Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Crazy Street Paintings

Yep, that's a painted street to look like a water filled chasm, and it is awesome. What would you do if you turned the corner in your car and came across that? Continue after the break for more.


Yep I think I would definitely not drive down that road.

Visit Edgar Mueller's website to see more pictures of his amazing street art.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 23, 2009

Please, don't make it political. Is that possible?

Last night were the Oscars: the annual ceremony to honor the best films of the year and the people who made them. I love to watch the show. I have seen every one for well over a decade and a half now, and this year's was very good. Not only was the show entertaining, but virtually every one of my expected winners did win (I knew Kate Winslet would pull it off). And as anticipated, Slumdog Millionaire took just about every award it was nominated for including the coveted Best Picture. The only exception (and indeed disappointment) of the night for me, was Sean Penn getting Best Actor for Milk.

Now, I will admit, I did not see Milk, so I won't discuss my disappointment here. Because who knows? I may have really enjoyed it. But what I do want to talk about is the grandstanding people do when at the podium. And more particularly, I want to discuss Sean Penn's comments about how I am shamed for voting yes to prop 8. Here we go...

Inevitably, every year at the Oscars, somebody has to speak out about something politically oriented. Over the past few years it has primarily been against the war or talking about the "urgency" of "global warming." I think the funniest one ever was the year that Michael Moore won best documentary for Bowling for Columbine. He got up there and started shaming on President Bush for starting a fictitious war. But what was funny is it happened at the height of Bush's approval ratings, so Michael Moore was booed from the stage.

Cut to 6 years later, and he is deemed a liberal hero. He would be cheered for making the same statement, perhaps cheered on even more if he added extra venom to his words (and they were already pretty venomous, Fahrenheit 9/11 anyone?). I think that example shows how easily swooned the sheep crowd is; how everybody is so easily manipulated. Look at how everybody is blaming everything on President Bush, when in reality the recession wasn't his doing. People love to jump on the current bandwagon and ride it till we are told to ride another. But I'm not getting into that right now, that is another long post in the making

I don't want to talk my politics or my beliefs or downplay those of others. I have respect for the beliefs of others. I will trash somebody for making a spirited, uninformed, stupid remark, but I won't trash their beliefs. I respect my fellow Americans. I respect that people think differently than I do. So why can't others? I really want to talk about why people do this? Why do people stand up on the podium after winning an award for a performance in a movie, and feel they have to tell the world how it should be? The Oscars are about films. They are about the art of making movies. It isn't about promoting a person's agenda. The Academy Awards are not political!! Leave your preaching for some other, far more appropriate venue, such as a rally, a parade, or daresay a city hall meeting where change can be really enacted.

So is it silly to think that an Oscar Telecast can be politically free? I think that it is an impossibility. Especially when a liberal pompous hothead like Sean Penn gets on his pulpit and tells the majority of Californians they should be ashamed for voting on their morals. I'm sorry, but the Country was founded on those morals and to spit in my eye for voting on what I believe to be right, is in itself shameful.

OK, we knew I wasn't going to be able to make it to the end before that came out. *sigh* OK, that's that.

OK, so Celebs do it. We see it all the time. Now why do they do it? I think firstly there is the aspect of being in front of a crowd, and you have something to say. Another part of it is that as a celebrity you have more influence than the average person. Lastly I think most celebrities carry an air of "better than you." So when people in the country disagree with them, they feel the need to speak out wherever they can.

The latest items on the Celebrity Agenda: Gay Marriage, Darfur, Global Warming, Tibet, on and on and on. And it will go on and on, until people say "Enough!!" It bothers me greatly to hear snobby speeches made about how I am doing wrong, especially to hear them at a ceremony that isn't focused on the issue at all. Granted, I will give you that Sean Penn was remarking about the plight of homosexuals, and his movie that he won for was about Harvey Milk, the first gay man elected to office. So one could then argue that he was talking about a relevant subject. But the tone, the words, and the attitude he employed was disdainful and filled with vitriol (yes, I actually know that word). My point is: he could have said it better, without stomping on so many Americans.

