Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

Pearl Harbor (2001) frames Japan's attack on Hawaii with a melodramatic love triangle that drives much of the film's emotional weight.

The story centres on two lifelong friends, Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker, both pilots raised together in rural America and bound by loyalty and shared ambition. When they arrive at Pearl Harbor in 1941, Rafe quickly falls in love with Evelyn Johnson, a naval nurse. Their romance is intense and idealised, presented as a brief moment of happiness before the war intrudes. Rafe volunteers to fight with the RAF in England and is soon reported killed in action. Evelyn, devastated but trying to carry on with her life, gradually grows closer to Danny, who has remained at Pearl Harbor.

Danny and Evelyn's relationship develops slowly and uneasily, shaped by grief and guilt. Both feel they are betraying Rafe's memory, yet they also find comfort and genuine affection in one another. By the time they fully commit, Evelyn is pregnant, and the pair begin to imagine a future together, still shadowed by the absent third presence in their relationship.

The triangle is violently reopened when Rafe unexpectedly returns, having survived his mission. His reunion with Evelyn turns bitter when he realises she has moved on with Danny. The friendship between the two men fractures into anger and resentment, and Evelyn is caught between her past love and her present reality. Their personal conflict comes to a head just as the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, forcing Rafe and Danny to put aside their rivalry in order to survive and fight back.

After the attack, the triangle briefly gives way to duty. Rafe and Danny volunteer for the Doolittle Raid, where Danny is killed, effectively resolving the triangle through tragedy rather than choice. In the aftermath, Evelyn mourns Danny while reconciling with Rafe, who accepts responsibility for the future, including Danny's child. The film ultimately treats the love triangle as a symbol of innocence lost, using romance and rivalry to personalise the larger catastrophe of Pearl Harbor and the emotional costs of war.

Success Rate:  + 1.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #24

I'm actually watching a Disney Plus film on a Wednesday. That's new! It's only a Wednesday film on a technicality. I started to watch it with my grandson Oliver last Friday, but we interrupted it because he had to go to bed. Today we finally finished it.

I actually wanted to watch "X-Men First Class" on Friday, and we could have finished it, because it's a shorter film. I already had the disc in my Blu-ray player when Oliver said he wanted to watch "Pearl Harbor". Evidently he'd already seen it on television with his parents, but he wanted to watch it again. I'm always happy when he says something like that. Watching a film more than once is a sign that you're a true film fan. My personal definition is that a film is a good film if I want to watch it at least three times. As you can see in my alphabetical list of posts, there are several films that I've watched a lot more often. I admit that there's a certain excitement watching a film for the first time, but most films have subtleties that can only be picked up on repeated viewing.

I'm surprised that Oliver likes the film so much. I can understand that he likes the action scenes, but it's also a love story. It's a sign of maturity that he can also enjoy romantic scenes. He's eight years old now. Two years ago he would have been bored and told me to fast forward.

Critics have slammed "Pearl Harbor" because of the love story. They say the film should have concentrated on the attack itself. I disagree. In fact, I strongly disagree. The love story gives the viewer an emotional connection. When Japan attacks, we don't just know the main characters, we feel their suffering and we cry with them in the face of adversity. This is how to make a good film. Sometimes the critics just don't know what they're talking about.

But "Harbor" is spelt wrong. Or maybe it isn't. "Pearl Harbor" is a place name, so it has to be spelt the way it's written on maps and street signs. But as a common noun, "harbour" is the only correct spelling.

I only found out today that there's a director's cut of the film. Unfortunately, it was only released on DVD, and it's long out of print. I'm not willing to pay a high price for a second hand DVD on Ebay. I wouldn't even pay a high price for a brand new DVD.

Success Rate:  + 1.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

This is a film which fills me with awe every time I watch it. The romance between Rafe McCawley (Ben Affleck) and Evelyn Johnson (Kate Beckinsale) in the foreboding years before America joined the war bring tears to my eyes. The friendship between Rafe and Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett) is poignant. The action scenes are breathtaking. The contrast with the quiet scenes makes the action stand out even more. This is a perfect film in many ways.

