Movie Review: “The Way Back”

Based on the book, “The Long Walk,” by Slavomir Rawicz

Version: 2010; starring Ed Harris, Saoirse Ronan, Colin Farrel, Mark Strong

Genre: adventure; based on true story; survival

Plot Summary: [from IMDb:] “Siberian gulag escapees travel 4,000 miles by foot to freedom in India.”

My Review: I read this riveting account of a handful of men who escaped a labor camp in Siberia during WWII and lived to tell about it.  It was a great book, which I recommend.  I was glad to find it on film, although they changed the name and gave it a seeming misnomer (as they don’t ‘go back’).

I was surprised to see some familiar faces and the acting talent helped to elevate the movie experience.  That’s good, because I was smirking a little over some of the details—men with open coat collars in the middle of a Siberian winter storm, moss so conveniently growing on the northside of trees in Siberia…  The accents were incomprehensible a lot of the time and I felt like I was straining to hear what they were saying.  They really needed better articulation which has been a growing complaint over the last several years over modern movie trends.

Apart from these issues, I thought Ed Harris and Jim Sturgess were great in their roles as the leaders (tough and softhearted, respectively).  Even Colin Farrel made a great selfish ‘bad guy’, and a very young Saoirse Ronan doing a Russian accent with a sneaky Irish lilt.  From fighting off wolves and catching and roasting snakes, to sweltering under the desert sun, this band of survivors endured over a year of hard travel by foot to reach freedom.  The most touching parts were played between the American (Harris) and the sweet Irena (Ronan) the men encounter on their travels.

At first I thought this would be a movie I’d need to read, but after a few early scenes they switch to English (?) but it might have been better if they’d left the subtitles on. If there were swear words, I couldn’t make them out most of the time but there were some snatches of graphic, hand drawn pornography passed around at the camp.

Some parts were changed from the original story, for example how the group escaped their camp to begin with (a Russian commander’s wife helped them in reality).  I also believe the ending was changed, as I don’t think the author ever made it back to Poland.  If I remember correctly, he eventually settled in England after the war.  But the main core of the story was kept in tact.

If you can suspend some disbelief over storytelling hiccups, I could recommend this movie (though definitely not for children).

 

Movie Review: “King Solomon’s Mines”

Based on the book by Henry Rider Haggard. 

Version: 2004 

Genre: adventure; romance

Plot Summary:  When Elizabeth Maitland’s father, a learned archaeologist, is kidnapped and held for ransom by a native African tribe, she goes in search of her father’s guide—the hunter known as Allan Quartermain.  Together they search for the ancient mines of King Solomon, and the African king Twala who seeks total power.

My Review: I am well aware that “King Solomon’s Mines” has been made into various films and tv series during the length and breadth of cinema’s history.  For good reason—the Haggard classic holds much danger, adventure, and extraordinary exploits.  It’s ripe for Hollywood’s picking!  I also am aware of the temptation said industry has of injecting a love affair in the middle of the drama where there was none in the book.  (Actually, there was but only between two minor characters.)

Richard Chamberlain as Allan Quartermain.

I much prefer when movies stick at least relatively close to the book.  That being said, I wanted to watch at least one film version.  Even though I pictured Quartermain looking more like Robert Chamberlain, I determined not to watch the 1985 one starring him and Sharon Stone.  As a comedy, the trailer of it looked more painful than Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.  I have high pain tolerance, but not that high.  I would love to see the one with Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr, but that is unavailable to me at the time being so I settled for the more recent two part series starring Patrick Swayze and Alison Doody.

I mentioned I have high pain tolerance, yes.  Or else I wouldn’t have stuck with this version to the end.  Story was completely reduced, gutted, and stuffed.  Acting was middling at best, accents fake, the landscapes dubious, the suspense killed, and the romantic chemistry: zilch.  The only thing that resembled the book were the characters’ names.  A new plot was entirely made up, containing villainous… Russians.

“What the hell are Russians doing here?!” shouts Quartermain.

I nearly laughed my head off.  Yes, really!  Even the time period was scooched from the Victorian era closer to WWI in order to create a rivalry quest between Miss Maitland, her amorous hero and the Tsar and his goons.  Sort of like, a resuscitated Raiders of the Lost Ark plotline or something.

