Reviews

Early on, the producers give evidence of their difficulty in making yet-another-Hitler-Movie. When all else fails, look for "meaning". For those lacking in critical thinking skills, they succeeded. For the rest of us, this is a bust.

One must be careful in criticizing a work like this. Its evident political agenda is enshrouded in a feigned quest for truth, rather, a quest for meaning. If I'm not careful in my criticism, I might be deemed a Hitler supporter. Let's be frank, Hitler is a safe target. The left will resist analysis of criminals like Stalin, Mussolini, and Mao because they were leftists. Today, you might even see sympathetic claims for these bums appearing in children's magazines, and sound-bites. But Hitler is an agreed-upon, international thug, and we are given tentative permission to hate the creep, because the left has given us permission to do so.

The film surprised me with an immediate, laughable attempt to link Trump to Hitler. More on that in a bit.

The old, tired generalities are trotted out as indicators of a pending fascist threat: Nationalism, Unity, Prosperity, etc. Though many politicians are narcissist to some degree, the artificially narrow selection of Trump (a flawed man, like all of the rest) for comparison was not an accident. The perceived fascists create and feed off fear, it is claimed, so now it's the movie-maker's turn to create fear. I was stunned to see this film even condemn the French for celebrating their win of the World Cup, and then ridicule the Poles for peacefully celebrating their independence. Nationalism must be bad. In these and other cases, we cannot celebrate nor protest anything, unless we have the left's permission.

Comparisons to Trump are grossly unconvincing. OK, they both loved their respective countries. I fail to see that as a risk. Let's try this. Hitler's violent, murderous brownshirt thugs were never arrested. Unruly protestors, claiming to be Trump supporters, were arrested. Yet BLM and Antifa rioters were never brought to justice. Who, now, are the fascists? Hitler hated Jews, Trump celebrates and embraces the Jews in his family and abroad. The contrasts between Trump and Hitler are often striking. But the producers of this film cannot detect their blindness to it. Their misleading edits of sound and imagery are transparently low-end.

They did make one compelling point: Dramatization of Hitler's suicide always happens behind closed doors, or in the darkness of a camera fade. He has been granted way too much dignity and privacy. We would do well to remove his protection and dramatize it directly, fully, in movies and such.

If I may one-up the producers ... you will understand Hitler best, as living out a fantasy incubated in his obsession with Wagnerian Operatic Myths. It was the ultimate escape for a guy, who only wanted relationships, with those he could control, like animals and other peoples' children.

This self-referential documentary comes off much like the tight rope walker, who falls into the net, and still expects the audience to cheer. For the few tricks they achieve on this tightrope walk, the film is minimally watchable. This film is more an exercise in leveraging the obvious to make an ill-conceived point, and rather would do better as an example of sloppy thinking.

The Spoiler appears in the last large paragraph, where I explain why this nearly perfect film gets 9 stars instead of 10.

It's been 25 years since I've seen this masterpiece, and the second viewing, with a living room full of good friends, has made it look better than ever. All the wonderful observations you have heard about this gem are true. I will speak to a supposed flaw, claimed by critics, who seem to be looking for a quarrel.

Some complaints have been submitted, over Morgan Freeman's portrayal of an "Uncle Tom" character, "Hoke". That humble, excessively deferential character does emerge quickly. But I invite the viewer to watch for the numerous times "Hoke" stands his ground, to defend his humanity, his dignity and even common sense. I have often wondered if my enthusiasm over the success of people in my space, might come off as a white version of "Tommin'". At times, Hoke is slightly, just slightly annoying. I am convinced that Hoke's ultimate success came from firm possession of that wisdom we all crave: To know when to speak up, and when to shut up.

With all the reviews and synopses out there, I suppose Miss Daisy's character development is predictable and essential. Jessica Tandy successfully navigates Miss Daisy to the final, matured and ripened version of "Daisy" that we all want to see. The closing minutes between her and Hoke at the nursing home, are played with a restrained, yet sublime intensity, which rivals the ending of Chaplin's City Lights. (At the end of my recent viewing, the host at the viewing party grabbed the remote control, to watch those closing minutes again).

In this viewing, it's Hoke I studied, and I invite you to do the same. I am not sure he changed at all in the course of the story. It's like he was always there, always the same, allowing his wisdom and strength to emerge only when necessary. Like Brer Rabbit, he knows when to lay low, but unlike Brer Rabbit, he is not out to trick anybody. His integrity won't allow that. This happens so often with good acting. We want that character to live forever, and maybe even cross our path someday.

If you watch this film when you are young, be sure to watch it again, when you approach retirement, that is, after you see a few elderly people in your space terror-stricken by the rapid changes going on around them. Then your understanding will go deep, and satisfy.

This film got 9 stars instead of 10, because I don't like grandstanding and stereotyping. At one point in this story, the more mature and tolerant version of Miss Daisy expresses disgust over the though of a relative being a Republican. This stereo-typical disdain for Republicans was ill-informed and a needless blemish on the film. Since the time this film was produced, it has been widely published that the Jim Crow era, so eloquently rebutted by this grand film, was the architecting of Southern Democrats. The producers should have resisted the urge to slip-in their own prejudices, however briefly. The film loses a pinch of timelessness for that. Perhaps this faux pax indicates another round of "winning-people-over", yet to be accomplished.

Now pick up a box of tissues and enjoy!