These are speeches that are spoken in the name of the betterment of humanity, but point of fact it is really somebody riding a high horse. My plea to the Academy, and to smug celebs, please, come down off your horses, and maybe we can actually celebrate something as wonderful as film, and not bloat your self-righteous ego any more. Let's leave the Oscars to the films, not your agendas.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Classic Movie Monday: House of Wax

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

House of Wax
Released: April 25, 1953
Directed by: André de Toth
Starring: Vincent Price, Frank Lovejoy, & Phyllis Kirk

Plot in a Nutshell:
A devoted sculptor of wax figures, Professor Jarrod, owns a museum with a businessman, who after failing to find an offer decides to destroy the collection and claim the insurance money. Jarrod refuses to go along and is attacked unexpectedly by his partner, who burns the museum and leaves the sculptor for dead. After he survives he begins a new wax museum, only now, rather than historical figures, the figures represent death and murder. Then suspicions arise when people begin noticing similarities between the new figures and the recently deceased.

What I thought:
I think I saw this when I was younger but I don't remember it very well, and after the disappointment of last week's House on Haunted Hill, I was left craving for more Vincent Price, and a little more horror. Did House of Wax fulfill my hope? Absolutely.

Unlike last week's House on Hunted Hill, this film actually delivered on the creep factor. Of course I don't think you could not make a movie about wax figures and have it NOT be creepy. The ick factor for just the realistic wax sculptures was enough to give you the chills. It certainly helped that they ended up being REAL people covered in wax. How gruesome! (I always knew wax figures looked too real, now I know why.)

Vincent Price is the creepiest gentleman I think that has ever been put on screen. He exudes a sinister thinking through his character of the insane sculptor. It was fascinating to see the transformation of his character. In the beginning he is a humble artist, who likes to sculpt beautiful things. He doesn't revel in death or the macabre like his competitors in the wax circuit. However, when he is turned on by his partner and horribly burned in the fire, his obsessive insanity begins to take him over. Vincent Price has no problem portraying this tormented man.

It was still a little bit silly. The characters are one note, and the scares aren't tremendous, but it still manages to draw you in with its mystery and horror. And in the end, it manages to provide a creep factor that still holds up today. This is what a great B-movie from the 50s should be.

Bottom Line:
Vincent Price delivers a perfect blend of cordial insanity in this utterly creepy film, that somehow still manages to be quite an entertaining and thrilling film.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Going to the Drew Struzan Art Show

I'm sure many of you are reading the title and wondering who I am talking about. That's ok, his name isn't very well known. However, I guarantee that you have seen his work. And I will bet that you have enjoyed it.

Drew is an artist who has been working for several decades in the film industry, designing and illustrating movie posters. He has done work for many films including Star Wars, Blade Runner, E.T., the Indiana Jones films, Hellboy, Flintstones, Hook, and many, many more.

Here are some examples of his work...

Let me give you a little background for me. I first recognized Drew Struzan after I had watched and rewatched and watched again the movie Hook. The cover to that VHS was a striking image, a piece of art that showcased the film's many dazzling and fantastical moments. I remember thinking about that image at school waiting to return home to watch it again.

Well, on the VHS, on the painting, in the lower corner, was inscribed the name Drew. I thought it weird because it obviously had nothing to do with Hook. Then, slowly I began to recognize that distinctive Drew on other posters and VHS's. This was when I first became aware of the artist behind the posters, Drew Struzan.

Lately in the past year or two I began developing a great deal of affection for the old style of illustrated film posters and have started a collection. They mostly consist of Drew posters, but I do have others also hanging up (I enjoy movies what can I say). I currently have these posters framed (yes framed, I don't staple to walls anymore) and hanging in my home...

I learned that an exhibition of some of his work would be held at an art gallery in LA, and on the opening night of the exhibition, Drew himself would be there. I was geeking out; to get the chance to meet the man who has drawn some of the most iconic film images ever, was very exciting.

When I arrived at the gallery (after my 2.5 hour drive from Ridgecrest) it was fairly uncrowded (I was expecting quite a few more people). I went around and saw the works on display. Mostly it was Artist proof prints of his portfolio, however their were a handful of original paintings. One of the highlights for me was this...

I couldn't believe it, here it was. The poster that got me hooked on this artist, was on display. Remember, this wasn't merely a movie poster that you see in your local cineplex. This was the ORIGINAL painting. Slightly larger than a standard sized film poster, it had such incredible detail. I can't describe the pure joyous kiddy delight that sprung within me when I saw that painting on Friday night. I was that kid pouring over the old worn out VHS copy of Hook once again.