Danny and Rafe are two boys who grow up on neighbouring farms. They both learn to fly young for crop dusting. They both join the US Air Force. Rafe is dyslexic, which almost prevents him from becoming a pilot, but sweet talking the examining nurse gets him through.

The boys drink together, party together and fly together. That changes in 1940 when Rafe volunteers to join the Royal Air Force in England. Danny remains in Pearl Harbor. Before leaving a romantic attachment develops between Rafe and Evelyn, the nurse who examined him. They remain in contact, writing every day until Rafe is shot down in an air battle over the English Channel.

I shan't give away any spoilers, even though I suspect most of my readers have already seen the film. It was a box office success when it was released, and it's often shown on television. It's a good example of a film that weaves fictional characters into real events.

"Pearl Harbor" might have been a commercial success, but it's hated by the critics. They praise the action sequences, but they ridicule the romance. Why? What's wrong with the critics? Don't they understand films? I'm glad I'm not a real critic. I know how to enjoy films.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Aviator (4 Stars)

I vaguely remember watching "The Aviator" when it was first shown on television more than ten years ago. All that stuck in my mind was the aerial scenes and the plane crash. Today I finally returned to it, determined to remember more this time. The chances are better. I write a blog now, so if I'm still alive in 2027 I can read this post to remind myself about the film.

The film is famous for several near misses at the Academy Awards. It's the film for which Leonardo DiCaprio should have won the Best Actor award. (He had to wait another 11 years until "The Revenant", which wasn't in the same class as "The Aviator"). It's the film for which Martin Scorsese should have won the Best Director award. (He had to wait another two years until "The Departed", which was definitely inferior to "The Aviator"). It should also have won the Best Film award. The top awards in 2005 went to "Miilion Dollar Baby", which is quite remarkable, because it really wasn't such a good film, as most critics agree today. Jamie Foxx was awarded the Best Actor award for his performance in "Ray", which is so ridiculous that I doubt even Jamie expected it. "The Aviator" was nominated for 11 Oscars in 2005, of which it won five, one for Cate Blanchette as Best Supporting Actress -- wasn't she the Lead Actress? -- and the other four in technical categories. It should have won twice as many.

"The Aviator" tells the story of Howard Hughes from 1926 to 1947.  He was a tortured soul who was unlucky enough to become America's richest man. He was born in 1905. His father made millions from the invention of a drilling bit that was used in drilling for oil. His mother died in 1922 and his father in 1924, making him one of the richest men in America at a precariously young age.

Howard Hughes had a passion for two things: films and flying. He was a multi-millionaire at 20, but his passion for films, or rather his obsession with films, put him in danger of being bankrupt by 25. At 21 he began to make a film called "Hell's Angels" about the fighter pilots of World War One. Over a period of two years he invested two million dollars of his personal wealth in the film (the equivalent of $30 million today). When the film was complete he was unhappy with it, because sound movies had just been invented, so he spent another two years and another two million dollars on refilming it. The gamble paid off. The film earned eight million dollars at the box office, enough of a profit for him to continue with his passions.

Howard made more films, but he gained notoriety for his flying exploits. He set several speed records for planes, including a round the world flight in 101 hours, less than four days. Howard designed planes himself, he let his engineers build them, he fine-tuned them himself, and then he flew them himself, much to the horror of his business associates who thought he was putting his life at risk. Flying was too much fun to leave it to others.

He also bought Trans World Airlines (TWA), which he intended to become America's largest airline company. He spent $18 million of his own money on 40 new planes, because the company itself didn't have enough money. This failed to make him a profit because the boss of Pan Am, Juan Trippe, bribed a Senator to write a bill not allowing companies other than Pan Am to provide flights to Europe.

