Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February, 2026

The Passing Of My Three Amigos

Posted in Family and Friends, General Comments, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 28, 2026| 4 Comments »

Last year I received a Facebook prompt to friend a guy (Karl Heeren) I used to hang around with when I was stationed at Fort Lewis up in Washington state.  I asked how he was doing and if he ever heard from my roommate:  Emery Spurgeon.  He replied (two days ago) he was sorry for the delay in responding, but he was rarely on Facebook and didn’t even know about “messaging”.  Karl said he was doing okay, but he regretted to inform me that “Spurg” had passed away in 2024.
With Spurgeon’s passing, the last of my three long haul (duration) roommates has now passed away.  Emery was my first long-term roommate for about 9-10 months between 1974 and 1975.  We were assigned as a team of “Special Weapons” (nukes) assemblers for our 155 howitzer battery.  We passed our annual Pentagon evaluation / test with flying colors and received commendations for adapting / improving the procedures which improved assembly reliability / performance.  This was due to him a lot more than to me.  LoL
Heeren and Spurgeon were both in heavy equipment maintenance and were roomies prior to my arrival.  When I showed up, our CO decided to move Spurg to SW because we were almost exactly the same height and weight and for some reason he felt that would matter come unit evaluation time.  Spurg hated SW and just wanted to work on trucks and track vehicles.  As soon as I was transferred, he moved back to maintenance and roomed with Heeren again.  Spurgeon completed his enlistment and returned to civilian life.  I don’t know if he ever settled down and had a family (or not).
When I left Ft. Lewis, I went to Ft. Monmouth to attend the USMA Prep School for 10 months.  My roommate there was Jeff Barron.  He was from White Plains, N.Y. and grew up always wanting to go the West Point.  We both got our appointments to West Point, but I ended up turning mine down and getting sent to Germany for two years.  Jeff went to West Point, but for some reason (I don’t know about) he ended up graduating from another university.  He did finish his military career and (I believe) retired as a Major in the Army Reserves (or National Guard).  Jeff was the guy who got me into playing lacrosse.
As I recall, I found out about his passing in 2023 or ’24.  Jeff had a profound impact on my life as he was an avid military historian and he insisted I read biographies of Patton and other Generals because “we” were going to earn our “stars” after we graduated from the “Long Gray Line“.  Well, that never happened for either of us.  But it was a fanciful dream while it lasted.  I found out about Jeff’s passing when doing a random search of folks I’d known in the past.  He did settle down and raise a couple of kids.  I don’t recall any mention of his civilian career or what he passed away from.
After the Prep School, I was ordered to West Germany (Hanau, in the “Fulda Gap”) to finish the last two of my four year active duty commitment (1976-’78).  Since I was previously in “SW”, I was briefly assigned to my battery’s 8-in SW assembly team.  I’m not sure what exactly happened, but I didn’t last in that section and was transferred to Fire Direction Control (FDC), where I learned how to target the guns for firing.  My roommate then was David Birdsong.  He was from Dallas, TX and he was a natural born “sh!t” talker who had nothing good to say about all the long-haired commies from California.  He was a great bear of a man – about 6ft 3in – and he’d played linebacker at Texas Tech (before he dropped out).  Dave was smart enough to have graduated, but he didn’t get to start and lost all interest in attending classes – so they lost all interest in him, and…  “There’s the door.”
Dave was assigned to teach me how to use the FADAC (“Field Artillery Direction Analysis Computer”) – what I was told – but I gather the “real” name is:  “M18 Field Artillery Digital Automatic Computer”.  Either way, you punched in some numbers and it gave you a firing solution for pointing (“targeting”) the guns.  At that time, the Army was resistant to relying on a computer to do the targeting (too many things can go wrong with technology in combat), so we had to use two guys to plot the target on charts using slide rules.  I became one of those two.  The other guy was FAR more experienced and intended to be a “lifer,” so when the decision was made to move away from charts, I was shifted to a gun section.  Dave and I ended up being roommates for about a year.
While attending TT, Dave had a side hustle as a DJ.  When I came along, he convinced me to buy a (near) top of the line stereo and he re-introduced me to both disco (American and Euro) and “modern” country.  I had mostly lost touch with country during my pre-teen and high school years.  So, we spent hours and hours drinking, playing cards (“Spades”) and listening to Willie Nelson (and a host of others) – “Texas Country,” but some Nashville country, too.  Before Dave, I didn’t much care if I was listening to a transistor radio or an 8-track.  When I left Germany, I had an 85-watt amp, an equalizer, a reverb, a quality turntable, a dual cassette recorder / player and speakers with 18in base speakers.  LoL
Dave loved the Cowboys and hated the 49ers.  I loved the 49ers and hated the Cowboys.  And we had some good drinking sessions over that…
Anyway, back in the late 70s I took a trip up to Canada and stopped in to see if I could find “Spurg”.  I did.  He was working in some factory doing some kind of “machinist” job.  He wasn’t terribly clear on what exactly he did but he had so many metal shavings embedded in his glasses I wondered how he could even see through them at all.  We knocked back a few “Rainer’s” and the next day I continued on my trip.
In 1987 (or so), I had a two week class in Dallas and I looked up Dave.  He was managing a car tire store / franchise, married and had a couple of kids.  They took me on a quick tour of downtown Dallas (Dealey plaza by the school book depository) and then the three of us went out for dinner.  Dave said:  “You know you really ARE a freak…  I’ve never known anyone to actually look up somebody after they got out.”  (“Freak” was Dave’s nickname for me in Germany.)  We laughed about it, but I think it was probably / mostly true.
Out of the blue, about five years ago, I thought about Dave.  I looked him up on the internet and got his address.  I sent him a Christmas card.  I got a letter back from his wife saying he’d passed away about a decade ago from cancer.
And that’s the story of my three friends / roommates from my Army days (as I remember it)…  I reckon it’s pure coincidence they passed away in reverse order to when we roomed together.  Gone, but not forgotten.
.
Click here (28 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

