Category: Books, Movies, TV & Web

 

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir

 

As I rewatched, after many years, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir recently, I tried to recall why I had such fond memories of it. It’s a pleasant enough yarn, in which a young widow (Gene Tierney) encounters the ghost of a ship’s captain (Rex Harrison) when she moves into a seaside house.

The story was charming and amusing, but no more so than many other romantic comedies of its era.

But then … the final 20 minutes of the movie transpired, and I was struck by how powerful the ending was. Amid all the playful banter between the ghost and Mrs. Muir, screenwriter Philip Dunne had been planting seeds about the things that we regret in life, and the things we do not regret.

The payoff is motion-picture magic and a good example of why we say, “they don’t make movies like that anymore.” Release: 1947  Grade: A

 

Would I watch it again?  Yes.

 

*

 

Civil War

 

An admission: I had already reviewed, in my imagination, much of this movie from reading other critics and pundit analyses shortly after its release in April. From what I read, Civil War appeared to be just another “woke” bulletin from Hollywood, issuing warnings about “threats to democracy” from the right.

The actor playing the U.S. president, according to the articles, resembled Trump — a cowardly Trump. One horrific scene featured MAGA-like militiamen terrorizing the protagonists, four heroic journalists on their way to Washington D.C. during a new civil war. Worst of all, those journalists were painted in quite a positive light. This during a time when journalism as a profession is at its lowest point.

Now that I’ve seen the movie, it turns out there is some truth in all of that conjecturing of mine. If the movie leans politically, it’s certainly to the left.

But what I did not expect was the bigger picture. Alex Garland’s film is primarily a powerful warning. If we can’t bridge our differences, we’re headed straight into a national nightmare — for both the left and the right. Release: 2024  Grade: A-

 

Would I watch it again?  Yes.

 

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

by Colin Dexter

 

Nothing against Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Sam Spade, or any of the hundreds of private dicks, sleuths, and cops in crime fiction, but my favorite of them all is probably Dexter’s Inspector Morse.

Like so many deductive heroes of these novels, Morse is blessed with genius. But he is also cursed by a nettlesome romantic life — or lack thereof. He loves his pints of beer. He also has an (often lecherous) eye for the ladies.

Alas, said ladies are generally just beyond Morse’s grasp, either because they are murdered, or shipped off to jail, or subject to some other calamity.

The Dead of Jericho begins with Morse meeting such a woman and ends with him reflecting about her. There is a mystery to solve, of course, but it’s the melancholic tone of the book that haunts the reader.

We have every confidence that our irascible protagonist will solve the case. But will Morse ever find love?

 

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

Abigail

 

Pros: If you are into “comfort horror,” in which you don’t expect major twists in the story nor deep psychological insight, this movie is for you. It’s got a small group of people trapped in a spooky mansion with a killer on the loose who is picking them off, one by one. That’s the (familiar) plot.

I liked that. If it worked for And Then There Were None, it’s good enough for me.

Cons: It’s not a big spoiler to reveal that the killer is a little-girl vampire who is into ballet. She is played by a young actress who makes faces and dances and wears Dracula fangs. That’s the hook.

I didn’t like that. The girl is not very scary, and the gimmick wears thin. Also, the other characters are shallow, there is little wit in the dialogue, and gore replaces suspense. This is not And Then There Were None.

But if you just want something familiar, here you go. Release: 2024  Grade: B

 

Would I watch it again?  If I am stressed and need something silly but comforting, possibly.

 

*

 

Pearl

 

Here is what Pearl is: gorgeous to look at, well-acted, thought-provoking, and original.

Here is what Pearl is not: much fun.

Maybe it’s a product of our times, and Ti West’s trilogy of terror (along with X and MaXXXine) simply reflects the national mood. But I can’t help comparing X to 1974’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Pearl — a psychological profile of a murderess in the making — to early ‘60s melodramas What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and Hush … Hush, Sweet Charlotte.

West’s fondness for those earlier movies is apparent. The plots and/or themes are similar in all of them. And yet …

Chain Saw and the Bette Davis films were scary-good fun, horror with an underlying sense of humor. West’s movies are technically impressive, but bleak and unpleasant. Release: 2022 Grade: B

 

Would I watch it again?  Not likely. See above.

 

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

by David Grann

 

A few weeks ago, I watched a YouTube video featuring amazing images of Mars that have been transmitted back to Earth. The high-definition pictures of the red planet’s barren landscapes held my interest for 15 minutes or so — and then it was time to move on to the next video. I’d seen enough.

