The Patriot (2000)

There is a scene fairly early in the movie The Patriot where British officers are trying to dragoon some of the black men on Mel Gibson's plantation into military service by promising them their freedom. One of the black men informs the British that they are already free and just work for Mr. Gibson's character. At that moment the movie had lost me, you just know some Hollywood suit was like "If the audience knows Gibson's character owns slave, it won't be as fun to root for him so let's make the blacks on the plantation free". I'm sorry Mel is playing a plantation owner in 1770's South Carolina, that man would own slaves, there is no getting around it. A short time later there is a scene, were needing to rescue his oldest son Heath Ledger, Gibson instructs his younger sons to start shooting the officers and work their way down. At that moment the movie won me back.

The Patriot is not an exercise in historical authenticity, rather it is rousing adventure tell to pump American audiences up and make then feel extra good about our revolutionary war. Their are two principle British villains in this, Tom Wilkinson as a slightly buffoonish Charles Cornwallis, all ego and fancy duds, while Jason Isaacs is Colonel William Tavington, who is basically Lucius Malfoy. They are fun to watch, Gibson is fun to watch, as is Ledger, Rene' Auberjonois and the others. This is the kind of spectacle Gibson did well at the height of prowess, box office and social acceptability. A fun movie, expertly handled, probably Roland Emmerich's best directorial work.***1/2

Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter (1966)

This strange, low budget western/horror hybrid was the final film helmed by the prolific William Beaudine, a man who has 372 listed directing credits on his IMDb page, some dating back to the silent era. Double billed with the similarly themed Billy the Kid Versus Dracula, Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter was filmed fast and cheap at the Corrigan Ranch, a well known shooting location for B- westerns. The plot is about what you'd expect only it isn't actually Frankenstein's daughter that Jesse James meets, rather it is his granddaughter, carrying on the family tradition of experiments in a Spanish mission style villa. This film is bad, while only 83 minutes long it might have been near unwatchable were it not for the entertaining audio commentary from TV's Joe Bob Briggs. Estelita Rodriquez, who plays the love interest for John Lupton's Jessie James, died from the flu the same year this movie was released, she was only 37. ** (rating pumped up some do to the commentary).

Scream 4 (2011)

Nearly a dozen years after the end of the original Scream trilogy they made Scream 4, to comment on reboots and changes in 21st century horror films, but mostly to make money. A lot of attractive 20- something's and up and comers in this, and most of them die. Better then Scream 3. **1/2

Trouble with the Curve (2012)

A likable enough flick, The Trouble with the Curve is a father/daughter bonding movie by way of way of sports film, he (Clint Eastwood) is an aging pro-baseball scout, she (Amy Adams) is a young lawyer on the verge of being made partner. The two travel around the Carolinas together and eventually work through their old emotional baggage. Justin Timberlake plays Ms. Adams love interest, he was born in 1981 and she in 1974, having the woman be the older partner in a cinematic relationship is rare enough that it might be the most unusual thing in this conventional, but likable film. **1/2

First Man (2018)

Two things about the very existence of this film struck me as odd before I even saw it. 1) First Man is director Damien Chazelle's follow up to La La Land, and other then the presence of Ryan Gosling as the male lead these movies are nothing like each other. 2) Why hasn't there been a major Hollywood film about Neil Armstrong before? I mean he was the first man to set foot on the moon, that's an inherently cinematic story. Also its been nearly 50 years, why did it take so long for him to get his own movie? Well I think I found the answer to that latter question, the reason there hasn't been a Neil Armstrong film up till now is likely because he was a very boring man. Now he's an interesting man in what he did, I mean not only did he go to the moon, but he survived a lot of things he probably shouldn't have survived before then because he so damned competent. However Armstrong was very much a man of his time, a mid-century, mid-westerner who kept his feelings to himself, and this movie does a good job of dealing with that dynamic of its central character, Gosling does a fine job inhabiting him in a nicely understated performance. Still a dullish central character lends a bit of dullishness to the proceedings. Buzz Aldrin on the other hand, as essayed by Corey Stoll, is an amusing blunt fellow.

Claire Foy, who seems very much the "It" actress right now does a great job as Neil's first wife Janet. I knew basically nothing about Mrs. Armstrong going into the film, but Ms. Foy gives a fine performance and makes her feel real and rounded out. This movie fires on all cylinders technically, and while a lot of the NASA stuff we've in seen in film going back at least to Apollo 13 in 1995, it's the portions on the Moon that really adds something fresh. We don't see the surface of the moon in films often, and the quality of the footage from that first lunar landing is so visually poor and hard to make out, it was nice to see this event depicted in HD. I had not made out previously the little pulley system that was attached to the astronauts belts as they disembarked, and how that worked. You see how the camera that took  the moon landing footage folded out from the side of the lander, and how desolate, quite, and beautiful the surface of the moon must have appeared. As a human story First Man felt constrained, but as depiction of one of the most impressive things human kind has every done, its worthwhile.

On the controversy over this film not depicting the planting of the American flag on the surface of the moon, before seeing the film that did appear to be a glaring oversight, having seen it now a depiction of that moment would have really messed with the flow of the piece. Very little time in this movie is actually spent on the moons surface, I don't know if that counts as a spoiler or not. Anyway I did not get the feeling that any slight was intended by the omission of that moment. ***1/2

Phantoms (1998)

Phantoms is based on a novel of the same name by Dean Koontz, and watching it I couldn't help but think that this same basic story would have been better if Stephen King had wrote it (not that King is without his bombs, see, or rather don't see, Graveyard Shift, The Dark Tower). An ancient evil wipes out a small Colorado town leaving only a small handful of survivors, and leaving them for a reason, but what? Weinstein produced film plays like something made for TV. The film features Ben Affleck on the verge of his stardom, Rose McGowan, Live Schreiber, and somewhat bafflingly Peter O'Toole. It's pretty bad, but still watchable once. *1/2

The Faculty (1998)

The Faculty is a 1990's high school variant on Invasion of the Body Snatchers. My sister is a big fan of this movie so I'd seen parts of this before but this was the first time I'd watched it straight through, better then I thought it was going be. Good cast. ***