With Howard's business sense and his knack for making money came a curse. He was obsessive and paranoid. He was constantly afraid of uncleanliness and being infected. He couldn't touch things that other people had already touched, things like door handles. Eventually it got to the state that he couldn't endure personal contact with other people. This became the most extreme in his later years, not shown in the film, but even in the 1940's he spent days alone in a hotel room. He was afraid to visit the toilet -- a place with a high risk of infection -- so he urinated into empty milk bottles in his room.

During his early years, as shown in the film, Howard had many girlfriends who were film stars. The most famous were Katharine Hepburn and Ava Gardner. He also had a relationship with Faith Domergue, who was only 15 when they met. He sent her to school every day in a chauffeur-driven car, because he insisted that education was essential.

Even within the 20-year time-frame the film omits many details of Howard's life. He was a complex man. He might not have been a likeable man, but the film concentrates on the details that make him sympathetic to the viewer. As viewers we rejoice in his strengths and pity his weaknesses. Leonardo DiCaprio excels in portraying him. He really should have won the Oscar for Best Actor.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Van Helsing (5 Stars)

In my reviews I repeatedly state proudly that I judge films on the feeling they give me rather than their objective artistic merit. I staunchly defend films that serious critics consider to be trash, and I mercilessly attack films that the same critics praise. When it comes to "Van Helsing" I have a funny feeling in my stomach. I love it, I absolutely love it, but I can't avoid the feeling that it's a bad film I ought to hate. I've only watched it once before, in November 2012, and I've been reluctant to watch it again until now, despite giving it a five star rating. The last few days I've noticed that my original review has been getting a lot of hits, almost enough to put it into my top 10 most popular posts list. I don't know why. My readers are fickle. Sometimes a post can be ignored for years, and then it's suddenly noticed and everyone wants to read it. Whatever the reason for my post's popularity, it's an excuse for me to pull it off the shelf and watch it again.

So today I watched it again, trying not to like it. I was deliberately looking for faults. But guess what? I loved it yet again. After finishing the film I had to admit that I still loved it. I find everything perfect, from Hugh Jackman's 19th Century James Bond imitation to Kate Beckinsale's Transylvanian pirate queen outfit. It's a film that shouldn't work, but it does. Boo to the critics responsible for the 23% rating on Rotten Tomatoes!

However, I've found support in an unusual place. Roger Ebert loved the film almost as much as I do. Instead of writing my own plot summary I'll quote his review. Everything below the following photo of Kate Beckinsale is his words. I do this with the greatest respect, in accordance with the terms of use listed on his web site. He's the man who first inspired me to become a film critic, and I feel that my meagre posts can never reach the high standards of his film reviews. By quoting his review I am honouring his memory.

Strange that a movie so eager to entertain would forget to play "Monster Mash" over the end credits. There have been countless movies uniting two monsters ("Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man," "King Kong vs. Godzilla," etc), but "Van Helsing" convenes Frankenstein, his Monster, Count Dracula, the Wolf Man, Igor, Van Helsing the vampire hunter, assorted other werewolves, werebats and vampires, and even Mr. Hyde, who as a bonus seems to think he is the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

The movie is like a Greatest Hits compilation; it's assembled like Frankenstein's Monster, from spare parts stitched together and brought to life with electricity, plus lots of computer-generated images. The plot depends on Dracula's desperate need to discover the secret of Frankenstein's Monster, because he can use it to bring his countless offspring to life. Because Dracula and his vampire brides are all dead, they cannot give birth, of course, to live children.

That they give birth at all is somewhat remarkable, although perhaps the process is unorthodox, since his dead offspring hang from a subterranean ceiling wrapped in cocoons that made me think, for some reason, of bagworms, which I spent many a summer hand-picking off the evergreens under the enthusiastic direction of my father.