Perhaps I’ve become jaded, or I’ve watched too many science-fiction movies.

It’s easy to forget how, for most of history, exploration was a rock-star pursuit that riveted the world. Long before YouTube, or even television, newspaper accounts of adventurers like Percy Fawcett mesmerized readers all over the globe.

David Grann (Killers of the Flower Moon) spent years researching the life, legend and disappearance of Fawcett, a British explorer who entered the Amazon basin in 1925 with two other expedition members — hoping to confirm the existence of the titular “Z” — and then never came back.

Did the Fawcett party fall victim to disease or to predators? Did a hostile tribe kill them? Grann’s exhaustive research (and even a trip to the Amazon, hoping to retrace Fawcett’s final excursion) fails to provide definitive answers.

That’s a problem. By the book’s conclusion, we still don’t know what became of the enigmatic, obsessed (I might say “bull-headed”) explorer. Nor, despite Grann’s best efforts and imagination, do we get conclusive answers about the mythical “city of Z.”

By the time I turned the last page, I was impressed by Grann’s achievement. I was intrigued by Fawcett and his exploits. But unlike those newspaper readers of a century ago, I was not enthralled.

I was ready for the next YouTube video.

 

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

Border

 

Tina is a Swedish customs agent with an unusual talent. Much like a predator in the wild, she can sense heightened emotion in humans: fear, shame, or guilt. If you’re nervous and trying to smuggle a bottle of booze past security, best not walk near Tina.

I’m not well-versed in Scandinavian folklore, so when we learn the genesis of Tina’s special power — shortly after she encounters a man who is homely and outcast, like she is — my reaction was, “this is interesting.”

The problem with Border is that, while it is intriguing and well-made, it’s also relentlessly nihilistic and unpleasant. As if Tina’s lonely lot in life isn’t sad enough, there are subplots involving pedophilia and reproduction that made me want to … well, no thank you.

You can take Border as an allegory of the struggles of marginalized people in society, or as a face-value monster movie. But after we learn the big reveal, my main reaction was, “this is too depressing.” Release: 2018  Grade: C+

 

Would I watch it again? No.

 

**

 

Talk to Me

 

When I see that a horror movie has a lofty approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I tend to take that information with a grain of salt. The bar for most modern horror is so low that, I suspect, many critics overreact when they watch something that doesn’t actually suck.

Talk to Me, a thriller from Australia with 95 percent approval on Rotten Tomatoes, does not suck. It doesn’t break new ground in its genre, and it isn’t particularly scary. Yet it does have something rare: characters that are interesting.

Sophie Wilde plays Mia, a high school girl who, along with her circle of friends, discovers the ultimate party game — a mummified hand that, when touched, conjures spirits. Evil spirits. As you might expect, things do not go well for the thrill-seeking teens.

But Mia’s relationship with her friends and family raises Talk to Me a notch above its competitors. Release: 2022  Grade: B

 

Would I watch it again?  Possibly.

 

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

Godzilla Minus One

 

Critics and moviegoers went wild with praise when this movie opened in 2023. It was a Godzilla movie for people who normally don’t care for Godzilla movies. It was a Japanese, relatively low-budget flick that put Hollywood blockbusters to shame.

I’m sorry, but there is a distinction between “Oh, that was better than I expected,” and “This is the best movie of the year!” The effusive praise, I suspect, was more a commentary on general unhappiness with Hollywood’s recent output than genuine accolades for a monster movie.

The plot:  A World War II Japanese pilot is twice shamed, once for failing to complete a kamikaze mission, then again for failing to destroy the Big Bad Monster when it first appears. When he returns to post-war Tokyo, the pilot inherits a makeshift family consisting of an attractive young woman and an orphan girl.

The human story is touching, but also predictable and marred by some typically overwrought acting. (I say typical, because a lot of Japanese movies feature actors who express emotion to such a degree that it seems comical to Western eyes — or at least to my eyes.)

But it’s a traditional story about family and redemption, which audiences seem to crave. And the special effects are well done. And the monster is fun.

Release: 2023  Grade: B

 

Would I watch it again?  Not likely. It would help if they cut 15-20 minutes from the runtime.

 

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

by Robert B. Parker

 

When you think about it, celebrated gun-for-hire Spenser isn’t all that great at his job. In A Savage Place, Spenser flies out to Hollywood to function as bodyguard-helper to a TV reporter investigating mob ties to the movie industry.

