly. No one gets hurt any worse than getting knocked into the water by a clumsy nurse. 
    My boy's favorite line from the film, which you'll have to watch to understand: "What happened?"  "We sunk a truck!"

      Now, this movie's setup is a great template for an adventure or even a campaign theme. This idea will work better in a game world with modern or future technology, but I suppose it could be made to work in a low-tech fantasy setting. The setup is that the characters are the crew of a vessel, which by reason of outside circumstances, must keep on the move - finding themselves behind enemy lines seems a good idea. Complications should include extensive damage to the vessel and the scarcity of repair parts, an enemy that harasses them  rather than conducting all-out assaults, crew or passenger issues that force side-trips and unreliable or too-brief access to repair facilities. The movie above plays this for laughs, but it could be made into a very serious scenario. Depending upon how far the vessel has to go, or the danger of the area to be traversed, this set-up could last for many game sessions.

Off the Cuff Movie Review The Fighting Sullivans

   This biographical film was produced during World War II, and inspired by events that took place earlier in the war. The five Sullivan brothers, George, Frank, Joe, Matt and Al, grew up in the town of Waterloo, Iowa. When the war broke out, they all enlisted in the Navy, and managed to get themselves all assigned to the light cruiser USS Juneau. The Juneau was sunk with all hands on 13 November 1942. During the war, a Fletcher-class destroyer, DD537 was launched bearing the name The Sullivans. The Navy changes its policy on assignments as a result of the Sullivan's family's loss, and siblings no longer serve together aboard ship.
     The film spends most of its two-hour run time on the childhood and early adulthood of the Sullivan brothers. As a slice of American life, it is a delightful, funny and touching movie about a big family of boys (with one long-suffering sister) and all their adventures. They get into fights (right outside the church even) with other boys, fight with each other, make up, find and (sort of) repair a rowboat, decide to cut a hole in the kitchen wall for a woodbox and try to smoke corn silk in the shed. Their railroad conductor father takes a firm loving hand in dealing with them, but even he gets pushed too far after one of the boys' escapades. As young adults, living in the late 30's their worries are the same as everyone's: getting and keeping jobs, having enough money, and for the youngest, Al, known as "Small Change", getting a date with a swell girl. Al gets married, despite a sabotage attempt by his brothers, and the whole family takes the new Mrs. Sullivan in as one of their own. When the war breaks out, the older brothers dissuade Al from joining up with them, but his wife convinces him he should go, because all their lives the Sullivans have "stuck together".
     The last we see of the Sullivan boys, four of them are lifting their wounded fifth brother off of his bed, hoping to get him to safety when the abandon ship order is given. Sadly, out of a crew of over 600, only 10 men survived the sinking of the Juneau. The film's final act digresses a little from published history, but not in a way that detracts from the powerful punch of the story. 
       We laughed our way through the Sullivans' childhood and cried a little at the end. This is a movie that is worth watching because it's funny, because it is moving, and because it is simple and true. Thanks be to God for all the men and women who have served in our country's military both in war and in peace. 

Now go rent this movie. That is all. 

Off the Cuff Movie Review - The Miracle of the White Stallions

     This week's movie night was my older son's pick, and he chose a movie he read about in a book, about a true story I had never heard of, but enjoyed watching. The white stallions of the title were Lipizzaner stallions, at the Spanish Riding School in Vienna, Austria. The story is set at the end of WWII, as the Allies are moving into Austria and pushing the Germans out. The narrator and main character, Colonel Alois Podhajsky, is the master of the school, which the Germans pressed into service training horse riders. As the Allies advance, Colonel Podhajsky (played well by Robert Taylor) worries that the school will be hit by bombs and the horses killed. More than damaging a building, it could end the horse breed, as it seems all of the Lipizzaners in the world are at this school. The mares have already been sent away to Czechoslovakia, but the Germans won't allow the school to evacuate, claiming it would be a show of weakness. The Colonel eventually decides he's evacuating anyway, and with some covert and overt collaboration from supportive Austrians, he secures space on a freight train to get the horses out of danger, relocating to an estate in southern Austria , far away from Vienna. The Americans eventually appear, and set up a major headquarters at the estate. The Colonel asks the American army for help in recovering the mares, which he fears will fall into the hands of the Russians, and be destroyed (or maybe eaten). After putting on a show for General Patton, the Americans do undertake an expedition to rescue the horses, as a side project to liberating a large number of Allied prisoners, held by a force of Germans who also hold the horses. 
     The mares and stallions are safe and re-united by the end, and all is well. This was, after all a 1960's Disney movie. For being set in a war, there was little destruction shown, even during the one battle sequence. There are evil Nazis, of course, but they are walk-on, walk-off characters. This film was enjoyable, but not exactly exciting. I kept expecting some big built-up Hollywood style dramatic climax, but that didn't happen, because the film was trying to accurately tell the story. The highlight of this film, instead, is the last ten minutes where we were treated to the spectacle of the refurbished post-war School in full gala, with the horses performing to a cheering crowd. The performance was a sight to behold, and demonstrates why the Colonel was right in risking so much to save the horses and the School. Among the spectators were several people who helped with the evacuation, claiming to their grandchildren that they 'saved the horses'.
     The Spanish Riding School was of no military value, it held no strategic location, and I suspect the Colonel did not get rich as the director of the School. What he did, though, was to save a cultural institution of his country, a thing of beauty, something that no amount of money or modern technology could replace. I wish that more people were interested in saving old beautiful things. 