Van Helsing is sometimes portrayed as young, sometimes old in the Dracula movies. Here he's a professional monster-killer with a Phantom of the Opera hat, who picks up a dedicated friar named Carl as his sidekick. His first assignment is to track down Mr. Hyde, who now lives in the Notre Dame cathedral and ventures out for murder. That job does not end as planned, so Van Helsing then moves on to the Vatican City to get instructions and and be supplied with high-tech weapons by the ecclesiastical equivalent of James Bond's Q.

Next stop: Transylvania, where the movie opened with a virtuoso b&w sequence showing a local mob waving pitchforks and torches and hounding Frankenstein's Monster into a windmill, which is set ablaze. We know, having seen the old movies, that the Monster will survive, but the mob has worked itself into such a frenzy that when Van Helsing and Carl arrive in the village, they are almost forked and burnt just on general principles. What saves them is an attack by three flying vampiresses, who like to scoop up their victims and fly off to savor their blood; Van Helsing fights them using a device that fires arrows like a machinegun.

And that leads to his meeting the beautiful Anna Valerious, who with her brother Velkan represents the last of nine generations of a family who will never find eternal rest until it vanquishes Dracula. (Conveniently, if you kill Dracula, all the vampires he created will also die). Anna is at first suspicious of Van Helsing, but soon they are partners in vengeance, and the rest of the plot (there is a whole lot of it) I will leave you to discover for yourselves.

The director, Stephen Sommers, began his career sedately, directing a very nice "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (1993) and the entertaining "Jungle Book" (1994). Then Victor Frankenstein must have strapped him to the gurney and turned on the juice, because he made a U-turn into thrillers, with "Deep Rising" (1998), where a giant squid attacks a cruise ship, "The Mummy" (1999) and "The Mummy Returns" (2001). Now comes "Van Helsing," which employs the ultimate resources of CGI to create a world that is violent and hectic, bizarre and entertaining, and sometimes very beautiful.

CGI can get a little boring when it allows characters to fall hundreds of feet and somehow survive, or when they swoop at the ends of ropes as well as Spider-Man, but without Spidey's superpowers. But they can also be used to create a visual feast, and here the cinematography by Allen Daviau ("E.T.") and the production design by Allen Cameron join with Sommers' imagination for spectacular sights. The best is a masked ball in Budapest, which is part real (the musicians balancing on balls, the waiters circling on unicycles) and part fabricated in the computer. It's a remarkable scene, and will reward study on the DVD. So will the extraordinary coach chase.

I also liked the movie's recreation of Victor Frankenstein's laboratory, which has been a favourite of production designers, art directors and set decorators since time immemorial. (Mel Books' "Young Frankenstein" recycled the actual sets built for James Whale's "Bride of Frankenstein"). Here Frankenstein lives in a towering gothic castle, just down the road from Dracula, and the mechanism lifts the Monster to unimaginable heights to expose him to lightning bolts. There are also plentiful crypts, stygian passages, etc, and a library in which a painting revolves, perhaps in tribute to Brooks' revolving bookcase.

The screenplay by Sommers has humour but restrains itself; the best touches are the quiet ones, as when the friar objects to accompanying Van Helsing ("But I'm not a field man," he insists) and when the Monster somewhat unexpectedly recites the 23rd Psalm.

At the outset, we may fear Sommers is simply going for f/x overkill, but by the end, he has somehow succeeded in assembling all his monsters and plot threads into a high-voltage climax.

"Van Helsing" is silly and spectacular, and fun.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Absolutely Anything (4 Stars)

This is a witty comedy film from the hands of the Monty Python team, written and directed by Terry Jones. Neil Clarke (Simon Pegg), the schoolteacher responsible for class 10c, is selected at random from all of the Earth's population to receive absolute power. He can do anything he wants by speaking his wish out loud and waving his hand. This is a test by powerful beings from an alien race. If he uses his power for good the Earth will be saved, if he uses his power for selfish reasons the Earth will be destroyed.

It's noteworthy that this is the last film made by Robin Williams before his death. He performs the voice of Neil's dog Dennis.