After finally prying away from the painting, I decided I would try and meet the man and give him my thanks. I hurriedly bought a book of his work so he could sign it and got in the growing line of people waiting to shake his hand. It dawned on me while I was waiting, that the majority of people here were from the art community, not strictly film buffs like myself. It was something I never really thought of but seemed so obvious, aspiring artists admired this man just as much as I did, but for completely different reasons.

I do not get starstruck, however I couldn't help but feel incredibly intimidated at meeting this man. Here he is, I am shaking the hand of the guy who has brought so much joy to the kid as well as the aspiring filmmaker inside me. I stumbled through some thanks and appreciations, as he was signing my book. When he was finished, I told him how disappointed I am that we will never see his full line up of Harry Potter posters. He conveyed the same disappointment saying "We don't get a say in the marketing, we don't make those decisions." But again I told him that it was sad the industry has turned their backs on traditional illustrated poster art. And that his stuff was amazing. He thanked me, I thanked him, and that was it.

Originally he was contacted to do the poster for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. He was told that they wanted him to do all the posters in a similar style. He did a painting for Chamber of Secrets, which the original was on display at the gallery:

But it was rejected for this photo poster:
It is sad that the appreciation for this art has diminished so severely. The demand has all but evaported for illustrated posters. There are exceptions such as last year's Indiana Jones posters, and the George Lucas Star Wars prequels. Guillermo del Toro commissioned Drew to do posters for Hellboy, Hellboy II, and Pan's Labyrinth. Sadly, none of the final designs were used for marketing purposes. Also Frank Darabont commissioned him to do the work for the Mist, as well as Special edition covers for the Shawshank Redemption and the Green Mile.

Darabont, Del Toro, Lucas, and Spielberg are just a few of a very small handful of filmmakers that still recognize the power of an iconic poster. Drew Struzan creates that iconography with every brush stroke.

Drew announced his retirement from film posters last year.

I highly encourage you to stop by Drew's website and check out some of his amazing stuff, including the three poster collage of the Star Wars original trilogy. It is awesome.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 16, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: House on Haunted Hill

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

House on Haunted Hill
Released: February 17, 1959
Directed by: William Castle
Starring: Vincent Price, Carol Ohmart, & Richard Long

Plot in a Nutshell:
This 1950s horror B-movie starts when an eccentric millionaire (Price) invites 5 guests to stay at a haunted house as part of a contest. Whoever stays the night will win a prize of $10,000. As the night progresses, tensions mount and the guests end up trapped in the house with the ghosts and each other.

What I thought:
What a disappointment this film ended up being. With the promise of a great actor as Vincent Price, and the thrilling showman talent of William Castle at the helm, this film seemed destined for great entertainment and horror. Oh how wrong was I.

OK to be fair, I am looking at this flick from a modern day perspective. And to approach this now 50-year-old picture with today's eyes is a bit preposterous. There is no fathomable way that you could even be remotely scared or thrilled by this picture today. It just won't happen. You have to put on your 50s glasses and view it as an audience would back in the day. But even after watching it in my handy dandy 1959 glasses, it is still a disappointment.

There were a few genuine scares here and there, but I think the emphasis of this film is the relationship between the millionaire, Mr. Loren, and his wife. Throughout the picture you understand that they hate each other, both want each other dead (and one ends up so by the film's conclusion). It is how it unfolds that is ultimately the film's strength. With a few twist, turns and unexpected surprises, the finale wraps it up nicely, if leaving the audience a little unsatisfied.

It seems that the focus is not on the house, nor the umpteen ghosts residing in it, or even the characters brought in to stay just one night in the spooky abode. No, the film is really only concerned with Mr. Loren and his wife, the other characters, and indeed the house's ghosts themselves are merely there to support the Mr. and Mrs. Loren squabble. Which for a movie like this, with this much promise, it becomes very frustrating.

I much prefer the 1999 remake, simply because there are some genuine ghosts that cause mayhem. In this original, not so much real ghosting going on. All the spookings and creepy things are easily explained away within the story, leaving me hungry for some real ghost horror action.

