The Imitation Game Got Alan Turing Wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOXaGBmx2OY

I have a beef with historical movies that distort history, and most of them do.   For example, the movie Sully distorted the way the NTSB treated Captain Sullenberger to add drama to the film.  As good of a movie Titanic was, I think that the real story is more interesting than a bunch of fictional characters.

I knew enough about the code breaking at Bletchley Park to find the movie suspect.  Decisions about whether to use the intel were made at the highest level, like Winston Churchill, and not by the code breakers.

The movie has a spy subplot that strikes me as fictional.  If it is true, then we have heard nothing about it from other sources.

Alan Turing had a distinguished career outside of code breaking.  I was hoping the movie would acknowledge his other accomplishments, but instead it gave us a soap opera.

Variations on the Kanon by Pachelbel - George Winston

I saw this piece of music on Facebook with no title.  I am no expert on music, but I really enjoyed this piece.  I wanted to know what it is called.  I found it on YouTube with the title "Variations on the Kanon by Pachelbel".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wAGacczNho

So, being the curious person I am,  I wanted to know what the "Kanon by Pachelbel" meant.    So I found it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_variations_on_Pachelbel%27s_Canon

The first version on this page, "Arranged for violins, harps, and bass", is a piece of music that I have heard many times, as it has been used in TV shows and movies.  Mentally, I hadn't made the connection between the piano solo and this version, but I had previously been curious about where this music came from.  Some of the other versions of this page are interesting.

SELF SERVE POPCORN AT MOVIE THEATRE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKjWAs93T04

Not sure this is a good idea.

Movie theaters are becoming obsolete.

Last Days in the Desert

I wrote this 8 years ago:

If you want to see a low budget gem of a movie, watch "Last Days in the Desert" where Ewan McGregor plays both Jesus and Satan.

There is something compelling about watching a man on a journey, especially on a journey to find himself.

Actually this is not a very religious movie. There are no miracles. The question of Jesus' divinity is left up to the viewer to decide. He could just be a crazy man wandering the desert.

The final scene feels out of place, because the movie goes straight from the Crucifixion to modern day tourists taking snapshots of the same desert Jesus supposedly wandered in. Had they given us a hint of resurrection, even a slight stirring under the burial cloth, it would have given the movie a religious meaning. Such an ending, regardless of if you believe or not, would be a satisfying conclusion to the story, because it would have shown that everything that went before it served a purpose. Instead, the story is ambiguous.

--

Best wishes,

John Coffey

http://www.entertainmentjourney.com

"The Blackout" movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4PR4_W4uw

The joke here is that the biological weapon launched 200,000 years ago to subdue the planet was the human race.  

This movie has borderline ratings on Rotten Tomatoes.   It is a Russian made film that is dubbed.  The last part of the dialog doesn't sound great to me.

The premise seems interesting.  It is streaming on multiple services.  I will have to watch it and see if I like it.

The look and sound of the alien reminds me of characters on the TV series Stargate Atlantis.

Finch

 

After a major solar event destroys the ozone layer, most life on Earth dies. Finch is one of the last surviving humans, and he distrusts other people with good reason. He has witnessed humans killing one another over small amounts of food.

I looked this up, and after such a catastrophe it would take decades, possibly up to a century, for the ozone layer to regenerate. Such an event is plausible. The cosmos is filled with dangers, such as coronal mass ejections, gamma-ray bursts, and asteroid impacts.

Finch lives in a shelter but must venture out to find food for himself and his dog. He wears a radiation suit, but conditions outside are extremely harsh. He knows that he is dying from radiation exposure.

He loves the dog; it is the only thing he has left. Because of this, he builds an intelligent robot whose purpose is to take care of the dog after Finch dies. The robot is very smart but also a bit goofy, lacking common sense and still trying to learn. This is where the movie takes an unexpected turn, as it is really the relationship between Finch, the robot, and the dog that the story explores.

That said, the robot’s goofiness feels very familiar, as if this story has been done before. I was reminded of Short Circuit, Wall-E, and several robots from Star Wars.

Circumstances force the trio out of the shelter, and they head west in a makeshift armored vehicle, hoping to reach San Francisco. Along the way, they face danger from both the environment and other humans. The desolation of the terrain makes The Road look like paradise by comparison.

I was very moved by Tom Hanks’s performance as Finch. He conveys deep compassion under the worst possible circumstances. Some critics, however, felt that the robot storyline was recycled and unoriginal. The ending also feels truncated, as though the filmmakers could have explored this world much more. So while it is not a perfect movie, I did like it quite a bit.