The film is a cross between "Bruce Almighty" and "Bedazzled" (particularly the 2000 version with Brendan Fraser). Neil Clarke has godlike powers, but he has to be careful what he asks for, because if he formulates his words carelessly he doesn't get what he intended. For instance, when he wishes that he is on the bus he finds himself on the roof of the bus.

The question we asked one another as members of the film group is what we would do if we could do absolutely anything. The answers varied between winning the lottery and making David Cameron homeless. Both very good wishes. But what would I do?

First I would return to my youth. I want to look the way I did when I was 20. I would freeze myself at that point in my life and not age any more. I would keep my beautiful long blond hair forever.

Then I would want knowledge of all space and time. What good is being able to do everything if you don't know everything? I would want to be able to see everything that has happened everywhere in the universe. I would want to see everything that will happen in the future, including the variations if I want to intervene to stop a future event happening. I don't mean I want a vast canvas in front of me, I want to be able to zoom in and watch individual places or people, flipping forwards and backwards through their lives like pages in a book.

If I wished for these two things I wouldn't need any more. Living immortally young and always knowing the results of my actions would make me in control of my destiny. It doesn't mean that I could do whatever I want. It means that I would always do what's best for me, my friends and my community.

One thing that I would never use my power for is to make someone do something. That's Neil's biggest mistake in the film. Taking away someone else's free will is monstrous. If a girl only falls in love with me because I use my powers to make her love me I'll never be happy. I'd be making her my slave, and I don't want a slave, I want a lover.

Total Recall (4 Stars)

I'm reviewing the version of the film that was made in 2012, starring Colin Farrell as Douglas Quaid.

I'm somewhat confused by the reviews that I've read about the film. So many science fiction fans say "It isn't as good as the original". Was the original really that good? I can vaguely remember seeing it once when it was broadcast on television about 20 years ago. I wasn't very impressed, mainly because of Arnold Schwarzenegger's wooden acting. That's all I can remember, apart from the hooker with three breasts. She was cute. It was directed by Paul Verhoeven, and his films are usually good, so maybe I should go back and watch it again.

The film takes place in the future when most of the world has become uninhabitable due to radioactive pollution. The only countries still existing are the United Federation of Britain (not just the British isles, it also encompasses part of western France and Belgium) and the Colony (Australia). The elite live in the UFB in relative comfort, while the Colony's population is poor and underprivileged. There is a tunnel that connects the two countries, "the Fall", which is used for workers from the Colony to commute to the UFB.

Douglas Quaid is a citizen of the Colony who works in the UFB constructing robots. It's a dull job, and he wants some form of relief. In the future vacations are impossible due to the inhabited world being so overcrowded, but technology supplies a replacement. A company called "Total Recall" offers the implantation of false thoughts, allowing the person to temporarily be anyone he wants to be wherever he wants to be. Douglas visits the company, but as he's about to be imprinted with the thoughts it's discovered that he's already been imprinted. He's not who he thinks he is.

This is a high octane thriller. The two lead characters, Colin Farrell and Kate Beckinsale, are both excellent actors. Jessica Biel is okay, I guess, but she's eclipsed by the other two. Whenever she's on the screen she contributes nothing to the action. I have an antipathy to films about a post-apocalyptic world, but I'll still give this film a good rating. Colin and Kate deserve it.

I have a bad habit. Well, it might be a bad habit if I did it in company, but when I'm alone it's excusable. I wait for memorable quotes in a film, and when a quote comes I stop the film to write it down. It's good that I'm not married, I'm sure that would annoy my wife. Often I'm not even aware I'm waiting for a quote, but when it comes I recognise it immediately. Every film has at least one quote that sums it up. Good films have several.

"The past is a construct of the mind. The heart wants to live in the present".

That's deep. But is it true? I think it depends on a person's past. We all have phases in our life. If my present life is dull, there are two things I can do. I can either live for the future or reminisce about the past. The latter might seem to be a negative attitude, but I don't criticise it. Maybe a person has had a thrilling or distinguished past, so it would be a loss to forget it.

