Change Your Image
tkasle
Reviews
JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America (2009)
Very Well Done
The History Channel finally broadcasts some HISTORY -- as opposed to crypto-biological monsters, UFOs, loggers, arctic truck drivers, prophecies of impending doom and the existence of Atlantis.
"3 shots" is divided into two 2-hour broadcasts. Part one begins on the morning of November 22, 1963 before the assassination and ends with Oswald dying 2 days later. Part two begins November 24, 1963 and ends at present day.
Both parts show the events only through use of archival news footage. There is no narration; just the occasional black screen telling us the time as it goes by.
Part one is not quite "You are There" -- a music background has been laid over everything; it's mostly very effective, but occasionally it intrudes -- but it's damn close. What it effectively shows is the fog everyone was in during the first 48 hours after JFK's death. Shock and confusion ruled. Every adult interviewed is in a daze: not just the man (or woman) on the street, but the news media, the doctors, the Dallas Police Chief and particularly the Dallas D.A., who appears in his first interview as a deer staring into the headlights.
The killing was beyond everyone's comprehension. Having no precedent or policy to fall back upon, every professional made mistakes in dealing with the barrage of emotions while attempting to carry out their various duties. Reporters continuously called him "Lee Harold (or Harry) Oswald". Doctors made autopsy errors. Law enforcement -- after capturing Oswald quickly -- took a long time in deciding what charges would be brought. They also let anyone with a microphone clog the halls of the building and allowed civilians (like Jack Ruby) to roam there, too.
With the exception of its first half-hour -- leading viewers from Oswald's death to the formation and report of the Warren Commission -- part two shows a) the effect that JFK's murder has had on popular culture and b) how fading memories and the passage of time have only served to dish up various conspiracy theories.
I was 10 when JFK was killed. I saw some of the footage shown in part one. I saw Ruby killing Oswald on live TV. I saw its slow-motion replay when it was first broadcast.
Watching part one was like watching an open door into the past. Watching part two (directly after the first half) would have been humorous to me had the consequences not been so tragic. Jim Garrison is revealed to be a publicity-seeking big-mouth whose main contribution to this subject is spawning a wrong-headed movie 25 years after he spouted his strange theories. Under strong suspicion that Oswald was not buried in his own grave, it is dug up only to discover that (surprise!) Oswald was buried in it. The revelation that "the man with the umbrella" during the House Select Committee on Assassinations hearings is (gasp!) a man with an umbrella.
Other than my already-indicated problem with the show's music, I have just one other, minor criticism here. This should be titled "FOUR shots that changed America": three from Oswald, one from Jack Rubenstein, AKA Ruby.
Whether you -- like me -- believe Oswald was the lone gunman or not, we can all agree Ruby did history and all future American generations no favor when he selfishly stepped out of the crowd in that hallway below the Dallas jail-house.
All of us also should applaud and commend the hours of work that went into the making of this two-parter. It does bring history -- and all its imperfections -- truly alive.
And now back to whether the Abominable Snowman is behind the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle.........
The Missing Juror (1944)
I watched this based on "Povertyrowpictures'" review....
....which is so opposite reality as to be intentionally misleading.
"Juror" is NOT noir.
It IS a poorly-written B "mystery", with little of that, but plenty of under- and over-acting.
You can't even call it a pot-boiler because it never catches fire.
The only reason it's "rarely seen" on TV these days is that only TCM would show it. (But you'll never see Osborne or Mankiewicz introducing it.)
With the exception of classics like "The Wizard of Oz", "Gone With the Wind" and "It's a Wonderful Life", no network today will broadcast movies over 30 years old in order to attract that all-important 18-35 demographic.
This clunker has nothing in common with "Stranger On The Third Floor" and it's an insult to say it's a twist on "And Then There Were None."
"Juror" was just a paycheck for Budd Boetticher, who moved on to direct and team with Randolph Scott for some truly great 1950s westerns.
Watch them, not this.
Mr. Sardonicus (1961)
He grins; you don't bear it.
I'd like to say the leeches were the only things in this movie that sucked, but unfortunately the whole picture does, from the title to the ending.
This should've been titled "Count Sardonicus" or maybe just "Sardonicus". The location isn't America, it's in the Balkans (Gorslava, anyone?) and the man is a self-proclaimed COUNT, for godsakes!
How bad is it? Once I got the idea of why the doctor was summoned (a tedious undertaking - pun intended), I was able to fast-forward the VCR tape through parts and not lose ANY of the plot. Was this thing padded! And the script? Mrs. (oops, I mean Countess) Sardonicus was very un-hysterical for a woman trapped in a sex-less, loveless, arranged marriage to a guy (intended) with a deformed face.
Finally, we have Producer Castle "poll" the audience to see if the Mr. (oops, I mean the Count) should suffer. Of course he should! But what about the sociopathic Krull????? He gets a good meal! Makes no sense. Castle used up all his math skills in counting audience members.
Rowan & Martin at the Movies (1968)
Let me be frank, even though that's not my real name........
This stinks.
Oh, it starts out well with the boys sneaking onto the MGM lot and as the credits roll, you're wondering how they got all those stars to sign on.... Well, they didn't. The one "star" that shows (for an unfunny walk-on) on the day R & M stood on an empty MGM stage reading the script -- with canned laughter added later -- is Herb Alpert.