Rating: B+.

Finch - movie

I've never heard of this movie, which is surprising since it stars Tom Hanks.  Watching it now on Apple TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqgm3OONJZA

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/finch

Wait, she was HOW OLD?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svrNciMp8Zo

Did you know for IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cfoKsgvvUs

Mark Hamill Reveals The TRUTH About BLUE MILK In Star Wars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW6Hy4j5lEI

Liquid Metal TERMINATOR With ZERO CGI!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wGop7MPnTLo

Is This The GREATEST In-Camera Effect of ALL TIME?

Give this 40 seconds:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVUuoXAkuUg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVUuoXAkuUg&t=733s

Patrick Stewart says playing Jean-Luc Picard for 35 years has changed his life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_1OntzyXpI

Wacky Races (2025) | First Live-Action Trailer | Jim Carrey & John Cena

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkZP9tRGsAk

Pity that this is just an AI generated parody.  It might make for an interesting movie.  

It is based upon a 1968 cartoon.  I thought that it was dumb even back then.

NORMAL Trailer (2026)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9i-7BNOSDU

I am intrigued, but it might not be my kind of movie.

How James Bond Sold More Vodka Than Any Ad Campaign

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs6YpbZcfiE

Avengers Infinity War

There have been eighteen Marvel Universe movies since 2008.  These have introduced a large number of characters, i.e. heroes, most of which come together in this movie to fight a single enemy named Thanos.  Previous movies hinted at infinity stones being powerful and dangerous, and the need to keep them from evil.  It turns out Thanos is getting his hands on these stones and has an agenda that involves wiping out half the life in the galaxy.  Why?  His world collapsed due to overpopulation, so he takes it upon himself to solve this problem for everybody else.  If he gets all six stones he could kill every other person in the galaxy with just a snap of his fingers.

There have been a number of good Marvel movies in the last decade and many of the stories from the films pick up in Avengers Infinity War from where they left off.   The action gets started early and almost never lets up.  One might think that this would be bad, but the action is done so well and the characters are so good that the movie feels like something truly special on a grand scale.  Never have we seen so many different stories and characters woven together so seamlessly.  This isn't just a movie, but an event a decade in the making.  

We see more of Thanos than we do any individual hero, making him in effect the main character.  This is as much his story as it is anybody else's, and he is played wonderfully by Josh Brolin.

With so many actors and effects, it is not surprising that the movie cost $360 million to make.  They got their money's worth.  Some have compared the film to Star Wars in terms of entertainment value, which is not a bad comparison.

Rating:  A+

1917

The movie 1917 is likely to be one of the best movies I will see this year.  It follows a pair of World War I soldiers on a time-critical mission to get a message to another unit so as to avoid an attack that will end in disaster.  This is based on a real story told to writer and director Sam Mendes by his grandfather.

The movie is filmed in such a way that it appears to be one continuous shot, except for a couple of obvious breaks.  There are continuous shots that last at least 40 minutes.  The camera follows the soldiers through long trenches, across fields, into farmhouses, rivers, underground bunkers, and troop transports.  This is like another character because I spent the whole movie wondering how on earth did they film this?  It is technically very difficult to have everything properly lit while the camera follows the actors through miles of territory. 

The movie creates a suspense that is perfect.  There is not much direct combat, but the horrible aftermath of combat is everywhere in this movie.  On the journey, the soldiers are constantly passing dead bodies and destruction.  The way the movie is filmed gives it an extra sense of realism.

The movie is rated R for war violence and a few swear words.

Rating: A+.

Why 1917 had to be one shot?

1917 has a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Contagion

I rewatched "Contagion" after seeing it in the theater when it came out in 2011.

I have never seen a more prophetic movie in my entire life.  At least 80% of the film seems applicable to the current COVID-19 pandemic.  The biggest difference is the deadliness of the disease, which instead of being about 2% for known cases is around 25%.  But detail after detail comes up that I only recently learned about during the COVID crisis.

The movie has an 85% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, although not all the critics were equally enthusiastic.  The audience score is only 63%, so I suspect that the subject matter might have turned off some people.  Rotten Tomatoes describes it as, "Tense, tightly plotted, and bolstered by a stellar cast.  Contagion is an exceptionally smart -- and scary -- disaster movie."   I agree.  It tells a fantastic story.  My favorite movie critic, Richard Roeper, gives it 5 out of 5 stating, "Contagion" is a brilliantly executed disease outbreak movie."