My land.  They even have the mythical love of King Solomon for the Queen of Sheba being the cause for why he built the Temple.  As though it were some Hebrew Taj Mahal and not the dwelling place of the Most High God.

There is very little content to be afraid of as far as language, bedroom scenes or gore.  (There might have been one or two uses of ‘damn.’)  For a standalone piece of entertainment, this might pacify an evening.  But seriously folks, read the book.  It is much more exciting!  [read my book review here]

 

Movie Review: “The Big Four”

Based on the book by Agatha Christie. [see my book review here]

Version: 2013; starring David Suchet.

Genre: mystery

Plot Summary: [from IMDb] “As the threat of world war looms large, Poirot seeks the help of friends both old and new when he is pitted against a dangerous group of dissidents responsible for a series of violent murders.“

My Review: When I read Agatha Christie’s The Big Four, it wasn’t the best mystery I’d read by her; but it wasn’t the worst either.  I guess I’d rate it around midling.  I think the thing that turned me off from rating it higher was probably the ending which did not seem very believable to me.  I didn’t really see how this story would be filmable.

When I watched the movie version starring David Suchet I could see where they took liberties with the story, and I didn’t really blame them.  It needed to be within the realms of the believable and not feel like a dated story line.  Many of the same characters were kept, but the motives and ending were changed.  I still can’t say it’s one of my favorites, though.

I don’t remember alarming content material here, however since it deals with murder and the regular mayhem I would say there is some moderate worries for children.

 

Movie Review: “Murder on the Orient Express”

Based on the book by Agatha Christie.

Version: 2017; starring Kenneth Branaugh; Johnny Depp; Derek Jacobi; Michelle Pfeiffer; Judi Dench

Genre: classic; suspense; costume drama; mystery

Plot Summary: [from imdB.com:]  “When a murder occurs on the train he’s travelling on, celebrated detective Hercule Poirot is recruited to solve the case.”

My Review: Disclaimer*: I have not read the original book, so this review will not by comparing it to that novel.  Only as a story in and of itself, totally unrelated to the book. 

When I first saw the promo trailer for this, my first instinct was: “No.  That’s not Poirot, and nobody can tell me it is.” How can anybody possibly play that character better than David Suchet?  But there have been so many times when I have tried something (usually movies) that I thought I would hate, and it turned out I liked it much, much better than I thought I would, or benefited by it in some way.  So I did break down and give this a try.

Did it surpass the previous Orient Express I love starring Suchet, Barbara Hershey, and Toby Jones?  No.  Did Branaugh embody Chritie’s Poirot?  No.  Was it a terribly rotten movie?  Surprisingly, no.  Here’s why.

Try to get it out of your head that this is a remake.  Try to get it out of your head that this was a book first with a detective that appeared in a whole series of books previously.  Forget what Poirot looks like, and that Suchet perfectly imitated his mincing steps and egg shaped head.  Now, sit down and take this film as it is.  Take Branaugh’s Poirot completely as Branaugh presents him.  And you get a good, suspense-filled movie with a  “closed room mystery” and a cast full of colorful characters that make you think about life and justice, while giving you chills in the middle of an avalanche and a cold blooded murder scene.  This is what …Orient Express actually is.  And the film does an excellent job of that.

I still like BBC’s Agatha Christie’s Poirot version, for all of the above reasons, and because it feels more realistic.  It has it’s own sense of atmosphere and it doesn’t come off feeling so exaggerated.  But.  Branaugh’s film is to be recognized as being a good drama, too.  It really does not fail.  In fact, I was better able to follow the plot in this one, the motives behind the murder, and the big reveal at the end was far more dramatic than a huddled group in a narrow dining car.  The newer version works to create different change of scenes on a limited stage.  Overall, it took on an artistic, creative flair that was very interesting.

I’ll warn you: if there’s going to be a murder, you might as well expect blood, and there is lots of it.  So, cover your eyes Sally and Johnny and Grandma, too.  In fact, this may not be for you.  In a nutshell: if you crave realism and darkness, choose BBC’s Murder…  If you wish something with a bit more flair and composition, go for Branaugh’s.  Both are recommended.