2026 – Our Yellow Spring Has Started

Posted in Family and Friends, Family History, General Comments, Pictures, tagged , , , , , on February 28, 2026| 2 Comments »

For the last few years I’ve tried to capture some of the “Spring” season from our gardens (front and back) with a few pictures of my wife’s favorite flowers (daffodils).  Late last year our daughter gifted us with about 150 bulbs of daffodils and tulips which we proceeded to plant in hopes of a Spring eyeful.  LoL  Anyway, …
Image
Here’s a shot of some of the “minis” which came up first…
The last few years, we’ve been getting our first bunches between 10 and 20 February.  This year, not so much has happened.  Here’s a look at a the front “pot” a few days ago (24 Feb)…
Image
And here is roughly the same shot from this morning (28 Feb)…
Image
So, some progress, but not nearly as much as we were hoping for given last year’s plantings.  But, there’s still time…
.
Click here (28 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

I’m Feeling Dizzy With Memories Of You

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 28, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Vertigo” (1958) — movie review
Today’s review is for the murder / mystery / romance-drama “Vertigo” directed by Alfred Hitchcock classic starring James Stewart as retired San Francisco detective John “Scottie” Ferguson, whose crippling fear of heights ends his police career;  and Kim Novak in a dual turn as Madeleine Elster and Judy Barton — the woman Scottie is hired to follow, and the woman he can’t let go of;  Barbara Bel Geddes plays Midge, Scottie’s steady, plain-spoken friend he’s known since their college days who sees more than he ever notices.  The film has a reputation now as one of Hitchcock’s most personal and unsettling works, but on first release it wasn’t treated as a masterpiece.  Time changed that.  It’s now considered one of the greatest American films ever made.
Background:  I’ve seen this film several times over the years, but other than the fact it’s shot in the Bay Area, I never gave it much notice and I always seem to forget most of it.  Now that I’m making more of a study of “film”, I’ll probably retain more memories of it.  And, of course, I routinely give “extra points” in my reviews to any films made in / showing San Francisco.  In basketball, it’s called a home court referee advantage.  LoL.  “Vertigo” came out in 1958, adapted from the French novel “D’entre les morts.”  Hitchcock shot it all over San Francisco and the surrounding coast, using real locations instead of studio backdrops.  Bernard Herrmann’s score is one of the most recognizable in film history.  The movie didn’t win any Academy Awards, but its reputation grew steadily, and in 2012 it briefly topped the Sight & Sound critics’ poll as the greatest film ever made — a historic moment for a movie that originally landed with mixed reviews.  LoL…
Plot:  Scottie, recovering from a rooftop chase that leaves him with a paralyzing fear of heights, is hired by an old college acquaintance to follow his wife Madeleine, who’s been acting strangely and may be possessed by the spirit of a long-dead ancestor.  Scottie trails her through San Francisco landmarks — the Palace of the Legion of Honor, the Mission Dolores graveyard, the Golden Gate Bridge — and becomes fixated on her.  After he saves her from a suicide attempt, the two grow close, but Scottie’s vertigo prevents him from stopping her apparent death at a mission tower.  Grief breaks him.  Later, he meets Judy, a shopkeeper / sales-girl who looks uncannily like Madeleine.  Scottie pushes her into a full reconstruction of the woman he lost, not realizing he’s walking straight into the truth of a murder plot he was used to cover up.  The final confrontation at the mission tower forces everything into the open.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes; Ccreer-defining work;  inventive camera tricks;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Vertigo” holds up because it’s built on simple, direct emotional beats:  fear, obsession, guilt, and the way people try to remake the world to fit their own needs.  Hitchcock takes his time, sometimes too much, but the payoff is a story that keeps tightening until the last shot.  The movie’s reputation as a (one of, anyway) “greatest ever” film isn’t hype — it’s a case of a movie aging into its full weight.
Acting:  James Stewart plays Scottie as a man who’s unraveling but doesn’t see it happening.  He’s not the warm, aw-shucks Stewart from earlier roles;  he’s brittle, confused, and sometimes unpleasant, which makes the character more believable.  Kim Novak has the tougher job, switching between Madeleine’s distant, dreamlike presence and Judy’s grounded, defensive personality.  She sells both.  Barbara Bel Geddes gives the film its only normal human voice, and her scenes with Stewart are some of the most sensible in the movie.
Filming / FX:  The famous “dolly zoom” effect — the camera move that visually simulates vertigo — still works.  Hitchcock uses San Francisco locations in a way few films ever have, giving the city a mix of beauty and unease.  The color work is bold but not overdone, and Herrmann’s score does half the emotional lifting.  Some rear-projection shots look dated now, but they don’t break the movie.
Problems:  The middle stretch, where Scottie follows Madeleine around town, can feel slow if you’re not in the mood for a long setup.  The film also leans on psychological explanations that don’t hold up today.  Scottie’s treatment of Judy in the second half is intentionally uncomfortable and it can be tough to watch — which is part of the point, though it still drags in places.  I am also not a fan of the murdering husband getting away with the crime and the rewards (riches).
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  Even knowing the twist, the movie works because it’s not really about the mystery.  It’s about watching a man lose his grip on reality and drag someone else down with him.  The pacing is deliberate, but the ending still lands hard (mostly).
Final Recommendation:  Very Highly to Must See recommendation.  “Vertigo” is generally considered essential viewing — not just for Hitchcock fans, but for anyone interested in how a movie can grow in stature over decades.  It’s a slow burn with a sharp edge, anchored by Stewart and Novak at their best.  The film’s historic significance is real, and its reputation is earned.  If you’ve never seen it, it’s worth the time.  If you have, it’s worth revisiting to see how much it still gets under your skin.
.
Click here (28 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Or Narcissistic Indifference (#45/47)

Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , on February 28, 2026| Leave a Comment »

A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.
    —    Mark Twain
[Or both…    —    kmab]
.
Click here (28 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

He Drank My Milkshake

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 27, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“There Will Be Blood” (2007) — movie review
Today’s review is for the character drama / frontier story “There Will Be Blood“, built almost entirely around Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview, a silver prospector turned oilman whose ambition burns hotter than the wells he drills;  Paul Dano plays both Paul and Eli Sunday — the first a sharp young man who tips Plainview to hidden oil, the second a self-styled preacher who becomes Plainview’s main rival;  the film also leans on Dillon Freasier as H.W., Plainview’s adopted son, whose presence gives the story its only steady human anchor.  This is a character piece first, a frontier business story second, and a slow-rolling disaster in human form from start to finish.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film.  I remember there being a big hullabaloo about it when it came out and during the following Oscar season, but I really didn’t pay much attention to the “noise”.  All I knew was that it was a historical film about some-kind-of oil wildcatter.  “There Will Be Blood” was written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, loosely inspired by Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel “Oil!“.  The movie was a major critical success, earning eight Academy Award nominations and winning two — Best Actor for Daniel Day-Lewis and Best Cinematography for Robert Elswit.  It’s often cited as one of the standout American films of the 2000s, partly because of Day-Lewis’s performance and partly because the movie doesn’t flinch from showing how ambition, isolation, and greed can hollow a man out.
Plot:  The story follows Daniel Plainview from his early days as a lone prospector to his rise as an oil tycoon.  After striking oil in California, he adopts an orphaned boy, H.W., and uses the father / son image to build trust with landowners.  A tip from Paul Sunday leads him to the Sunday family ranch, where Plainview buys drilling rights and clashes with Eli, the family’s preacher.  As Plainview’s wealth grows, his relationships collapse — H.W. is injured in a blowout, business partners come and go, and Plainview’s paranoia and resentment deepen.  By the time the film reaches its final confrontation between Plainview and Eli, the man who once clawed his way out of a mine shaft has become a wealthy hermit with nothing left but spite.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Mostly good (acting and camera-wise, anyway);  excellent;  strong period detail and striking visuals;  mainly just too slow and not clearly explained;  so-so.
Any good?  This is a strong film, built around a single character who’s compelling even when he’s awful.  The movie takes its time, sometimes too much, but the payoff is (mostly) worth it.  The story doesn’t rush to explain Plainview or soften him.  It just shows the man as he is and lets the audience sit with the consequences.  The final act is brutal and strange, but it fits the path the movie has been carving the whole way.
Acting:  Daniel Day-Lewis earned his Oscar here, and it’s obvious why.  He plays Plainview as a man who can charm a room when he needs to but would rather be alone with his money and his grudges and perceived slights.  Paul Dano’s Eli is a good counterweight — slippery, ambitious, and just as hungry for power, though in a different way.  Their scenes together are the best in the film.  Dillon Freasier, as H.W., gives the movie its emotional grounding without overplaying anything.
Filming / FX:  The movie looks great without calling attention to itself.  The early mining scenes feel rough and physical, and the oil-derrick sequences have real weight.  The big blowout is one of the standout moments — loud, chaotic, and believable.  The period setting is handled cleanly:  dusty towns, plain interiors, and wide shots that make the land feel both promising and unforgiving.  Nothing flashy, just solid craft.
Problems:  The pacing will be a hurdle for some viewers – it definitely was for me.  Anderson lets scenes run long, and a few stretches feel like they’re daring you to stay patient.  I wasn’t clear until quite late in the film that there were two (twin brothers) Sunday sons and this was quite confusing to me.  It is clear the “confusion” is intentional in the story / script, but I never understood (and still don’t) why it was done.  The ending, while memorable, jumps forward in time abruptly and can feel disconnected from the earlier parts of the film.  I guess (I’ve read) the score was supposed to be as intense as the overall film, but to be honest, I never even noticed it.
Did I enjoy the film?  So-so (mostly no).  It’s not the kind of movie you can sit through casually.  It’s heavy / intense, deliberate, and built around a character who becomes harder to watch as the story goes on.  But the performances and the craft make it worth the time, and the film feels memorable in a “Citizen Kane” way.  The film is an example of cinema you can appreciate having seen, but later think:  “I should have rented that, not bought it ’cause I’ll probably need a real good reason to ever watch it again.“
Final Recommendation:  High moderate to low strong recommendation.  “There Will Be Blood” is an character study with a powerhouse (Oscar winning) lead performance and a (mostly) clear sense of place.  It’s definitely slow and sometimes punishing, and while that’s part of what makes it “effective”, it will also limit the viewership enjoyment to more “serious” movie goers.  If you’re interested in American frontier stories, business-driven dramas, or films anchored by a single dominant performance, this one is worth watching.  Although it’s a technically excellent film (acting and production), it’s not one I would normally (personally) be attracted to if I weren’t doing this review of Oscar nominated films.
.
Click here (27 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Still Trying To Feel It