"Live in the present, fight for the future, remember the past".

That second quote isn't from the film, it's all mine. You can quote me.

Fragments (4 Stars)

This film is based on the novel "Winged Creatures", written by Roy Freirich. If anything, it is a treatise on chaos theory. A random event happens. A madman enters a diner, shoots guests at random, then kills himself. The film then follows the effects this event has on five of the survivors and their relationships to their families.

Bruce Laraby, a surgeon, loses his operating skills. He begins to experiment with an untested migraine medicine on his wife.

Carla, a waitress, loses her affection for her son.

Anne, a teenage girl, becomes deeply religious, alienating her non-religious mother.

Jimmy, a school friend of Anne's, loses his ability to speak. This causes arguments in his family.

Charlie abandons his daughter and lives in a hotel, spending his days gambling.

The randomness of the film might make it difficult for many people to enjoy. But this is what real life is all about. Things happen which have consequences. If a stone falls in the water the waves ripple long distances and have no connection to one another, apart from the initial stone.

The novel is not completely original. It copies ideas from the Japanese film "Eureka", made in 2000, which deals with the effect that a killing spree on a bus has on the surviving passengers. In "Eureka" Naoki becomes mute and only communicates with his sister Kozue, just as Jimmy only communicates with Anne via the Internet in "Fragments". I can only rate "Fragments" by comparing it with "Eureka", and "Eureka" is the better film.

Click here to view the trailer.

Van Helsing (5 Stars)

I ignored this film for years. The reviews made it sound like the plot is silly. And yes, it is. By all accounts this is a ridiculous film. Dracula's nemesis Van Helsing has been re-invented and put at the centre of a "Best of Universal Horror" extravaganza. We don't just see Dracula, we see Frankenstein, Mr. Hyde and the Wolfman. I was waiting for the Mummy to appear, though it might have stretched things too far to relocate him to Transylvania.

This isn't a horror film. Far from it. It's a fast paced action romp, a James Bond story set in the 19th Century. And that's why I like it. Pure escapism. Who cares that the plot is ridiculous and doesn't make sense? It's fun from beginning to end. Even though Dracula's brides fly around looking more like harpies than vampires.

Hugh Jackman plays the main character, Gabriel (not Abraham) Van Helsing. He doesn't portray the character as accurately as Anthony Hopkins in "Dracula", but he's a better Bond. Kate Beckinsale is the ultimate action goth girl, playing the Transylvanian noblewoman who assists Van Helsing in his battle. I'd love to see her as a Bond girl. Or better still, as Gabrielle Van Helsing.

Click here to view the trailer. This is actually an example of a good film trailer. Trailers should be between 60 and 90 seconds, give an accurate impression of the film, and avoid spoilers. So many film trailers are too long, or give too much away by including scenes from late in the film. Or the trailer gives the wrong impression of the type of film it is. If any of my readers want something to do, browse through my older reviews and find examples of bad film trailers. I look forward to hearing from you.

By the way, I know a lot of my regular readers are personal friends who like to give me their comments on my reviews in person. While I appreciate that you read my blog, please leave your comments here in the blog itself. That will encourage others who don't know me personally to also write comments and get a discussion going.

Pearl Harbor (5 Stars)

Forget all the bad reviews this film got for its supposed triteness and superficiality. It's a gripping story from beginning to end. It has everything: romance, action, tragedy, hope in the face of defeat. If I remember correctly, today was the third time I watched this film, and it had me sitting on the edge of my seat as much as it did the first time. I grew up hating war films because my father sat watching them for years on television. But I recognise quality when I see it. This film is a classic.

"Pearl Harbor" has been compared with "Titanic", as if that were a bad thing. Both films follow the same format. A love triangle evolves against the background of a big catastrophe. Contrasting large scale events with the personal interest of a few individuals is good story-telling.