The film puts much emphasis on how easily disease can spread and this adds to the tension.

The ending is great, giving a nice emotional catharsis followed by a revelation about how the pandemic started.

Rating: A+.

Eye in the Sky

Eye in the Sky is a 2015 war thriller starring Helen Miran, Alan Rickman, and Aaron Paul.  This was Alan Rickman's last movie before succumbing to pancreatic cancer.

 A military operation uses a Predator UAV to track a group of highly wanted terrorists to a house in Kenya where a couple of suicide bombings are being prepared.  Since the Predator is equipped with a couple of Hellfire missiles, and there is an imminent threat, the logical thing to do is to blow up the house from the air.  

However, there is a problem.  A little girl from the same neighborhood starts selling loaves of bread baked by her mother just outside the house with the terrorists inside.  The conflict of the film is what to do about the little girl?   This is a decision that goes up and down the command chain and gets debated hotly as a moral conundrum.

The movie also uses a couple of micro-drones disguised as animals that may not really exist.  We don't know for sure what secret technology the military may have.

Is this an anti-war film?  Maybe.  But it also debates the morality of fighting a war with drones from thousands of miles away where the participants are safe from the consequences.

The tension in this movie is fantastic.  It also shows how competing political interests might fight over life and death decisions.  Although this is a work of fiction, it is easy to imagine that scenarios like this have played out for real.

Rating:  A.

The Wild Robot

If you have seen the trailer for The Wild Robot, you might ask yourself, "Haven't I seen this movie before?"  The Iron Giant gave us a robot that fell from the sky but didn't know its origin or purpose and eventually rebelled against its creators. Over the Hedge gave us animals that talk and must cooperate to survive, along with a bear that is a bad guy.  Zootopia gave us an unscrupulous fox who helps the main character.  Logan's Run gave us humans living in a dome.  Silent Running gave us plants being grown in a dome.  Wall-E gave us robots with compassion while on a voyage of self-discovery, along with an evil robot trying to do them harm.  Bicentennial Man gave us a robot that rewrote his own programming to become more than he originally was, and so therefore the robot is wanted by his creators to find out what those changes are.  

Many of the elements we have seen before, but the movie is so well-written and well-executed that it is one of the best films I have seen in a while.  I was impressed.

Rating:  A-.

The following section contains spoilers:

I have one big complaint about a plot point that doesn't make sense and is likely there to push an agenda.  The robot is on an island with animals that normally compete with and kill each other.  While the animals are hibernating for the winter, a massive snowstorm threatens life on the island.  The robot takes it upon itself to bring some of the hibernating animals to a large shelter that it has built.  While in the shelter the animals agree to overcome their natural instincts and cooperate for their mutual survival.  

Logically this makes no sense.  If the animals are adapted to hibernate on the island, then they have already found shelter to survive the weather.  The robot, which has overcome its own programming, gets the animals to do the same and make a permanent truce.  So if the animals aren't going to hunt each other, how do they survive going forward?  The message is that competition is bad, and cooperation is good, which reminds me of Our Daily Bread, a Great Depression-era movie with a socialist message.  Both movies have a climactic scene about diverting water.

The Right Stuff

When The Right Stuff was released in 1983 it was not a commercial success despite high praise from critics.  There was maybe a sense by audiences that it was too overtly political or patriotic, which overtly it isn't.  However, the movie found some success in VHS and DVD sales.

This is essentially three stories:  The story of Chuck Yeager, the story of the Mercury "7" astronauts, and the story of the media and political circus over the early space program.  

The film doesn't pull any punches.  It likes to make fun of just about everything.  The movie spends much more time satirizing Lyndon Johnson or showing the indignities the astronauts had to go through than it does any form for space exploration.  This is not a film that is particularly interested in science;  it is much more interested in the human drama of its characters.  This combination of humor with patriotic heroism ends up being the perfect mixture.  In fact, the three-hour film feels like a perfect movie and 32 years later it is just as watchable. 

This movie loves trivial details which give the film an authentic feel.  It could have been 30 minutes shorter, but then it would have lost some of the atmosphere it gained from focussing on minutia. 

The musical score is wonderful.

I regret waiting at least 20 years to watch it again.  This is the kind of movie that would be fun to watch again roughly every 10 years.

Had I made the movie I would have put more emphasis on science, but that might have been boring to most people.  Maybe future generations will wonder why there isn't more science in the film?