 

Random Books Post: End of Year Hurrah

Hello, and a Merry Christmas to you all!  You will find my latest treasures I’ve lately found at library bag sales and castoffs from our church library renovation.

Weird cover, but I would like to read more about wise ways to be generous.

I forgot I got this, so I will now have to put it out to decorate with. 🙂

This book was recently recommended to me by a friend.

I’ve been interested in this book ever since we borrowed from a friend for homeschooling. Now I have my own (if warped) copy!

Another of my favorite movies! Beautiful photographs and I loved reading about the costumes and research that went into it. Rene Zellweger made great attempts to portray the spirit of Beatrix Potter. I say she succeeded.

I’m always agonizing over my purpose in life.

My favorite movie! I can’t believe I my good fortune in finding it so cheaply.

Love Adams! I’m collecting anything I see by him.

I have never read anything from Luci Swindoll, but she seems to be an appealing author to me. I’ve been picking up some of her stuff recently.

I know I’ve raved about this book lots of times on this blog and it has inspired my “Characters We Can Learn From” Series. Now that the church has unfortunately purged it, it’s come home to my library.

I have wanted a Sherlock Holmes set with the original Strand illustrations FOR YEARS! Although I was disappointed this wasn’t a complete compilation, I was happy it contain most of the short stories and of course, the black and white illustrations.

I love to read about homemaking, but I don’t know if this will provide anything “new.”

I read this book many years ago and was impressed. In the new year, I think I need to revisit his advice.

It was… until the wind “farms” destroyed it.

Have been interested in Julia Child the person ever since Julie and Julia.

A great New Year’s read.

I think this just about completes my Lindbergh diary canon.

Another book on generosity I’ve been wanting to read.

 

 

Movie Review: “Jamaica Inn”

Based on the book by Daphne du Maurier

Version: 2014; starring Jessica Brown-Findlay

Genre: classic; suspense; costume drama

Plot Summary: [from imdB.com:]  “A young woman moves in with her aunt and uncle and soon discovers unsavory happenings in her new home.”

My Review: Disclaimer*: I have not read the original book, so this review will not by comparing it to that novel.  Only as a story in and of itself, totally unrelated to the book. “Jamaica Inn” has been made into a movie at least three times (Alfred Hitchock- 1934; 1983, starring Jane Seymour; current review) and I have seen all three.  This is not because I especially love the story, but because I was usually bored with nothing else particularly appealing to watch.  The 2014 caught my attention because of Jessica Brown-Findlay playing the lead character.  I have to say that out of all three, this most recent version is my preferred version.

For those who may not be aware, the story is very dark and tense.  What I liked about this movie was the way it kept it tight and the viewer guessing; there is also a lot of texture, wind, and weather.  Watch it for the moody atmosphere if nothing else.  But the acting is pretty well done, and there is interesting cinematography, too.

Unfortunately, there is a pretty racy scene between Mary and love interest Jem.  There is some amount of foul language as well (lots of rough and rowdy fellows and drunken tavern scenes).  An attempted assault is made on Mary, but her uncle defends her.  There are several scenes of murder and some gore.  Obviously, this film is not for sensitive folks.

SPOILER: I often get weary of the church as being painted as the villains in movies.    However, if this storyline has started to lose its shock-and-awe value it is because we live in an age where #metoo has reared its ugly head within the church and the reality is that one mustn’t take even religious leaders for granted.  Even so, we have a pervading sense that this is not the way it is supposed to be—injust, mercy-less and hypocritical so-called “Christians.”  It is not supposed to be this way because Jesus Christ was not this way and deep down the world recognizes the contradiction.  The Bible says that the man who says, “I know Him,” but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.  Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.  (1 John 1:4-6)  Rev. Davy appeared to be living God’s commands, yet his life was full of darkness, control, and death.  Whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness.  But whoever is truly a Christ-follower lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble.  END OF SPOILER. 

Is Jamaica Inn worth the watch?  I think it can be thoughtfully viewed and learned from.  Some themes to talk over include addiction, codependency, fear and control.   How does each character’s choices come back to haunt them in the end?  It makes for interesting dialogue.  But it’s certainly not a family movie.