In the end, things don’t work out so well for the reporter. Nor do they for Spenser.

But that’s not what Parker’s Spenser books are about. They are about the Boston tough guy’s self-deprecating wisecracks, and about his wry observations of people and places. What, for example, does a hardened egg like Spenser think about the “beautiful people” of 1980s L.A.? Will he charm his way into the sexy reporter’s bed? Does a bear shit in Beverly Hills?

I don’t think this is one of the better books in the Spenser series. The “white knight does his part to serve feminism” theme feels a bit forced. Also, the damsel in distress isn’t particularly likeable.

But the wisecracks are on cue, and so are the action scenes.

 

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

Miss Marple

 

We all know The Beatles. And James Bond. But to me, an unsung hero of the 1960s “British invasion” was Margaret Rutherford as Miss Jane Marple.

Movie lore has it that Marple creator Agatha Christie was not a fan of Rutherford’s portrayal, which emphasized comedy over mystery. It’s true that the four Marple films rely more on slapstick and buffoonish supporting characters than anything found in Christie’s novels.

 

 

But I’ve watched numerous actresses portray the spinster sleuth on television series, and I remember very little about them. On the other hand, rubber-faced, jowly Rutherford as Miss Marple made an indelible impression.

Which of the four movies is best? The critical consensus seems to place them in chronological order, with Murder, She Said (1961) followed by Murder at the Gallop (1963), Murder Most Foul (1964), and Murder Ahoy! (1964). To me, they are pretty much interchangeable.

 

Robert Morley and Rutherford in Murder at the Gallop

 

All four films are enjoyable larks. The jaunty musical score by Ron Goodwin, the supporting players including Robert Morley, Ron Moody, Lionel Jeffries, and James Robertson Justice (not to mention Rutherford’s real-life husband, Stringer Davis) — all of that makes me smile.

The mysteries are only mildly engaging, but they are mostly there just to give Rutherford and company something to do.

 

Rutherford and Davis

 

Release: 1961-1964  Cast: Margaret Rutherford, Charles Tingwell, Stringer Davis  Overall Grade: B+

 

With Lionel Jeffries in Murder Ahoy!

 

Would I watch them again?  Of course.

 

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

by C.S. Lewis

 

Wikipedia describes British intellectual Lewis as a “Christian apologist.” Really? Maybe I’m misinterpreting the term, but it doesn’t seem to me that Lewis’s writings do much “apologizing” for Christianity.

But I digress. In The Screwtape Letters, Lewis plays devil’s advocate — literally — through “Screwtape,” a high-ranking demon and advisor to his nephew “Wormwood,” a novice demon attempting to corrupt a young Englishman. In a series of letters to the nephew, Screwtape details the tricks of their trade: how to plant ungodly thoughts in an individual’s head, and then how to encourage those thoughts to flourish.

This is accomplished chiefly by appealing to the Englishman’s vanities, fears, etc., and then finding ways to justify his delusions. The great Enemy to Screwtape (and Wormwood) is, of course, Christianity.

Lewis said that he found the writing of Screwtape Letters to be “easy,” but also unpleasant. It’s not hard to see why. Like a film actor who enjoys playing villains on screen, it was probably fun to play-act Satan’s assistant. And yet, there are so many depressing aspects to human nature — so many pitfalls to being a good person — that you might not want to dwell in that role for very long.

 

 © 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

by Ayn Rand

 

If I read this Ayn Rand novella just 10 years ago, my reaction to it might have gone something like this: “Interesting. Far-fetched, but interesting.”

The dystopian world Rand creates in her story depicts a society in which totalitarian collectivism rules. The protagonist is a confused soul living in a city where nothing is done — or even thought — by “I” or “me.” To do that is a crime. The only acceptable pronoun is “we.” People don’t have names; they are assigned numbers. Everyone follows, like docile sheep, the dictates of the “Council.”

Interesting, I would have thought in 2014. But people are not docile sheep, I would have thought, 10 years ago.

Flash forward to 2024, in which “he” and “she” are routinely replaced by “they,” and in which violating groupthink can cost you your livelihood. Individualism is dangerous because it threatens the well-being of the group, we are told.

I suspect the reason Anthem is not routinely cited with Brave New World and 1984 as warnings about the perils of — insert your “ism” here — is because Rand planned it in 1937 as a magazine article. It’s a very short novel. It doesn’t have the meat of 1984 or Brave New World. But it effectively conveys the same message.

 

 © 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share