Posted in Education, Philosophy, Quotes, Science and Learning, tagged , , , , on February 27, 2026| 2 Comments »

I was educated once — it took me years to get over it.
    —    Mark Twain
[When I was young I thought when I finally got my college degree that I’d feel educated.  I got the degree, but I didn’t and still don’t feel “educated”.  All I really learned is that “education” is a life-long process.    —    kmab]
.
Click here (27 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Stealing The Heart Of A Fairy

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 26, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Maleficent” (2014)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the fantasy film “Maleficent”, with Angelina Jolie playing Maleficent as a betrayed fairy whose curse on Princess Aurora (Elle Fanning) grows more complicated as she becomes an unwilling guardian of the princess;  Sharlto Copley plays King Stefan, the former friend who turns into her enemy;  Sam Riley plays as Diaval, the raven Maleficent transforms into a companion, scout and various other animals / creatures.  The movie re-frames the villain from “Sleeping Beauty” as a wounded protector rather than a pure antagonist, leaning on Jolie’s presence to carry the whole thing.  This review contains significant spoilers, so if you’ve not seen the film and intend to – STOP HERE and come back after viewing.
Background:  Having recently watched the original (1959) “Sleeping Beauty” (review here) and being completely unimpressed by it, I was fully prepared for a mediocre adaptation of a mediocre original.  Instead I got a film which will now make me reconsider my opinion of Angelina Jolie.  I’ve only seen her in a few roles and don’t remember ever being impressed.  Well, I loved her in this film!  Surprise, surprise!  …Disney released “Maleficent” during its early wave of live-action re-imaginings, aiming to give one of its most famous villains a full backstory.  Robert Stromberg, a longtime production designer making his directing debut, leaned heavily on digital landscapes and creature work.  The film was a major box-office hit and helped cement Disney’s strategy of mining its animated catalog for live-action re-tellings.  It didn’t win any Academy Awards but received attention for its makeup design, especially Jolie’s horns, cheekbones, and yellow contact lenses, which became the film’s most recognizable visual element.
Plot:  Maleficent begins as a powerful young fairy protecting the Moors kingdom, a magical forest bordering a human kingdom.  She befriends Stefan, a human boy, but when they become adults, he eventually betrays her to gain the throne, cutting off her wings to prove his loyalty to the dying king.  Enraged, Maleficent crashes Aurora’s christening and delivers the familiar curse:  on her sixteenth birthday, Aurora will prick her finger on a spinning wheel and fall into a death-like sleep.  As Aurora grows, Maleficent watches over her from a distance, then reluctantly bonds with her.  Stefan becomes paranoid and violent, preparing for war.  When the curse plays out, Maleficent tries to undo it but can’t. Her remorse and her relationship with Aurora become the emotional center, and the “true love’s kiss” comes from Maleficent herself rather than Prince Phillip.  The film ends with Maleficent restored, her wings returned, and Aurora crowned queen of both realms.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Absolutely;  Jolie is excellent;  strong visuals but uneven;  thin writing;  yes, with reservations.
Any good?  Absolutely!  The movie works for me completely.  It begins by focusing on Maleficent’s anger, guilt, and slow shift toward protecting Aurora.  It slows and stumbles (a bit) when it tries to retrofit the entire “Sleeping Beauty” story into a redemption arc.  The emotional beats land because Jolie commits to them.  As a character piece, it’s solid;  as a full retelling, it’s uneven but (IMHO) significantly better than the original.
Acting:  Angelina Jolie carries the film. Her line delivery, posture, and small reactions do most of the heavy lifting, and she makes Maleficent feel dangerous even in the quieter scenes.  Elle Fanning brings a straightforward warmth to Aurora, though the role doesn’t give her character much to play beyond innocence.  Sharlto Copley leans hard into Stefan’s paranoia and it works.  Sam Riley adds some dry humor as Diaval, which helps break up the heavier scenes.
Filming / FX:  The digital landscapes are a mixed bag.  Some of the Moors look imaginative and textured;  others feel like early-2010s green-screen work but they still work.  Maleficent’s wings and transformations are handled very well, and the creature designs have personality.  The battle scenes are serviceable and memorable.  I felt the moor vs human battle was equal to “Lord of the Rings” forest vs Orc battle – which is pretty high praise.  The makeup work on Jolie is the cleanest technical element — sharp, readable, and instantly iconic.
Problems:  The script tries to cover betrayal, revenge, political conflict, maternal bonding, and a full fairy-tale plot in under two hours.  Though sometimes rushed or shortened via “extra” narration, it somehow works much better than I ever expected.  Stefan’s arc is rushed, but he’s the bottom-line villain, and really, it’s best to keep the camera on the money (Jolie).  The three pixies, are repeated in this version as comic relief, and are only slightly better than their counterparts in the original.  The movie does lean heavily on narration to patch over story gaps, but it helps keep the pace up, so it’s difficult to say it’s “all” bad.  When the film action slows down and lets Maleficent and Aurora interact, it works emotionally;  when it tries to be an epic, it strains to be an action movie.  Fortunately, other than the dramatic full-scale climatic fight at the end, it doesn’t have to strain often and overall comes across as a morality play.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes, mainly because Jolie makes the character watchable even when the story wobbles.  The central relationship between Maleficent and Aurora gives the movie a clear emotional line, and the final act lands much better than I expected.
Final Recommendation:  Very strong to highly recommended.  “Maleficent” succeeds as a character study built around a strong female lead performance, and – as a full re-imagining of “Sleeping Beauty” – it is a much better movie than the original.  If you’re interested in Disney’s live-action experiments or want to see a “villain”-centered take that actually tries to give its lead some emotional weight, it’s well worth a watch.  Just go in expecting a performance-driven fantasy rather than a live-action re-imagining of a cartoon-animated fairy-tale world for children.
.
Click here (26 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

