Movie Reviews #24…
The Finest Hours. Craig Gillespie, dir. I resisted going to this one. “Just another disaster movie,” I said. Two things convinced me to see it. First, it’s a true story. Second, it’s set on Cape Cod. Having lived in the Boston area for many years, I’m familiar with the Cape. We have our little inn there, the Nauset House Inn, where we love to stay; it’s conveniently near many of the settings in the movie. We’ve taken boat tours off Chatham around the bar and on to Monomoy Island to see the sites and cool off on a hot summer’s day. We’ve taking whale-spotting excursions off Provincetown. We’ve spent more time on Nantucket than Martha’s Vineyard, a vacation site for the rich and powerful. We’ve laughed at the Kennedy compound and remembered faux environmentalist’s Ted’s NIMBY attitude about windmills damaging his view.
The sea is a constant character in the lore of the Cape. It can be placid and beautiful; it can also be a horrible and murderous monster. This film is about a Coast Guard rescue launched from the station at Chatham, a rescue that took place in February 1952 in the maws of the monster. The oil tanker SS Pendleton split in two. Chief Warrant Officer Daniel Cluff (Eric Bana) sends Botswain Mate First Class Bernard Webber (Chris Pine) and two others out in a small boat. That’s considered a suicide mission by some, but Cluff doesn’t know those seas (at least he doesn’t in the movie). Because you can look up the history, it’s a not a spoiler to say that Webber and friends saved all but four of the thirty stranded on the back half of the tanker (the other half went down, carrying the captain and other members of the crew to a watery grave).
One critic insinuated that this is a water-logged flop. I’ll go against the negativism and differ here with my opinion (I often do, of course). This is a good movie. The scenes oscillate between the tanker and the little USCG boat and what’s happening on shore. The latter isn’t great, but the first two keep this movie moving. Not a dull moment there. Bana has a thankless role as the incompetent Cluff (his talent is probably wasted). Pine overacts on this one and pales in comparison to the acting job of Casey Affleck—he portrays the Pendleton’s engineer, Roy Sybert. The engineer is a man of few words, and that kind of role requires great acting. Sybert is the most important character, in fact, and, by stranding the half of his ship still floating on a shoal, is really the one responsible for saving the part of the crew still afloat. (Some strong language, and the sea does a lot of violence here.)
The Lady in the Van. Nicholas Hytner, dir. About as far as prim and proper Downton Abbey as you can get, this movie is a must-see. First, Maggie Smith’s portrayal of an elderly homeless woman who moves her van into dramatist/author Alan Bennett’s driveway in a posh and artsy London suburb shows the plight of the homeless in graphic detail. A similar-themed movie featuring Richard Gere can’t begin to compare.
One reviewer stated the lady was lost—I heartily agree, but only in the sense that the second theme here, that the homeless person might not be who you think they are (also in Gere’s movie), is the epitome of how smart and creative people can easily be lost to an indifferent society. Alex Jennings plays the victimized author who gives our lady a temporary spot to park that lasts fifteen years. This would be a perfect movie except for the ending.
Gere’s movie dwelled on the pathos; the mix of pathos and dry, British humor in this film is much more profound. The screenplay, written by Bennett, is based on his memoir of his time with the lady. There’s a bit too much of him in the story, and you’ll end up hating his snooty neighbors who try to live with their guilt, but all that too is part of the pathos. Highly recommended, and it shows great stories can be found all around you if you look for them. Shaw would have loved this movie!
X-Files. I looked forward to this. I was a fan of the original series. I’m not a fan of this resurrection. It’s terrible. OK. It’s not a movie. (The movies made from the series were terrible too, though.) But where else am I going to put my critique? Ducovny is back as Fox Mulder; Anderson is back as Scully. The years weigh heavy on the two. So far, these new episodes (I’ve seen the first three) that are worse than reruns focus on Mulder’s mental hang-ups. To be PC, Scully has some too. They’re associated with a feeble and puzzling continuation of the main story arc from the original series. #3 was a continuation of the monster-of-the-week episodes that were interwoven into the main story arc of the original series; it was a slapstick episode that somehow reminded me of a bad Charlie Chaplin movie. I won’t be watching more of these. You can do what you want. (No strong language, some sexual situations—was copulating with the monster-of-the-week a new side of Anderson?—and plenty of blood, gore, and guts.)
In libris libertas…