Rating:  A

Andor

The Disney+ Star Wars series Andor is shockingly good. Just how good is it? It is on par with an average Star Wars movie. I liked "The Mandalorian" series even better, and I regard it higher than any of the Disney sequel trilogy movies.

With Disney+ you can watch all 11 Star Wars movies, Andor, The Mandalorian, and the really excellent animated series such as The Clone Wars, Star Wars Rebels, The Bad Batch, and Star Star Wars Visions. In addition, you could watch 37 different Marvel movies starting with Iron Man, and some fairly good series such as Wandavision, Loki, and "The Falcon and The Winter Soldier"

Plus you get all the Disney and Pixar content.

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace * * * *

Oh, how time flies.  12 years ago I stood in line for hours to get tickets to Star Wars:  The Phantom Menace, which was the first Star Wars film after a 16 year hiatus since Return Of The Jedi.  By now, half the planet has seen this movie, and almost everybody knows what it is about:  Young Anakin Skywalker will some day grow up to be the evil Darth Vader, but in this prequel he is all sweet and possessed with magical abilities that ultimately save the day.  (I like what Dr. Laura said on her radio program:  "See what happens when a boy has no father and you take him away from the mother?  He turns into Darth Vader!")

Months before the movie came out, they released an amazingly cool teaser trailer that didn't give away too much.  This is why people stood in lines for hours.  When I actually did get to see the movie in the theater, the audience went nuts over the opening scenes.  They waited 16 years plus a few hours in line to see another Star Wars Movie, and they were going to be one of the first ones to see it.

The first five minutes of the movie did not instill confidence.  The first shot is of a slightly goofy looking spaceship followed shortly by some goofy looking aliens.   Moments later the Jedi Knights display their remarkable powers.  I had some concerns that this "Episode I" of the series would confuse people about "Jedi Knights" and "The Force" if they weren't already familiar with the other Star Wars movies.  George Lucas thinks that people should watch the Star Wars movies in episode order, as opposed to the order in which they were actually made, but it is really "Episode IV", the first movie made, that introduced us to the ideas of the "The Force" and "Jedi Knights."

Despite my concerns, I think that the movie is a masterpiece.  The story is simply too good.  But it is a masterpiece with a nearly fatal flaw.   There are a number of "aliens" in this movie whose style of speaking is hard to understand.  Now I understood almost everything that was said in this movie, but it requires a good ear and careful attention to follow the dialog.  But I know a number of people who think that this movie is full of gibberish.  So, by all means, turn on the SUBTITLES if you are going to watch the movie at home.

The other nearly fatal flaw is the character of Jar Jar Binx.  I don't think that this is a flaw at all, because I like the character, but a great many people don't.  The reasons why people don't like Jar Jar is that he is a bumbling fool mainly in the movie for comic relief, and he is also the character who most frequently sounds like gibberish.  Despite this, I think that it is good to have a comic relief character in an otherwise serious movie.  But the negative reaction to Jar Jar Binx caused this character to be less utilized in the next two movies.

All these concerns are minor.  This is a really good story that is rich in detail and stunning to look at.  I am almost sorry that I waited ten years to watch it again.

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones * * * *

Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones is the story about how the war began between the Galactic Republic and the separatists. Starting with the attempted assassination of Senator Padmé Amidala, which parallels the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand that helped start World War I, a series of discoveries are made that cumulate in a massive battle. It is also the story of Anakin Skywalker's budding relationship with Padmé, and his gradual (or maybe sudden) descent into the dark side.

I am very impressed with how Hayden Christensen consistently portrays Anakin as a tormented character.  This is a tough trick to pull off, since we already know that the sweet boy from Episode 1 turns evil. The question is how did he get there?  Here Hayden Christensen makes the transition very believable.

It gets confusing talking about episode order versus production order.  This is the fifth Star Wars film, but it is called Episode II.  George Lucas suggests that people watch the movies in episode order, but I disagree. There are people and places in this movie that take on much less significance if you have not seen the first two movies made, called episodes IV and V.  It is better to see the original trilogy first.

Star Wars movies are difficult to evaluate because there have been enough of them that different people have different ideas about what a Star Wars movie should be.  Every time George Lucas takes the series in a different direction, which he has done with almost every Star Wars film, a certain number of people rebel against the change.

In 2002, I was blown away by this movie, but now just a little less so. In terms of action and special effects, this is the most intense Star Wars film. Technically and visually it is an amazing achievement, but it borders on turning into a video game;  There is almost too much detail.  The story is good, but a little less compelling than the best Star Wars movies. The relationship between Anakin and Padmé is simplistic making it less believable.

