seajoe-1
Joined Mar 2001
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews7
seajoe-1's rating
This film is being released on cable again here in the fall of 2002. I guess I hope some liberal Hollywood mogul is doing it on purpose, to give us, especially those of us in the US, another good dose of anti-war. The movie seems especially apt for me, for my countrymen, because it is both funny and serious, and, set in England, it gives a pretty good sense of what a people who know war think and feel about it.
I'm afraid I doubt that it's going to have much effect against the probably coming Iraq action, but I'd like to think it might have a bit.
Both James Garner and Julie Andrews do well in the film, and Melvyn Douglas is real good as an American ranking Naval officer who's sane about the "glories of war". The Brit who plays Julie Andrews mother, whose name I unhappily cannot remember, deserves strong mention, too, especially with her scene about the absurdity and stupidity of memorializing the first Allied death in the invasion at Normandy in WW II.
I'm afraid I doubt that it's going to have much effect against the probably coming Iraq action, but I'd like to think it might have a bit.
Both James Garner and Julie Andrews do well in the film, and Melvyn Douglas is real good as an American ranking Naval officer who's sane about the "glories of war". The Brit who plays Julie Andrews mother, whose name I unhappily cannot remember, deserves strong mention, too, especially with her scene about the absurdity and stupidity of memorializing the first Allied death in the invasion at Normandy in WW II.
Just a note to say that I happened on Challenger, the TV movie from c. 1990 tonight on cable and came here to IMDB to see what I could find - because I thought it was kind of interesting. Found I was even more interested in the few comments I found here (no reviews).
It was also interesting to me that the "rating" votes from those 60 something people who made a choice were all over the map, but the two (statistically significant?), most often chosen numbers, were 6 and 7. That's about right. (I'm giving it a six.)
But, to get to the main point <s>, all but one of the comments written in for the movie were trashing and what I would call trashy: all of them seemed to be hugely swayed by the subject of the show. Too "meaningful", too "important for our nation"??? The fact, I'm pretty sure, is that Challenger is a somewhat better than average docudrama. And Karen Allen is a distinguished actor. And almost all of the rest of the cast were at least OK. I thought the tone set was quite good, trying pretty successfully for "this is the way it was". No melodrama, no Hollywood "effects", just straight ahead "documentary" acting and other movie skills. Not overwritten.
It's hard for me to figure where the low average of the comments came from. Something I guess about the subject being too Big and Serious (in the pseudo sense, non gravitas) for anyone, particularly the automatically suspect TV movie crowd, to make a respectable film about. I guess. ??? Interesting.
It was also interesting to me that the "rating" votes from those 60 something people who made a choice were all over the map, but the two (statistically significant?), most often chosen numbers, were 6 and 7. That's about right. (I'm giving it a six.)
But, to get to the main point <s>, all but one of the comments written in for the movie were trashing and what I would call trashy: all of them seemed to be hugely swayed by the subject of the show. Too "meaningful", too "important for our nation"??? The fact, I'm pretty sure, is that Challenger is a somewhat better than average docudrama. And Karen Allen is a distinguished actor. And almost all of the rest of the cast were at least OK. I thought the tone set was quite good, trying pretty successfully for "this is the way it was". No melodrama, no Hollywood "effects", just straight ahead "documentary" acting and other movie skills. Not overwritten.
It's hard for me to figure where the low average of the comments came from. Something I guess about the subject being too Big and Serious (in the pseudo sense, non gravitas) for anyone, particularly the automatically suspect TV movie crowd, to make a respectable film about. I guess. ??? Interesting.
OK, this is not the greatest movie. Doesn't probably belong in the top 250 movies ever, etc., but it's really quite good.
Paul Mazursky (sp?) is after all a very gifted and experienced moviemaker. The film's technicals are generally very good, therefore.
The biggest problem with the film is that it has too much sentimentality, that is, too much feeling that seems artificial or even fake (mawkish is a good though not often used word - it comes from the same root it seems as maggot! and denotes something that makes one nauseous!). I don't want to exaggerate negatively here. I said first that the movie is quite good and I mean it. But it does have problems with one of its main tendencies: its (main?) thrust, to show that the "freedom life" is good (and specifically in the USA). (BTW, I don't think it can be accused of excessive AmericaFirstNess on that score).
The acting is generally good to excellent, but Robin Williams who is usually good has some of his usual problems showing emotion. (He contributes a lot to the sentimentality problems.) Don't know why some people knocked Maria Conchita Alonso who I thought was real good (she's notably good at showing genuineness, in contrast to RW!) And many of the smaller parts are excellently done! Much of the movie's Soviet Russia sections are very good in *all* moviemaking respects. I note that several Russians have pointed this out.
I guess the thing gets down to the question of whether it's possible to make a great Something that's mostly about how good Freedom in the USA is. I'm not knocking the United States (although I'm pretty sure quite a few people in these post 9/11 times will, defensively, think I'm am, BUT I believe it is very difficult to make anything in art that's real positive about the US (or to argue strongly in favor of the USA) when most all of what you're showing or talking about is freedom: the US is a very green (ie, young) country that is still often juvenile, especially in "feeling its oats" too much. We didn't invent freedom or liberty and we aren't worlds better than anyone else at "doing" it, though we have been so insular through most of our history that too many of us think we are. And I'm surprised that so much of this pretty unknowing attitude comes through in a Paul Mazursky movie.
Paul Mazursky (sp?) is after all a very gifted and experienced moviemaker. The film's technicals are generally very good, therefore.
The biggest problem with the film is that it has too much sentimentality, that is, too much feeling that seems artificial or even fake (mawkish is a good though not often used word - it comes from the same root it seems as maggot! and denotes something that makes one nauseous!). I don't want to exaggerate negatively here. I said first that the movie is quite good and I mean it. But it does have problems with one of its main tendencies: its (main?) thrust, to show that the "freedom life" is good (and specifically in the USA). (BTW, I don't think it can be accused of excessive AmericaFirstNess on that score).
The acting is generally good to excellent, but Robin Williams who is usually good has some of his usual problems showing emotion. (He contributes a lot to the sentimentality problems.) Don't know why some people knocked Maria Conchita Alonso who I thought was real good (she's notably good at showing genuineness, in contrast to RW!) And many of the smaller parts are excellently done! Much of the movie's Soviet Russia sections are very good in *all* moviemaking respects. I note that several Russians have pointed this out.
I guess the thing gets down to the question of whether it's possible to make a great Something that's mostly about how good Freedom in the USA is. I'm not knocking the United States (although I'm pretty sure quite a few people in these post 9/11 times will, defensively, think I'm am, BUT I believe it is very difficult to make anything in art that's real positive about the US (or to argue strongly in favor of the USA) when most all of what you're showing or talking about is freedom: the US is a very green (ie, young) country that is still often juvenile, especially in "feeling its oats" too much. We didn't invent freedom or liberty and we aren't worlds better than anyone else at "doing" it, though we have been so insular through most of our history that too many of us think we are. And I'm surprised that so much of this pretty unknowing attitude comes through in a Paul Mazursky movie.