A Lipizzaner stallion: (image courtesy of Conversano Isabella through Wikipedia)

Off the Cuff Movie Reivew - Hugo

     Last weekend, on our family movie night we watched for the first time, Hugo, the Martin Scorsese film from last year. We all enjoyed it, in our own ways. My boys were very intrigued, which is surprising for the younger one. The movie takes its time setting up the plot and asking the questions which will be answered in the second act. Such slow pacing usually leaves my younger son bored and restless, but Hugo had him in rapt attention all the way through. The movie is certainly a visual treat, both the complex warrens of pipes and clockwork through which Hugo moves, and the cityscape of Paris, where the story takes place. I found Hugo to be an interesting if not greatly sympathetic character; he displays very little emotion throughout the film, even after being subjected to a very cruel trick by an adult. So, it should not surprise that the cruel trick is never mentioned again, and does not impair the development of Hugo's relationship with the adult. Several secondary characters with no relevance to the plot get a decent amount of screen time, and even the titular 'bad guy' gets enough development to be human instead of a card-stock villain. The tone is hard to describe; the film is neither lightly comic nor depressingly serious, although it takes stabs at being both. I also can't tell whether the target audience is children or adults; it may be best to say that it tries to appeal to both, and succeeds very nicely. I never felt much dramatic tension while watching the film, I always was aware that somehow it was going to have a happy ending, which it did. Hugo's appeal may lie in the quiet but skillful acting jobs of the main characters and the slow, tantalizing explanation of the central 'mystery' of the plot. Based on a (largely) picture book by Brian Selznick, descendant of David O. Selznick the famous movie producer, Hugo is a good film, at least on the first watching. Once you know the ending, I think the film may lose a lot of its' ability to keep the viewer engaged.

Off the Cuff Movie Review - Dallas and Springfield Rifle

     My dear wife got for me for Father's Day a box set of Gary Cooper movies. So far we've watched two of them for our weekly family movie night. Two rip-roarin' westerns, Dallas and Springfield Rifle.
   In both films, Coop plays a confident, strait-shooting guy who knows what he wants and will fight and sacrifice to get it. In both, he plays a man who is at odds with the law, but in the end is fighting for what's right.  Also in both cases, Coop's characters are playing roles that are not quite what they seem to be. 
   In Dallas, Coop is Blayde Hollister (no, that's not a nickname), a former Confederate officer now turned outlaw after the war, on a quest for justice, or is it revenge?  In Rifle, Coop is Union Major Lex Kearney, court-martialed out of the Cavalry for failing to protect a badly needed shipment of horses from horse thieves during the Civil War. But there's more than meets the eye going on. Tight-lipped Coop never complains, never tells anyone what he's after, and is willing to lose the lady-love interest in both movies (in Rifle it's his wife)to get the job done.
     The movies are not long by modern standards, so the plot hums right along to some really good musical scores. There's plenty of gorgeous western scenery filmed in glorious Technicolor, film buffs will recognize a lot of the supporting cast as well: Lon Chaney and Alan Hale, Jr. appear in Rifle, Raymond Massey appears in Dallas. There's loads of exciting action scenes, and as was standard at the time, the fighting and shooting were near totally bloodless. 
     Despite the brisk pacing, the plots were not simplistic, I found that I had to pay attention to keep up with what was going on. Of course, Coop's laconic cowboy characters don't go in for exposition much.
     We all enjoyed these two films a lot, especially Coop's tough/good guy performances. Both films had tense climaxes, but nothing happened that would be scary or upsetting for younger children. Next time we watch a Coop film it's going to be Sergeant York, based on the exploits of the real Sgt York in the First World War. Look for my review to follow.