 

Movie Review: “The Aviator”

Based on the book by Ernest K. Gann.

Version: 1985; starring Christopher Reeve; Tyne Daly

Genre: adventure; classic

Plot Summary: A physically and emotionally scarred US mail pilot is commissioned to escort a young teenager over the lonely Rocky Mountain wilderness during the 1920’s.

My Review: Disclaimer*: I have not read the original book, so this review will not be comparing it to that work.  Only as a story in and of itself, totally unrelated to the book. 

When I first came across this streaming for free online, I thought it was an early version of The Aviator that starred Leonardo DiCaprio and Cate Blanchett.  I thought it might be about Howard Hughes.  The story turned out to be quite different than I expected and was a pleasant surprise.

Though this movie may be lacking a lot of the frills and fancies of today’s world, the story was still interesting because of the well-developed characters.  Reeve plays a good pilot that is still suffering from a war incident and lives in isolation from those around him.  Tillie is a young teenage girl that on the surface seems spoiled and immature, but when put to the test proves she has courage to survive hardships.

Some beautiful cinematography from the air and accompanying filmscore is lovely.  Acting may not be A1, but there aren’t any scenes you wouldn’t want your parents to watch.  I believe there were a few ‘d’ words sprinkled throughout.  Tillie does confess that she was ‘banged up’ by a boy prior to her plane trip and declares that it ‘certainly wasn’t love.’  She begins to develop a bit of a crush on Edgar, but nothing inappropriate comes of it.  Rather, it was sweet and humorous and Edgar comes to realize that there may be something in him the right woman could love about him.

I believe that the character Tillie was made older in the movie than she was in the book, but I think this was actually in the story’s favor.  If you’re looking for something a little different, I believe you would enjoy this for entertainment.

 

Movie Review: In the Heart of the Sea

Based on the book Nathaniel Philbrick.

Version: 2015; starring Chris Hemsworth; directed by Ron Howard

Genre: adventure; drama; based on true story

Plot Summary: Herman Melville is looking for his next greatest story in order to make ends meet and thinks he make have a lead.  An aged seaman has a story to tell, if only he can glean the truth from him.

My Review: Disclaimer*: I have not read the original book, so this review will not by comparing it to that novel.  Only as a story in and of itself, totally unrelated to the book.  

I make no apology for my puns. I was hooked from the first glimpse of the trailer.  I only wish I could have seen it on the big screen!  Oh, the drama!  It seemed to promise to do big scale justice of the story behind the world’s most famous whale.

And it delivered! What a riveting tale told through great acting, costumes, props, the works!  Best of all, a story that kept me glued throughout.  This was right up my alley of love for seafaring adventures.

Parts are a little hard to stomach, such as how the whalers went about harvesting whale oil. But it seemed historically accurate, and similar to the book “Moby Dick” in many ways (capturing the factual details of the whalers’ chores).  Also, a group of men adrift at sea are forced into some difficult decisions, SPOILER ALERT: namely cannibalism.  But we are not shown graphic details. END OF SPOILER.

I think one of my favorite aspects of it was the psychology behind the different characters. When you have an extreme situation with different people coming from different backgrounds, with different values and beliefs, what will each person choose and why?

It was apparent to me that this film was made with somewhat of an agenda [ie, whaling was ALL bad], and not one I would entirely agree with. But it did make for an exciting story and one I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend for an older audience.

 

Movie Review: “Lincoln”

 

Based on the book, “Team of Rivals,” by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Version: 2012; Daniel Day-Lewis; Tommy Lee Jones; Sally Fields; David Strathairn; Lee Pace; Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Genre: historical drama

Plot Summary: [from IMDb:] “As the Civil War continues to rage, America’s president struggles with continuing carnage on the battlefield as he fights with many inside his own cabinet on the decision to emancipate the slaves.”

My Review: Disclaimer*: I have not read the original book, so this review will not be comparing it to that work.  Only as a story in and of itself, totally unrelated to the book.  

I remember reading high praise for this movie when it first came out. Actually, I believe I had my eye on it when it was first announced it was in the making, and Daniel Day-Lewis was cast in the role of Abraham Lincoln.  The similarities between their looks are amazing, but would the movie do history and the man himself justice?