Everyone else -- with a few exceptions -- appears in 2-second clips from previous savings bond PSAs, all jammed in near the end of this mess. The exceptions are also in clips: Martin applies lip music to Doris Day from one 2 films they did together (beats me what this has to do with buying bonds); Barbara McNair in a USO clip, singing to (I guess) US troops in Vietnam; Andy Griffith & Don Knotts (appearing separately) in brief clips maybe directly connected to this (or not) and then there's a bizarre, truncated clip of the Young Americans singing......inserted to placate Nixon? (Now THAT's funny.)
Worse than all of above: the PSA's message gets lost! Another reviewer here says R & M are plugging WAR bonds. Not for Vietnam in 1968, they weren't. It's SAVINGS bonds and the new savings notes (AKA freedom shares, issued from May 1967 to October 1970). But because Paul Keyes' script rigidly requires the boys stick to their act -- that this come off as another version of their show -- Martin's jokes get in the way of Rowan's explanations. R & M were hot back in '68; I can see why the government jumped at the chance for them to do this PSA. But Keyes' script puts "entertainment" (for lack of a better word) ahead of the message. This thing probably created more protesters than buyers.
Yes, I'm viewing this 40 years later. But I was a teen back then and thought R & M were very funny (still do today). This is NOT.
A Walk in the Sun (1945)
Talk, talk, talk
Got excited when opening credits showed Rossen wrote the screenplay.
Then the characters started speaking. Repetitiously. All the time. Richard Conte saying "Butt!". Norman Lloyd saying "You kill me" or talking about the war extending to Tibet or grumbling THE SAME PHRASE again and again (sorry, I blocked it) about getting all the dirty jobs. John Ireland lyrically and verbally composing letters to his sister at every slow moment (and there were a lot of them). All to a semi-Negro spiritual playing the background.
Thirty minutes later, I smiled when Sterling Holloway got it on the beach. I no longer cared whether the G.I.s would take the farmhouse. I wanted the Germans to slaughter them. No, maybe capture them and torture them. Slowly.
I changed channels as that wasn't going to happen.
Didn't expect blood or graphic violence -- not given the year this was made. But I did expect it to keep my interest -- especially with the screen writing pedigree. Rossen obviously didn't want the usual war picture. He simply wanted war as average guys surviving long stretches of boredom and uncertainty punctuated by short bursts of action, adrenaline and unexpected death. Good idea, except the existential dialog and "meaningful" music clubbed this viewer into shell-shock.
I guess Rossen learned his lesson. Had Paul Newman repeatedly barked "Chalk!" at Piper Laurie or composed his shots out loud to George C. Scott while in a hotel room, who'd remember "The Hustler" today?
Fortune Is a Woman (1957)
Call this British noir
Thank God for Turner Classic Movies! You'd never see this in "The States" otherwise.
Hawkins and Dahl (though both obviously older than the ages their roles call for) are great: He as a man caught in an ever-tightening noose by a series of very believable coincidences; She as the old flame who ignites emotions which lead him astray.
Scenes in the manor are well-thought-out and very suspenseful. The lighting even adjusts as the moon slips between the clouds!
The plot will keep you guessing when you think you know the score.
2 quibbles (which clarify themselves after viewing, but give nothing away here and now):
1) USA release is titled "She Played With Fire". They shoulda called it: "HE Played With Fire".
2) It doesn't end the way it begins. You'll see what I mean when you watch.
And, by all means, do!
Hart's War (2002)
Well done, but gets a bad rap
SPOILERS FROM THIS AND 2 OTHER FILMS!!!!! I saw this with my son , who's about to go on his first overseas Naval posting. We both enjoyed this film and thought it well done and the acting uniformly excellent.
Some media reviewers, though, have not been as kind.
What I remember most is them saying the characters trip all over themselves toward the end in lining up to sacrifice their lives in the name of honor and courage. Because of this, the ending's hokey and cornball, they say.
I disagree. It's all well-paced, each character's motivation is different and each rings true. The common factor is they're all willing to die for their country in time of war. To call this "cornball" is rather odd when our guys are dying in Afghanistan.
I also disagree with another IMDB reviewer who says the first 20-30 minutes of the film was irrelevant. On the contrary, it showed the Hart's descent into hell: from pinpusher/gopher to freezing naked in an interrogation cell. Cut that out and Hart loses his motivation for his sacrifice (or chance at redemption) at the end. Then he'd just be cardboard, a Hart without a heart.
I also think the Commandant was totally in character by allowing the trial to occur. He set a ridiculous time limit, tried to bribe Hart and enjoyed McNamara's embarrassment.
Having said that, though, I don't remember hearing of any WWII P.O.W. commandants who were so quick with a gun. (In "The Great Escape", the prisoners are shot on Hitler's, not the commandant's, orders. Steve McQueen ended up in the cooler, not with a bullet in the head.)
My other quibble is that the munitions dump gets blown up a bit too quickly after the tunnel's discovery -- or even that there was a munitions dump at all. Why not just let the prisoners escape and have McNamara come back? And the commandant found that tunnel so easily.... hey, it's a movie.
Thinking about it, Hart's War" is sort of -- but not quite -- a reverse twist on "Stalag 17", where William Holden earned his Oscar. There, a bunch of prisoners trick the camp guards into shooting a German agent. Here, the prisoner commander kills a stoolie.
I've gained much respect for our armed forces since my son joined up 3 years ago. Perhaps my thoughts on this film would be different if he wasn't currently serving.
View it with someone in the military you love and see what you (or they) think.