Sad to say, that even Vincent Price's normal gooey, slimy, and yet altogether regal self, barely makes an appearance. He seems to be gliding through the scenes, playing a very one dimensional impression of himself, that eventually becomes so tired. This film makes me want to watch a good Vincent Price flick, so, so bad. I have to wash the taste of this flick outta my mouth.

I think the only cool thing about this film, is something that you can't reproduce easily today. The director, William Castle, was such a showman, that for this film's release he actually rigged many theaters with a pulley system that would swing a skeleton over the audience at the appropriate time. Now if you weren't expecting that, it could have a real impact on you in a crowded audience. However, since it is now only a story in filmmaking history, it adds very little to the film aside from an amusing anecdote.

Bottom Line:
If you were born in the 50s, or earlier, and you saw this flick in the theater upon its release, it could have shocked the pants off of you (I don't know how). However if you are of this generation, it isn't even worth it for its filmmaking, characters, or story. Sadly this 50s B-movie
, aside from nostalgia, simply doesn't hold up anymore.

C
(Sadly, not even worth a B)

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 12, 2009

This one's for you...

I wanted to say thanks to everybody who sent me a card or an email, or even a text, wishing me a Happy Birthday. I appreciate everybody's love and support. You all are awesome.

And I also wanted to move that Cow picture down a notch, it was a bit gross wasn't it. Sorry. I promise no more disgustingness (for the near future anyway, muhahahahaha).

So now let us all enjoy a nice piece of Yoda cake...


Thank you everybody!

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Here's one to... er... sip on.

WARNING! This post contains imagery that is a little disgusting. You have been warned.

So in my daily surfings around the net, I come across some interesting reads. And then this morning I stumbled upon the following story. And I found it so vile, so filthy, and so wrong, I just had to share it with you. Now you can be grossed out for the day...

OK, how gross is that? Could you imagine this? Sit down to watch the game, got the nachos, the dip, and a nice cold (or warm) glass of bull piss. You have to almost marvel at the man's business plan: Take something that everybody deems disgusting, which is inexpensive and easy to 'harvest,' then spin it and sell it to poor saps for a few bucks. It's so dastardly brilliant it sounds like the plot for a new James Bond film.

Now in all seriousness, He isn't simply bottling Cow pee and selling it. No, he is adding various herbs to make it a little healthy I suppose. But this isn't the first time the notion of drinking cow urine has cropped up. Apparently Hindus, who revere everything cow, have been known to drink the stuff as a way of cleansing their bodies of ailments. Others just simply bath in the disgustingness...


Yuck! Yuck! Yuck! YUCK!!!!

Now I'm sorry, but worshipping beef is one thing. To let them live among you, walk the streets, and poop on your doorstep, is ok i guess. Whatever floats your boat, right. But to ingest a cow's bodily waste and secretions is absolutely filthy. What is next for the Hindus, lotion made from cow excrement?!

One could make a small argument that the supplement found in some energy drinks known as taurine is the same thing. But unfortunately for the argument, taurine is a bit different then straight up cow pee. It is true that taurine can be found in cow urine and bull testicles but it isn't harvested from either. So take that naysayers. Actually, to please vegetarians and us folks who don't like the idea of drinking cow bile, taurine is generally synthesized today for human consumption.

So how's that for a random discussion? Drinking cow pee, BLEUCH!

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 9, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: The Adventures of Robin Hood

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The Adventures of Robin Hood
Released: April 25, 1938
Directed by: Michael Curtiz & William Keighley
Starring: Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, & Claude Rains

Plot in a Nutshell:
When King Richard leaves his land to fight in the crusades, his brother, Prince John jumps at the chance to seize control of the kingdom and begins oppressing the citizens with hefty taxes and harsh punishments. Then a local nobleman stands up for the people, setting off a resistance that inspires the people to fight against the oppressive ruler.

What I thought:
The classic tale comes to vivid life in this near pitch perfect telling of the classic fable of the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor.

I think the first thing I must point out is the look of the film. For being filmed in the early days of color film, this film shines with striking color that you don't see too often anymore. It's almost as if the filmmakers purposefully exploited the capabilities of the technicolor simply because they could. Back in a day when color and black and white films existed equally together, I can imagine that you almost had to make your colors shine as brightly and vividly as you could simply to distinguish yourself from the black and white pictures. It is a shame we don't see colorful movies like this anymore (although I think last year's Speed Racer used color brilliantly).