Just saw the film tonight at a congregational event. I have been watching Mahoney, and there is a personal sense of integrity, which radiates through his work. At the end of his previous film, his first film, PATTERNS OF EVIDENCE: EXODUS" he hints that something about the Red Sea crossing and Mt. Sinai would be forthcoming next. In this movie, it emerges that he could not, in good conscience, proceed, until questions about Moses' authorship were resolved. The essential argument, which Mahoney refutes, is that Moses could not have written the first 5 books of the Bible, because writing was not sufficiently developed his time. Mahoney shows with room to spare, that there was plenty of evidence of a scripting method available back then, and it emerges at the time of the Patriarch, Joseph ... a wise man of his age. And all Western alphabets emerged from the alphabet invention made this time period. If you want to plug into this attractive theory, it is important to understand the specific point Mahoney is making: He is not saying the Semitic languages began with Hebrew as an offshoot of Egyptian. The Semitic language family, as spoken, always flourished. Mahoney's point is that the ALPHABET, that written invention, appears to have emerged as a spinoff of Egyptian Hieroglyphics, and that provided Moses with the technology of alphabet, which enabled transmission of Divine Law. One of the Primary "Aha" moments for me in this film, is that Yahweh, the Deity of the Bible, wanted his people to be literate. The Mosaic Law explicitly requires posting the commandments on the doorposts of your home ! And so, what started out as another spiritual crisis for Mahoney, turns out to be a smashing good resolution of the "Moses Controversy", and a delightful theory on the origin of the western alphabet ... using real evidence. I especially cherish the contributions of agnostic scholar David Rohl. His friendship and expertise is most appealing. He is a most beloved professor. Mahoney loses one (1) point for glossing over some detail, for which the observant viewer would find clarification important. Such as making clear the geographical location of certain evidence.

We all enjoy it, when the bad guy in a movie gets busted for his indiscretions. Jack Nicholson on the witness stand in "A Few Good Men" comes to mind. In this film, the good guy gets dinged for his indiscretions. I took no pleasure in it, and maybe the director likes that reaction.

It is tempting for the viewer to pinpoint just one misdeed on the part of Denzel Washington's character (No, I will not give it away). And I suppose there is a moral framework out there, a man-made framework, in which it is just one deed that soiled this guy's soul.

I invite the viewer to step back, and drink in a larger picture. The character is fighting old battles, with old weapons. And he presumes to take on ridiculous, high crime cases. Meanwhile, the film deftly guides you through a singular, ethical misadventure. That seems to be the focus. But a viewer with a larger perspective will concede that this lawyer has been pampering and powdering wicked losers of all kinds throughout his career, albeit with a few meritorious cases here and there.

Really, now, how can he defend violent criminals against "the system", as though they are victimized, wounded birds, when the victims of the criminals are dealing with inexpressible grief? Really, now, where is the justice in that? In one scene, he gets rightfully busted for defending domestic abusers. Touche!

Denzel Washington is terrific, as always. I wonder how he would feel if he knew that I couldn't muster a lot of sympathy for the character he skillfully portrayed. It was good to see Roman Israel have a positive impact on the cut-throat lawyer he worked for. In the end, the criminal justice system is portrayed as the bad guy, and that was made artfully clear. Criminals must choose: They must accept either an outrageous please bargain, or an even worse sentence if found guilty of the inflated charges.

What is not so clear are the co-defendants: People like you and me, who tolerate crime and injustice in our sphere of control, and the lawyers, who we summon to protect us, even when we are in the wrong. Roman Israel, Esquire, is forced to come clean of one misdeed. But what about the viscous scoundrels he defended daily? I see no remorse registered by Roman Israel, nor his clients. By the way ... I have been meaning to ask: Who fixes YOUR traffic tickets?

In this age, when truth in the news is at-issue, comes this compelling documentary. This film captures the Nazi attempt to frame the Polish Jews of The Warsaw Ghetto as an un-redeemable people. The strategy is so sinister, that one has to look away and think about it for a bit. A first draft propaganda film shows the starving poor of the Warsaw Ghetto, with comparison shots of the few remaining Jews, who still have a coin to spend. The original Nazi producers of the rescued film wanted to showcase a callous Jewish population, having no regard for their suffering neighbors. The objective is tricky. To make it work would require skill on editing and narration. The objective was bizarre, and it shows. This documentary is distinguished by the historical background and by the immediate reaction of Warsaw survivors, who add color and background information. A further add-on is the running interview with one of the chief cameramen, whose slowly emerging confession of fact becomes a priceless narration. Watch for the occasional heart-breaking' image, punctuated by a director stepping into the frame, to direct the actors for another shot. One staged image after another. This movie-within-a-movie is unforgettable. When a producer is all-in for propaganda, they will do anything, no matter how sinister.

In light of today's headlines, where political accusations and over-reaction are the norm in the news, this classic shows the horror of mob rule. We learn from "To Kill A Mockingbird" that some people are on this earth to do a dirty job. There is a dirty job hanging over the head of the character played by Fonda. His mop-up of the incident is inspiring. If movie-makers really desire to touch lives, this film has done the job. Our conscience is a prime and valuable connection between man and Heaven. The film concludes with Fonda explaining that in a memorable bar scene, in a setting unique in all of cinema. I claim Fonda made "12 Angry Men" as a counter-balance to this bone-jarring story. What do YOU think?

This fast and fun comedy gets off to a strong start with an immediate identification mix-up. Harry's photo appears on the front page labeled as an escaped, insane killer. And he's on his way to his wedding when every one he bumps into recognizes his face from the front page. Good laughs all the way. The story enters a nice, surreal sequence where Harry winds up in the very vehicle driven by the REAL escaped murderer. The guy really is insane, and Harry's go-along strategy for survival keeps the laughs going. The very last gag could have been better, and I think Harry Langdon the professional knew it. But this is the Jules White comedy world, and retakes like that cost too much. Enjoy!