Oh wow. I can’t begin to tell you about the amount of research that went into the creating of this film.  I would love to know more about the ‘making of’ it.  I do know that the actors and actresses really gave this one their all and went into full-depth character to accurately portray these historical people.  Day-Lewis in particular researched Lincoln’s mannerisms, way of walking, speech, and voice in order to become him.

I am not so steeped in Civil War history as to know how many facts in this movie are correct, but I do know that it was inspired by the thoroughly researched book, “Team of Rivals,” by Doris Kearns Goodwin. The author worked closely on the making of the film as well.

Acting is top-notch. I really felt as though I were viewing a fragment of my country’s history, and that felt exciting.  Even though I knew how history played out, this movie caused me to doubt for a little bit what would happen.  The behind-the-scenes politics of history made for a tense plot and kept me on the edge of my seat.  In fact, it was so identifiable in this day and age and maybe that’s why I felt nervous for what would happen.

One drawback of the film is that many of the historical facts presented escaped me in one viewing. I will definitely need to rewatch it to glean more from it.  Because of this, I felt somewhat confused and didn’t understand some of the plot structure.

However, I did learn a lot about the genius of Abraham Lincoln. I’ve always had the impression that he was so morally simple as to be sort of uninteresting.  Not so!  This man had a talent given to him by God that he used in the time and position he was placed in.  He was an absolute chess-master at politics, but had a core of integrity that kept him straight and true.  I believe watching this shed some light for me in deciding how to vote this past presidential election.  It also caused me to love a person I’ve never met, and left to wonder why God would allow such a man who did so much good and suffered greatly for it, to die at the hands of an assassin so soon after victory was achieved.

My favorite scene is near the end, with the singing of “Battle Cry of Freedom.” It was so inspiring, and caused me to be grateful to God for His working in our country’s history.  When’s the last time you felt excited about history?

 

Book Review: “The Prisoner of Zenda,” by Anthony Hope

Genre: classic; adventure

Plot Summary: [from goodreads:] “Anthony Hope’s swashbuckling romance transports his English gentleman hero, Rudolf Rassendyll, from a comfortable life in London to fast-moving adventures in Ruritania, a mythical land steeped in political intrigue. Rassendyll bears a striking resemblance to Rudolf Elphberg who is about to be crowned King of Ruritania. When the rival to the throne, Black Michael of Strelsau, attempts to seize power by imprisoning Elphberg in the Castle of Zenda, Rassendyll is obliged to impersonate the King to uphold the rightful sovereignty and ensure political stability.”

My Book Review: This story became an immediate favorite years ago when I first saw the old 1952 film version (starring Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr) when I was 15 years old.  I was staying at my grandpa’s and watched it over and over.  There was something about the swashbuckling adventure full of danger, intrigue, cloak and dagger, and romance that really had me at hello.  In fact, I believe it was one of the first titles I ever entered into my To-Read notebook that I wanted to make sure I read the novel of someday.  It’s been years for me to get around to it, and I was a little bit afraid that the book would let me down in comparison.

This book is not terribly long or hard to get through. I found that the movie version I loved from the first followed the plot pretty well, except for maybe some scenes removed to make for better film-length comprehension.  The book was exciting and fun to read, though I probably would have enjoyed it a little more had I read it first before the movie.  Some parts, such as the Granger-Kerr chemistry is better than the book.  But it’s a great adventure in a vintagey, old-fashioned sort of way.  I’m always in the mood for impersonation stories, intrigue, and suspense.  And I think the tale’s a bit of a classic in that a hard, bittersweet decision is made at the end that leaves you sighing and wishing…  Sort of like Casablanca.

If this sounds like a story you would enjoy diving into, just know that it is actually the second in the Ruritania Trilogy.  I’ve read the first book The Heart of Princess Osra (see book review here), but the two novels are more standalone than anything.  In fact, The Prisoner… is much more of an interesting read than the first.  I will be reading the third in the series, Rupert of Hentzau at some point in time, and I understand that particular one is a better connected sequel to PoZ.

So grab this book if you want an escape to the mountains of the fictional country of Ruritania, where old castle walls, heraldry, and swordfights await you!

“This is movie magic at its mightiest!…” Ha, ha! 😀