Errol Flynn's performance of Robin Hood, perfectly blending an infectious charisma and charm, makes this movie so enjoyable to watch. Once you get past the somewhat cartoony aspect of the character (which doesn't take long) you begin to find yourself enjoying the simpleness of it all. The whole story is told straightforward, there really is no depth of character or motivation in the plot (besides the obvious oppression of the people), but it doesn't matter. It's just too much fun. Near the end of the film when the big battle breaks out in the castle, I couldn't keep myself from smiling. It was pure joy to watch this film unfold.


Which brings me to the ultimate strength of this film; it is absolute cartoon fluff, brought to life through fun characters, fantastic visuals, and breathtaking action and spectacle. This is old Hollywood picture-making at it's pinnacle. The Adventures of Robin Hood is well worth a watch if you've never seen it. I can't recommend this entertaining film enough, go see it.

Bottom Line:
A light and endlessly fun film, with a perfect blend of action, humor, and swashbuckling adventure, the Adventures of Robin Hood sits perfectly on the mantle of masterpieces.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

I buy Girls Scout cookies from Girl Scouts!

Because they're made from real Girl Scouts!

The title sums it up. I buy Girl Scout cookies from Girl Scouts. I don't buy them from their parents peddling their daughter's products at work. Do people really coddle their kids this much these days? Or are kids just too damn lazy to go out and peddle themselves?


This all started last week, when a mysterious piece of paper showed up in the office. A piece of paper that was a sign up for girl scout cookies. Sign your name, what you want, and the cookies will be brought in to work in March. Wah-lah! I scoffed at the mere existence of such a list. "How impersonal!" I said to myself. If this parent was trying to sell their kid's cookies, they weren't doing a very good job at it. At least have the cajones to ask me in person.

Well eventually they did ask me in person, and my response was a polite "No, thank you." What I should have said was "Why on God's green earth would I buy a GIRL SCOUT cookie from what is clearly, a non Girl Scout?!"

Now, I actually like this person very much, and she has on many occasions asked me to buy stuff to support her endeavors, which I have been perfectly ok with. But selling your kid's cookies for them? Nah-ah. I won’t support that.

I like it when I go to Wal-mart, or the grocery store, and a troop of scouts has a table set up outside stacked with cookies (I like instant gratification). As I make my way into the store, a girl asks if I'd like to buy a box. 100% of the time, I will say yes, and fork over my hard earned 20 bucks to support the Girl Scouts of America (then I will pig out on frozen thin mints for a week).

So are the kids at fault here? Do they ask Mommy and Daddy to see if they can sell cookies at work? More than likely, yes. I have been there, selling fundraiser stuff. And I do distinctly remember asking if my Mom could sell some stuff at work. So call me a hypocrite. I actually think I grew up and formed an opinion, but whatever. Kids want to be the best, they see an opportunity in their parent's workplace. But where'd they get that idea from? My guess is the Girl Scouts of America.

Picture it: You are a Girl Scout. You just joined. You are excited to sell some cookies. You sit down with your scout masters (whatever they are called), and they lay out the plan for you to sell cookies. They offer suggestions to help sell them, tips and advice. And among the many ideas they have to sell the cookies and make money is to give a form to your parents and get them to sell some at work. Obviously I am not, nor have ever been a girl scout, but you don't need a degree in Rocket Surgery to know they push the kids and the parents into selling them at work.

So what do you know? It's the association itself creating this tomfoolery. The girls are blameless, they're children, they just want to sell the most so they can take that canoe trip or whatever. It is the parents and the organization that should know better.

My point is that the cookies are meant to be sold by children, to support a children's organization. I understand you want to help your kids, and get them that prize for selling the most cookies. It is a natural thing to want to do that, but this is something I will mark the line on very clearly:

Girls in the girl scouts, sell Girl Scout cookies. Period.

That being said, I can't wait to get my hand on some boxes, they are soooooo good.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Human trafficking really happens?!

I saw the new movie Taken over the weekend. In short it was a great if not simple action & vengeance-filled movie; a great weekend movie. But what want to talk about is the primary subject of the film: human trafficking and more importantly sex trafficking.

In the film, Liam Neeson plays a man whose daughter is kidnapped while on a trip through Paris. And he discovers that she was taken as part of a human trafficking ring, and she was sold to a wealthy middle eastern leader, because of her virginity she was deemed more valuable.