Off the Cuff Movie Review - Charade

Last night my wife and I went with a group of friends to the local second-run movie house to watch a showing of the 1963 suspense thriller Charade. The movie stars Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant, two of my favorite actors. They couldn't have had better screen chemistry than they do in this film, which is suspenseful and fun from start to finish.
     To begin with, Regina "Reggie" Lampert (Hepburn) is an American living in Paris, but she's planning to divorce her Swiss husband Charles and go back to America. Before she can do more than talk about it, Charles is found dead, having exited a train while it was in motion. Worse, before he died, Charles sold off everything in their apartment, and was apparently going to run off to South America. He made $250,000 from the sale, but the money is nowhere to be found. Enter Peter Joshua (Grant) whom Reggie met on her divorce-planning vacation, who offers to help her out while she makes the transition. 
     At the funeral, three strange men (James Coburn, Ned Glass and George Kennedy) appear, not to mourn, but to verify that Charles is dead! Then, to further confuse things, Reggie gets called to the American Embassy where Mr. Bartholomew (played by Walter Matthau) of the CIA explains that Reggie's dead husband was actually a thief, along with the three men from the funeral. Bartholomew and the thieves believe that Reggie has a quarter-million dollars, which both the thieves and the CIA want back (it was originally US government money). But Reggie has no idea where the money is, as all her husband had on the train was a small valise full of random household objects and toiletries.
     Mr. Joshua re-appears and is trying to help Reggie, but soon she finds out that he's not who he says, and that he's trying to find the money too. Who's side is he on, anyway?  From this point, the movie takes us on a fast-paced ride, going between tense suspense, action and mystery as more and more secrets are revealed. Reggie and Mr. Joshua flirt fantastically in every scene they're in, despite the fact that Reggie keeps learning things that make her hesitant to trust this man she seems to be falling for. I'm told that Cary Grant took this role only after the writers had adjusted the dialogue so that the much younger Hepburn was romantically pursuing him, rather than the other way around, which wouldn't have seemed right. 
     After a barrage of surprise revelations and plot twists, the movie ends on the expected happy note, with Grant and Hepburn together. In addition to the two leads, Matthau and co-stars Coburn, Glass and Kennedy all turn in very convincing and scary performances as ruthless men who want the money at any cost. The scenery shots of Paris were excellent, even though the film quality shows the decade it was made in. The only character I disliked was a child of about six, who contributes to the plot in a minor way, but he's in very few scenes.  There were very few young people in the theater, which was not surprising. The pace is too slow and the action not flashy enough for today's young adults, and the actors, though well known to me are not well known generally today, especially as many of them are dead. All the same, I think this movie would be enjoyable by anyone other than children. For the younger ones, the one kid in it is annoying, and while there is no blood and gore, several characters die in pretty gruesome ways that might frighten children. Or for that matter, any woman who's ever been stalked or threatened by men bigger than her might find Coburn & Co. upsetting. Otherwise, a fun blend of suspense and romance which also has had its copyright protection expire. This film is in the public domain. 
     UPDATE 2/7/2013 - This film is available for download from the Internet Archive. Get it!

Off the Cuff Movie Review The Phantom Menace

     Last night we watched the movie that our boys have been waiting to see for a long time - Star Wars "Episode I" The Phantom Menace.  I have talked frequently to my long-suffering wife about how the Prequel movies are plagued with bad writing, wooden acting, logical inconsistencies in the plot lines and other things. Yet I hadn't quite found the right word to sum up these films until now. 

   The Phantom Menace was boring. A majority of the movie was taken up by people standing or sitting about, talking. Dialogue can be exciting, if there is appropriate tension, but in this movie there was no tension. Everyone spoke in calm, measured tones, as if they were discussing the weather instead of the fate of  - oh, wait. The fate of some little planet off on the side of the galaxy. 

     The ultimate indicator of how boring this movie was, however, was my sons' reactions.  They watched it with interest, but they just sat there. Even the big pod racing scene didn't get them off the couch. There was barely a comment or cheer raised when the 'good guys' won at the end. They still like 'Star Wars' - -the original trilogy - but the Phantom Menace left them unimpressed.