There’s Always Next Week…

Posted in Humor, Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , on February 26, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Never put off till tomorrow what may be done the day after tomorrow just as well.
    —    Mark Twain
.
Click here (26 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

For True Love Conquers ALL

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 25, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Sleeping Beauty” (1959) — movie review
Today’s review is for the original Disney animated feature “Sleeping Beauty”, with Mary Costa voicing Princess Aurora, Bill Shirley as Prince Phillip, and Eleanor Audley as Maleficent — the villain whose voice and design have become one of Disney’s most enduring creations.  The film is Disney’s widescreen fairy-tale experiment:  a stylized, hand-inked production that pushed the studio’s resources, under-performed on release, and then slowly turned into one of the company’s most recognizable classics.
Background:  I thought I’d seen this film before, but now I doubt it.  While watching, I had absolutely no knowledge of the story or memories of having viewed the film previously.  Walt Disney spent most of the 1950s developing “Sleeping Beauty”, aiming for a prestige picture that would stand apart from “Snow White” and “Cinderella”.  The studio used the expensive Technirama 70 process, which gave the movie its wide, sharp look and allowed for unusually detailed backgrounds.  Eyvind Earle’s art direction defined the film’s angular, storybook style — tall, thin trees, patterned walls, and flat planes of color that still feel modern.  The film was a financial disappointment, but it became a staple of Disney’s reissue cycle and home video.  It received an Academy Award nomination for its music score adaptation and is now considered a key title in Disney’s classic animation era.
Plot:  At Aurora’s christening, Maleficent curses the infant princess to prick her finger on a spinning wheel and fall into a death-like sleep before sunset on her sixteenth birthday.  Three good fairies — Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather — hide Aurora in the forest under the name Briar Rose, raising her in secret to keep her safe.  On the eve of her birthday, she meets Prince Phillip in the woods;  they fall for each other without knowing each other’s identities.  Maleficent eventually discovers Aurora’s location, lures her back to the castle, and the curse plays out.  Phillip is captured, then freed by the fairies, and rides to the castle to fight Maleficent, who transforms into a dragon.  He defeats her, kisses Aurora, breaks the spell, and the kingdoms are reunited in the expected fairy-tale ending – “Happilly Ever After”.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Okay;  limited by the script;  interesting art work;  many;  so-so.
Any good?  Barely okay.  “Sleeping Beauty” holds up mainly because of how it looks and feels rather than what actually happens in the story.  The plot is simple and moves quickly, but the visual design and music give it more weight than the script does.  As a piece of animation history and as a showcase for a particular style of Disney art, it’s one of the studio’s most distinctive features.
Acting:  Mary Costa’s operatic voice gives Aurora more presence than the character is written to have, and Bill Shirley makes Phillip sound earnest without being completely bland.  Eleanor Audley is the standout;  her dry, controlled delivery makes Maleficent the most interesting figure in the film.  The three fairies carry most of the personality and humor — their bickering, improvisation, and genuine concern for Aurora give the movie its emotional core.  The rest of the cast is serviceable, but this is very much a villain-and-fairies show.
Filming / FX:  The Technirama 70 format and Eyvind Earle’s backgrounds are the real stars of this film.  The angular trees, geometric castles, and patterned interiors give the film a clean, graphic look that still feels deliberate instead of generic.  The dragon transformation and the green-fire effects remain impressive, especially considering everything is hand-drawn.  The widescreen compositions are unusually careful for Disney’s animation of that era, and the use of Tchaikovsky’s ballet themes, adapted into the score and songs, ties the whole thing together.
Problems:  Quite a few, if you’re looking at character and story / songs.  Aurora barely functions as a character:  she has limited dialogue, almost no agency, and spends a big chunk of the film asleep.  Phillip gets more to do but is still thinly written.  The romance is rushed even by fairy-tale standards — one forest meeting and they’re essentially locked in “true love”.  The middle of the film leans heavily on the fairies’ comedy, which almost, but doesn’t quite work.  It also highlights how little the leads drive anything.  If you want depth or surprise, this isn’t the place to find it.
Did I enjoy the film?  So-so.  Mostly for the visuals, the music, and Maleficent.  (It says something when the villain – voice and character – is the best thing about a children’s animated fairy tale.)  The movie is short, moves well, and still looks sharp on a modern screen.  The design work alone makes it worth viewing / revisiting, and the dragon sequence remains a highlight.
Final Recommendation:  Low moderate, particularly if you’re interested in classic Disney animation or animation history in general.  “Sleeping Beauty” is not a great film in terms of story or character or song(s), but it is a great-looking film with an iconic villain, a memorable score, and a distinctive visual style that set it apart from other Disney fairy tales.  Watch it for the artwork, the fairies, and Maleficent — and go in with expectations set appropriately low for the leads, songs, story and the romance.
.
Click here (25 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Imagining Your Creation

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , on February 25, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Imagination is the beginning of creation.  You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
    —     George Bernard Shaw
.
Click here (25 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

And Where Are You Going?