OK, this sickens me, I find it incredibly hard to believe that this happens. So a researching I will go...

Here's some facts for you to munch on:
  • Human Trafficking is lucrative and brings in between $5-$9 billion every year in revenue. Another source estimates it is a 42 billion dollar business globally.
  • Forced prostitution, slave labor, and even harvesting organs for the black market are a few of the results of being trafficked.
  • Approximately 600,000 to 820,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year. 70% are women or girls, 50% are minors.

There are lists and lists of statistics on this issue, but frankly it is too depressing to list them here. Simply understand, this is a tremendous problem. It is primarily isolated to Europe, Asia and Africa, but there are estimates that put about 14,000 people are trafficked into the US every year, against their will.

In Asia, women are regularly taken from poorer countries such as the Philippines and Thailand, and brought to wealthier nations such as Japan to work as prostitutes and strippers. However 80% of those go willingly, knowing they will be prostitutes. Which then leads to a very important question, is human trafficking OK if they are willing? I don't think so.

So why are people willingly going into this ring of trafficking? It could be something as innocent as a job offer from overseas. But from what I have gathered, it is simply because people are destitute. You have no money, and not a very good quality of life, somebody comes along and offers a roof, meals for your belly, and a job. You have no choice, so why not. What they don't expect is the bullying, the drug abuse, and the general depravity that you will experience being forced into something that you might have been willing to do at first because you had no better option. But to live and work under a regime of ownership, is not right.

So what do we do? First off, be aware. Know that this exists and more importantly a thriving business, with little police interference. Beware when traveling abroad. They love blondes for some reason. So wear a hat and look ugly.

I kid. I kid. But in all seriousness, just be aware. Odds are you have a better chance of being killed by a bee than to be coerced into forced slavery or prostitution. Just don't support this by getting a prostitute overseas or here in America. But then again, don't do that because it's disgusting.

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 2, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: The Longest Day

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado....

The Longest Day
Released: Oct 4, 1962
Directed by: Ken Annakin, Andrew Martin, & Bernhard Wicki
Starring: John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, Sean Connery

Plot in a Nutshell:
A recreation of the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944, told on a massive scale from both German and Ally perspectives.

What I thought:
This film is flat out immense. Thousands of extras, grand action, enormous and complicated shots; this is the definition of epic filmmaking. Requiring three directors to tell the tale, and an international cast of hundreds, this film is BIG. Sitting at just under 3 hours in length, it takes its time relaying the events of D-Day. And I think that is what could be a problem with this by-the-facts historical epic.

The events surrounding and leading up to Normandy are all present here. The film is told with such care as to get historical facts right, that it becomes a detriment to the picture. I'm not saying it isn't enjoyable, it is just that at times it's scope gets weighted in its portrayal of small events that aren't important to the whole.

An example is that one of the troops gets caught hanging by his chute. Suspended from a church, he hangs for hours, as he goes unnoticed by the Germans in the courtyard. He watches as his buddies are mowed down and rounded up. It is a curious fact, but it feels like it was thrown in just because it really happened. Another example is the Chaplin who must find his case before he moves on. Or the paratrooper's clickers getting mistaken with a German's gun being cocked. The whole movie is this way, a series of happenstances that slowly build and then encompass the invasion itself, the story seems to be told by the events occurring and not through any thought or motivation of the characters.

My point is that they shouldn't feel as forced as they seem. Events should flow, not simply thrown in because it really happened. It makes for a nice historical film, but fails to illustrate the thoughts behind the actions. People act because that is what they did. There doesn't seem to be any exploration into why things were done. Ultimately, it is a minor complaint as the whole of the film is just too damn impressive to be knocked down by a little historical accuracy.

The scope that is on display, is grand. Told from both perspectives, you see every gamut of emotion that happened on the day, through every rank. From General to Private, everybody's story is represented here. That is one thing I love about this film, and one of its war-film brethren, Tora Tora Tora. It has the courage to humanize the enemy. Very rarely do you see this in a war film, rarer to see it in one that is nearing 50 years old.

Bottom Line:
Quite simply, it is an incredible look at one of the most important days in WWII, it just gets a little bogged down with too much fact, but is still a rousing war film from yesteryear.

A-

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content