Since this is the second movie in the second trilogy, it is tempting to compare it with The Empire Strikes Back, which is widely regarded as the best of the Star Wars movies, and by me as the best movie ever made.  However the two movies and the two trilogies are very different.  The first trilogy was about good people rebelling against evil and caring for one another.  The second trilogy is about the rise of evil.  The emotion in this film comes not from a close group of people who care about each other, but from the struggle and suffering of the main characters.  Personal relationships take a back seat to intense action and violence.

Middle movies in trilogies are transitional films because they have no clear beginning or end.   The second movie in this trilogy seems overly intent on explaining events leading up to the first Star Wars movie.

Roger Ebert criticized the movie for not looking good (and for simplistic dialog). On the first release of the film, I noticed some brief technical glitches in the special effects that seemed to be gone 3 weeks later. This means that the movie was rushed to meet it's release date, but then the film was remastered and sent out to theaters again. The DVD version looks gorgeous and has no such problems.

Like The Phantom Menace, whatever flaws this film may have, it still feels like a masterpiece to me.  The story is simply too good and the movie is a feast for the senses.

I happen to like the teaser trailer.  The full trailer is here.

Star Wars Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith * * * 1/2

Star Wars Episode III:  The Revenge of the Sith is the final Star Wars movie made, and the third out of six in episode order.  It is about the fall of the Galactic Republic, the rise of the Galactic Empire, and the fall of Anakin Skywalker to the dark side of the force.  The rise of the Empire somewhat parallels the fall of the Roman Republic.

The first 33 minutes is a series of action sequences that serve as the intro to the movie.  I could not help but think that this is overkill since it is the longest intro sequence I have ever seen, and the movie seems to be trying to impress us with its special effects, which are indeed impressive.  33 minutes into the movie we get to meat of the story, which is a series of events that lead to the downfall of Anakin.  When he finally does succumb to the dark side at the hands of Chancellor Palpatine, he goes on a killing spree against the Jedi order.  

Some people might find the story to be a bit of a downer, but this was the intent all along.  This is about a man's descent into hell and the triumph of evil.  The movie is technically and visually amazing, but maybe there was a little too much emphasis on special effects making the story a little less compelling than its predecessors. 

The last movie ends where the first movie started:  On Tatooine.  I found the final shots of an infant Luke Skywalker and the setting Tatooine suns to be very emotionally stirring and reminiscent of the first movie.

The audio commentary available on the DVD is worth listening to.  It gave me new insights into the film.

Star Wars Episode IV: The New Hope * * * *

In 1977 this movie was released just as "Star Wars."    The film borrows ideas from Samurai movies, westerns, old war movies, 1930's serials,  Laurel and Hardy, and even The Wizard of Oz.  It is also inspired by The Hero with a Thousand Faces and the cold war.  Despite enormous production problems, and a cast and crew who refused to take the movie seriously because they thought that it was just a "kiddie film", George Lucas stuck to his mythical vision as best as he could, and the final result was a near perfect film for its time.  One of the Fox executives broke down and cried when he saw the screening, saying that it was the greatest movie he had ever seen.

Presumably George Lucas went to Hawaii to hide because he thought that the movie would be a flop.  Instead it was the highest grossing film for a few years.  It also started the greatest film franchise to date, and made famous the cast, the most successful of which is Harrison Ford.

But George Lucas could not resist tinkering with the film later.  The 1997 Special Edition added improved special effects, extra scenes and minor changes.  The most controversial of these changes is where Greedo shoots at Han Solo first.  This is almost universally met with disapproval because it takes away from the rogue image of Han Solo.  Other minor changes were made in the DVD version, and more changes are planned for upcoming Blu-Ray and 3D releases.  It is unlikely at this point that you could see the original Star Wars as it appeared in theaters, unless you have an old video tape copy, but I am happy with the DVD version, which is the current standard for the film  The upcoming Blu-Ray release may become the next new standard version of Star Wars.

I have seen the movie somewhere between 10 and 12 times.  I have lost count.  I found myself wondering if I would be bored seeing it one more time?  Apparently not.  I found myself quite caught up with the film.  My only criticisms are that:  1.)  It takes a while for the story to get going.  We don't meet Luke Skywalker until exactly 15 minutes into the film, and Luke doesn't decide to leave his home until 30 minutes into the movie.  2.)  The last third to half of the movie is almost all action, and as good as that is, it leave less room for character development, which is done better by the next movie.