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 24, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Quo Vadis” (1951) — movie review
Today’s review is for the large-scale biblical era epic “Quo Vadis” (1951), directed by Mervyn LeRoy and starring Robert Taylor as Marcus Vinicius, a Roman commander whose return to Rome is disrupted by his growing respect and affection for Deborah Kerr’s Lygia, a Christian hostage raised in the household of Aulus Plautius and Pomponia, played by Felix Aylmer and Nora Swinburne.  Peter Ustinov plays Nero as a needy, theatrical tyrant, with Patricia Laffan as his sharp and calculating wife Poppaea.  Leo Genn appears as Petronius, Nero’s weary adviser, and Marina Berti plays Eunice, whose quiet loyalty to Petronius ends up giving the film more heart than some of its speeches.  It’s a full-dress studio epic, but the cast keeps it grounded enough that the story doesn’t get lost in the spectacle.
Background:  I saw this film a couple of times as a youth and I always considered it one of many / just a “sword & sandles” movie.  I always thought some of the more biblically based (and some – like “Spartacus” – non-biblical, too) were better.  My brother, on the other hand, really loved this movie and would frequently recommend it for a re-watch.  “Quo Vadis” was MGM’s major postwar gamble, shot partly in Italy with enormous sets, thousands of extras, and full Technicolor pageantry.  It was a major box-office success and earned eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and acting nominations for Peter Ustinov and Leo Genn, though it didn’t win any.  The film helped restart the biblical-and-historical epic cycle that dominated the 1950s and early 1960s.  It’s very much a studio “event picture,” built to impress audiences who wanted scale and seriousness after years of wartime austerity.
Plot:  Marcus Vinicius returns to Rome expecting political maneuvering and military honors, but instead he’s thrown by Lygia’s quiet conviction and her refusal to be impressed by his rank.  Her foster parents, Aulus and Pomponia, are sympathetic Romans already touched by the Christian faith, which puts their household in a risky position under Nero.  Marcus’s pursuit of Lygia runs straight into the growing tension between Nero’s court — Nero himself, Poppaea at his side, and the flatterers who feed his ego — and the Christian community.  Nero’s paranoia grows, Rome burns, and he blames the Great Fire on the Christians, turning the city’s grief into a public bloodsport.  Petronius tries to steer Nero away from disaster, while Eunice stands by Petronius with a loyalty that makes the court look even more hollow.  Marcus has to choose between loyalty to the empire and loyalty to the woman he’s fallen for.  The final act moves into the arena, where the film leans fully into its epic scale.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Solid epic;  strong ensemble;  big and impressive;  long and stiff;  yes;
Any good?  “Quo Vadis” is straightforward, but the scale gives it weight.  When the film focuses on character — Petronius managing Nero, Poppaea watching everything, Aulus and Pomponia trying to live their faith quietly — it’s better than you expect from a 1950s biblical epic.  When it leans into sermonizing, it slows down.  Still, it plays as a studio production that knows exactly what it’s offering.
Acting:  Robert Taylor does solid work as the officer whose worldview gets shaken, and he’s better when he drops the swagger.  Deborah Kerr brings steadiness to Lygia, and Felix Aylmer and Nora Swinburne give Aulus and Pomponia a believable moral backbone.  Peter Ustinov’s Nero is ridiculous, dangerous, and oddly theatrical rather than cinematic — his Oscar nomination makes sense if you favor his interpretation.  It’s a terrible choice if you don’t.  I kind of split down the middle.  Leo Genn’s Petronius is the film’s conscience, cutting through the noise with dry wit.  Patricia Laffan’s Poppaea is sharp and observant, and Marina Berti’s Eunice gives the film one of its few genuinely emotional threads.  Together, they give the movie more texture than the script alone provides.
Filming / FX:  The production is the main draw.  The sets are enormous, the crowd scenes are real, and the Technicolor photography gives everything a polished look.  The Great Fire sequence still works:  practical flames, collapsing structures, and enough chaos to feel dangerous without turning into confusion.  I felt it was even better than the Burning of Atlanta scene from “Gone With The Wind“.  The arena scenes rely on scale rather than tricks, and that choice holds up.  Some staging is stiff by modern standards, but the craftsmanship is clear.
Problems:  The film is LONG, and you feel it.  The romance is serviceable but not especially dynamic, and some dialogue leans into wooden proclamations.  The movie also pauses too often to spell out its moral points.  You may find yourself thinking:  “Yeah, I already got that point.”  LoL.  Strong supporting characters — Poppaea, Eunice, Pomponia — sometimes disappear when the film could have used their perspective to break up the speeches.  Some of the scenes, like the lions in the arena, are re-used (looped after a brief cutaway) and thereby lose some of their effectiveness.  None of this ruins the film, but it keeps it from being as tight (short) as some later epics.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  Even with the slow patches, “Quo Vadis” delivers what it promises:  a sweeping historical drama with enough character work to keep it from feeling hollow.  The Nero – Petronius – Poppaea triangle and the quiet loyalty of Eunice and Lygia’s foster parents are worth the time, and the production scale is still fun to watch.
Final Recommendation:  High moderate to low strong recommendation.  If you enjoy classic epics particularly “sword & sandles”, “Quo Vadis” is worth viewing or revisiting.  It’s historically significant, visually impressive, and anchored by strong performances in Nero’s court and Lygia’s household.  It’s not perfect, but it’s a solid example of big-canvas studio film making and a reminder of what could be done with practical sets, committed actors, and a studio willing to spend the money.
.
Click here (24 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Certainly Less Tolerable

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , on February 24, 2026| 2 Comments »

Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable.
    —     George Bernard Shaw
.
Click here (24 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Well, I Was Right. You Are A Sentimentalist…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 23, 2026| 2 Comments »

“Casablanca” (1942) — movie review
Today’s review is for the wartime romantic-drama (and ALL-Time CLASSIC) “Casablanca” (1942), directed by Michael Curtiz and starring Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine — the cynical American expatriate running a nightclub in Vichy-controlled Morocco;  Ingrid Bergman as Ilsa Lund — the woman from Rick’s past whose reappearance blows apart his carefully maintained detachment;  Paul Henreid as Victor Laszlo — the resistance leader whose calm resolve and moral clarity stand in sharp contrast to Rick’s bitterness;  Claude Rains plays Captain Louis Renault, the charmingly corrupt police prefect who always manages to land on the winning side;  Conrad Veidt is Major Strasser, the Nazi officer tightening the noose around Casablanca;  and Dooley Wilson appears as Sam, Rick’s loyal pianist and emotional anchor.  Together, they populate a city of refugees, opportunists, and survivors — all waiting for a way out.
Background:  I’ve seen this film at least a dozen times over the years, and each viewing reminds me how much of its reputation is earned — and how much comes from the simple fact that it still works.  Released in 1942, “Casablanca” was produced during World War II, not after it, which gives the film a sense of immediacy most later wartime dramas can’t match.  It wasn’t expected to be a classic;  it was a mid-budget studio picture rushed into release to coincide with the Allied invasion of North Africa.  Instead, it became one of Hollywood’s most enduring films.  At the 16th Academy Awards, it won three Oscars:  Best Picture, Best Director (Michael Curtiz), and Best Adapted Screenplay.  Over the decades, it has been preserved in the National Film Registry and routinely appears on “greatest films” lists.
Plot:  Rick Blaine runs “Rick’s Café Américain,” a nightclub where refugees gamble, drink, and hope for exit visas.  Rick keeps his distance from everyone and everything — politics, romance, and responsibility — until Ilsa Lund walks in with her husband, Victor Laszlo.  Ilsa and Rick share a past in Paris, cut short when she disappeared on the eve of the Nazi occupation.  Now, Laszlo needs letters of transit to escape to America and continue his resistance work.  Rick has them.  Ilsa wants them.  Strasser wants to stop them.  And Renault wants to stay alive and employed.  The story builds toward Rick’s choice:  cling to bitterness or do something larger than himself.  The final scenes at the airport — fog, sacrifice, and a gunshot — remain some of the most quoted and recognizable moments in film history.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  clean and effective;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Duh – Bogey and Best Picture Oscar – Yes!  “Casablanca” is one of those rare films where the pieces — romance, politics, suspense, and character — fit together almost perfectly.  It’s not complicated, but it’s emotionally direct.  The themes of loyalty, sacrifice, and choosing the harder right over the easier wrong still land.  The characters talk without the dialogue feeling overwritten, and the pacing is tight.  It’s a film that knows exactly what it’s doing.
Acting:  Bogart gives one of his defining performances.  His Rick is wounded, guarded, and quietly honorable — a man who pretends not to care because caring has already cost him.  Bergman brings warmth and conflict to Ilsa, making her more than a plot device.  Henreid’s Laszlo is steady and dignified, even if he sometimes feels a bit too noble for his own good.  Claude Rains steals scenes as Renault, balancing humor and opportunism with surprising heart.  Dooley Wilson’s Sam provides the emotional through-line, and Conrad Veidt’s Strasser is an effective, cold antagonist.  The ensemble works because everyone plays their part straight — no winking, no melodrama.
Filming / FX:  The film is mostly interiors and sets, but they’re used well.  The lighting is classic 1940s Hollywood — shadows, soft focus, and close‑ups that actually mean something.  The foggy runway finale is iconic, even if the plane is a miniature.  The production limitations show here and there, but the film’s atmosphere more than compensates.  Max Steiner’s score supports the story without overwhelming it, and “As Time Goes By” remains one of cinema’s most recognizable musical cues.
Problems:  A few.  Some of the dialogue feels dated, and the film’s portrayal of North Africa is filtered entirely through a Hollywood lens.  The politics are simplified, and a few supporting characters are thinly sketched.  The miniature airplane in the final scene is obvious once you know to look for it.  And yes, the love triangle leans heavily on coincidence.  But none of these issues undermine the film’s impact.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  “Casablanca” holds up because it’s sincere.  It doesn’t try to be clever or self‑aware.  It’s a story about people making hard choices in a world falling apart, and it treats those choices with respect.  The ending still works — not because it’s surprising, but because it feels right.
Final Recommendation:  MUST SEE recommendation!  “Casablanca” is a cornerstone of classic Hollywood — a Best Picture winner with historic significance, memorable performances, and a story that still resonates.  Watch it for Bogart and Bergman, for the dialogue that has been quoted for eighty years, and for the reminder that sometimes doing the right thing means letting go.  It’s a film that earns its reputation, not through spectacle, but through character, clarity, and heart.  When I watched this film a few years ago with one of my daughters, she said:  “Wow!  Now I know where all those sayings came from…”  Lol.
.
Click here (23 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Just Like Smiles, Hugs And Rainbows

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , on February 23, 2026| Leave a Comment »

To get the full value of joy you must have someone to divide it with.
    —     Mark Twain
.
Click here (23 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Good Things Never Last, Mister Denham

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 22, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“King Kong” (2005) — movie review
Today’s review is for the 2005 remake “King Kong,” directed by Peter Jackson and starring Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow (a struggling vaudeville performer whose compassion becomes the emotional anchor of the story);  Jack Black as Carl Denham (the reckless filmmaker whose ambition puts everyone in danger);  Adrien Brody as Jack Driscoll (the playwright who ends up playing reluctant hero);  Kyle Chandler as Bruce Baxter (the preening movie star who talks brave and runs early);  Evan Parke as Ben Hayes (the steady, competent first mate who actually keeps the Venture functioning);  Thomas Kretschmann as Captain Englehorn (the cautious skipper trying to balance risk and responsibility);  Jamie Bell as Jimmy (the young deckhand looking for direction);  Colin Hanks as Preston (Denham’s overworked assistant);  and Andy Serkis as Kong (the giant ape brought to life through motion-capture with surprising emotional detail).  The film revisits the 1933 classic with modern effects, expanded character beats, and a three-hour runtime that tries to turn a monster movie into a full adventure epic. (IMHO – it succeeds.)
Background:  With this review, I’ve seen / reviewed the three significant versions of “King Kong,” (1933 review here and 1976 review here) and each one reflects the era that made it.  I watched this on my DVD copy and am still waiting for the streaming version to drop to my price point ($5).  The 2005 version arrived two years after Peter Jackson wrapped-up “The Lord of the Rings,” and he had the budget, the team, and the industry goodwill to attempt a massive remake of the original 1933 version (review here).  With a production cost of over $200 million, it was one of the most expensive films ever made at the time.  It earned strong reviews, solid box office, and three Academy Awards — Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, and Best Visual Effects.  Historically, it stands as an early showcase of large-scale digital creature work and motion-capture acting, setting a template for the next decade of blockbuster film making.
Plot:  Set in 1933, the story follows Carl Denham, a filmmaker on the verge of losing his career.  Desperate for a hit, he recruits Ann Darrow and playwright Jack Driscoll for a rushed voyage aboard the Venture.  Denham’s real target is the uncharted Skull Island, where the crew encounters hostile natives, prehistoric creatures, and the giant ape (which the natives call) Kong.  Ann is captured and offered to Kong, who forms a protective bond with her.  The crew mounts a rescue, battling dinosaurs, insects, and the island’s dangers.  Kong is eventually subdued and shipped to New York, where Denham turns him into a stage attraction.  Predictably, Kong breaks free, rampages through the city, and climbs the Empire State Building with Ann.  The film ends with the famous biplane attack and Kong’s fall, followed by Denham’s “beauty killed the beast” line.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong;  impressive but uneven;  several;  YES.
Any good?  Yes.  “King Kong” (2005) is a big, earnest, sometimes overlong adventure film that succeeds more often than it stumbles.  It’s ambitious, emotional, and visually striking.  When it works, it works because Jackson leans into the sincerity of the original story rather than trying to reinvent it.  The heart of the film is the connection between Ann and Kong, and that part lands.  If anything, it is significantly better than the original version here.
Acting:  Naomi Watts is the film’s anchor.  Her scenes with Kong feel committed and believable, even when she’s reacting to empty space.  Jack Black’s Denham walks a line between funny and irritating;  sometimes the manic energy fits, sometimes it feels too broad.  Adrien Brody gives Driscoll a quiet steadiness, though the script doesn’t always give him much to do beyond “rescue Ann.”  Kyle Chandler has fun skewering movie-star vanity as Bruce Baxter, and Evan Parke’s Hayes brings a grounded, professional presence that makes the Venture feel like a real working ship.  Thomas Kretschmann’s Englehorn is cautious and pragmatic, and Jamie Bell’s Jimmy gives the crew a younger perspective.  Colin Hanks does solid work as Preston, the assistant who spends most of the film trying to keep Denham from sinking the production.  Andy Serkis’s Kong remains the standout — expressive, physical, and surprisingly emotional.
Filming / FX:  The visual effects are the film’s biggest strength and also its biggest source of excess.  Kong himself looks terrific — detailed, expressive, and weighty.  The Empire State Building finale still holds up . Skull Island is more mixed.  The dinosaur stampede is chaotic to the point of distraction, and some digital environments feel overloaded.  The insect pit sequence is effective visually but “really” makes NO sense and goes on FAR too long.  The cinematography captures both Depression-era New York and the wildness of Skull Island, but the film’s length makes some of the spectacle feel repetitive.  The sound work — which won Oscars — is excellent.
Problems:  Several.  The biggest issues in any EPIC are always filling the time and evening out the pacing.  At over three hours, the film takes too long to get moving and too long to wrap up.  Some action scenes feel extended simply because the effects team could extend them.  The tone shifts abruptly — adventure, horror, slapstick, romance — sometimes all in the same stretch.  There is no explanation how or why the natives are on the island, let alone in this movie, except to cut stone figurines and unusually located architecture.  A few characters are thinly written, and the film occasionally leans too hard on nostalgia instead of trusting its own ideas.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes!  The emotional beats between Ann and Kong work, and the final act is strong.  The film’s ambition is admirable, and many individual moments (and battles) are memorable.  But the length and uneven pacing keep it from being a film I’d revisit very often.  It’s impressive, heartfelt, and occasionally exhausting.
Final Recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended with caveats.  “King Kong” (2005) is a technically impressive and emotionally sincere remake that honors the original while expanding its scope.  With three Academy Awards and a notable place in early-2000s blockbuster history, it’s worth watching for its creature work, its performances, and its attempt to turn the already classic monster story into a full-scale epic.  Just be prepared for a LONG runtime and some uneven stretches along the way.
.
Click here (22 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started