The original movie trailer is actually pretty dreadful and does not do justice to the film.

Also see:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSm9DDxQv8E
Also see:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0uPzrx0n90&NR=1
Also see:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAJgnUix2kI&feature=relmfu
Also see:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztK3s63_OM&feature=relmfu

Star Wars Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi * * *

The Return of the Jedi is the least impressive of the Star Wars movies and was somewhat controversial when it was released because it was more geared toward children than the previous films.  The introduction of the teddy bear like Ewoks put off some people, and with the final scene featuring singing Eworks, I felt like George Lucas had damaged Star Wars forever.  Fortunately, in later editions of the film, the Ewok singing was taken out.

Nevertheless, it is a satisfying conclusion to the 6 movie series.   The events that happen here are interesting and necessary to conclude the story.  The best scenes are the rescue of Han Solo, a high speed chase through a forest, the Death Star battle, and the final confrontation between Luke Skywalker, Emperor Palpatine, and Darth Vader.

Mark Hamill does a really impressive job portraying Luke Skywalker in this film.

Good Night and Good Luck * * * *

If we measure a movie by it's ability to take us to another time and place, then "Good Night and Good Luck" is the best example that I can think of.  The movie is relies more on atmosphere than plot, but that atmosphere feels like we are ease dropping on the real events as they are happening.  It is interesting how the camera will follow people around.  It creates a slight sense of confusion, but adds to the "we are there" feeling of the movie.  By cleverly showing us archival footage on television screens, we feel like the events are happening right now.  The movie never bothers to explain anything at all; it assumes that we are smart enough to keep up.  Since the film is mostly people having conversation, it adds to the feeling that we watching real events, but a few of those conversations might try people's patience.  Which is why on Rotten Tomatoes, 94% of the critics liked the movie, but only 73% of the audience liked it. 

I was worried that the movie would hit us over the head with a political message about McCarthyism, as other films have, especially since it was written by the left leaning George Clooney who also gave us politically slanted duds like Syriana and Michael Clayton.  (The latter is not terrible but stretches believability.)  But if there is political bias in this movie, it is subdued and overshadowed by a very intelligent script that is just trying to present events as they were.  At one point the movie is smart enough to ask "What if we are on the wrong side?", which is an interesting question since some people today still defend McCarthy in his hunt for communists.  But I find myself not caring if the movie has a political message, because it entertains so well.

My one nitpick is that too much attention is spent on a Jazz singer who is completely unrelated to the plot.   Her singing is there just to set the mood.

Almost all the actors in the movie are television actors, many of which I have seen in some of my favorite programs.  Even George Clooney is a former television actor, so I thought that maybe the movie is trying to make some subtle point about television, but it might have just been a matter of budget.  This movie was made on a shoestring budget, but it gets its money's worth.  It is very well acted.  David Strathain blew me away with his portrayal of Edward R Murrow.   

Hereafter * * * *

There are some movies that have so much stuff in them that I can watch them five times and enjoy them all five times.  Riverworld (2010), Monsters versus Aliens, Tangled and all the Star Wars movies are films that I enjoyed over and over.  (It is probably no coincidence that those are all sci-fi or fantasy films.)   Hereafter is a movie that seems to subscribe to the theory that "less is more".  The movie effectively uses emotion and relationships more than plot to advance the story.  It is not the kind of film that I would watch repeatedly, but it pulled at the heart strings so well that it felt like a deep emotional experience.  At its core are the fundamental human questions about life and what might come after.  It is the sort of gentle and subtle treatment that you would expect from director Clint Eastwood.  It might be one of his better movies.

Hereafter is the story of a man who believes that he can communicate with the dead, along with the stories of two other people who all come together at the end.

Much of the emotion of the film comes from human response to tragedy.  There is ample tragedy in this movie.  At one point there is a terrorist bombing that I found jarring  even though it was shown at a distance.  The opening sequence involves people caught up in a tsunami, and it is an amazing spectacle to behold.  We are used to seeing special effects in movies, but nevertheless I find myself wondering how they pulled off this sequence.  The opening sequence alone is worth the price of admission.

One might think that the movie is exploitative because it takes advantage of our fears of current events by showing a terrorist bombing and a tsunami.  Maybe it is exploiting our fears, but it does so in a gentle and reassuring way.  I can't imagine any other movie having such a soft touch and pulling it off.