Author: Richard Overy
Subject: Adolf Hitler's Germany compared to and contrasted with Josef Stalin's Soviet Union
Genre: History / Nonfiction / Biography
Publisher: Konecky & Konecky
The Dictators is 849 pages of solid information and facts; fortunately, for the reader's sake, about 200 pages of that is bibliography, notes and index. The text is actually 651 pages, still a substantial read.
For those who love history, especially history surrounding World War II, this is a must-read. Since I was a child, I've been fascinated with the world situation leading up to and including the second World War, and especially these two dictatorships, and I've read dozens of books on the subject, including The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (William L. Shirer) and most of Winston Churchill's six volume series, The Second World War.
But none of those focused on both of World War II's major dictators, Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. This book does exactly that, comparing and contrasting each detail of their unique places in history. The authors draws from thousands of historical documents, old Nazi and Soviet files, letters, interviews, court transcripts, diaries, speeches, and many other sources to compile this massive book.
Overy starts in a natural place, the rise to power, noting the many similarities of these two men and their paths to dictatorship, as well as their differences. He also notes the unique situation of both the German nation and the newly formed Soviet Union that allowed these men to rise to their places in history.
Also covered are the political and historical philosophies of Hitler and Stalin, and what they believed about the world and how it should be ruled, as well as how they maintained and tested the limits of their power.
"They were exceptional rulers, exerting a form of direct, customary authority based on widespread popular acclamation that was unique in the history of both countries, before or since; and the two dictators saw themselves as exceptional, called to perform a historic task in times of crisis."
Overy's third chapter looks in-depth at perhaps the most important aspect of these dictatorships, the Cults of Personality that allowed them to gain and maintain control.
Other chapters include The Party State, States of Terror, Constructing Utopia, Commanding the Economy, Military Superpowers, Total War, Nations and Races, and Empire of the Camps.
Throughout this historical work, Overy constantly points at the nearly unbelievable number of people imprisoned and/or put to death under these two regimes, leading the reader through the abhorrent beginnings of the concentration and labor camps in both nations, to their natural and disgusting conclusions.
Though Overy does not insert his own opinions or draw moral or political conclusions in the text, it will be easy for the reader to do so. The stark facts behind all of this are that both leaders were elected by legal processes in their respective nations, and both were widely popular when they took power. In this sense, the story is a flat-out warning to peoples of today's nations to maintain and fight for the freedoms that currently exist, because they can easily be wiped away when the wrong people come to power.
This is at least the 18th movie based on Charles Dickens' novella, written in 1843. It's the third one by Disney in 26 years. Did we really need another one?
Probably not, and that's the only reason I couldn't rate this one higher than 8 out of 10 on my personal scale. Looking at the new film on its own merits, though, it's pretty darn good.
2009's "A Christmas Carol" sticks pretty close to Dickens' story. In fact, more than most films by the same name, this one felt accurate and honed in on the original characters more than expected. Some of the dialogue is pulled straight from the pages of the acclaimed British writer.
The plot, as you may know, centers around bitter old money-changer and miser Ebeneezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey), who is visited by four ghosts in the night, leading him through a profound personal catharsis that changes his life.
Carrey also plays three of the ghosts, and Gary Oldman took on the role of Jacob Marley's ghost, as well as Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim.
The movie is billed as "animated," but was actually filmed using the process of "performance capture," using live human models for the acion, with a digital overlay added later. Director Robert Zemeckis has also used this process for other films, like Beowulf (2007) and Polar Express (2004).
The scenes of Victorian-era London in winter are delightfully accurate and detailed, and scenes where the camera moves through the city in 3-D are eye-popping. In fact, in the 3-D version of this film, every scene is textured so well that the viewer feels fully immersed.
As I mentioned above, I took points off for re-making an overmade movie. Is it just me, or is about half of Hollywood's current output simply a re-heated version of some other movie?
I also took points off because it's not quite as kid-friendly as the advertisements would lead you to believe, mostly because the writers stuck so closely to Dickens' out-dated English, but also because some parts are pretty darn scary.
Conclusion:
I haven't seen the non-3D version of this movie, so I can't recommend that. But in 3-D this movie is very fun, and certainly worth a watch. Even kids can enjoy the action scenes and Carrey's physical comedy, though they'll likely miss much of the dialogue.
----------------------------------------------
IMDb: A Christmas Carol
Wikipedia: A Christmas Carol
Rating: PG
(for scary sequences and images)
Length: 96 min. (1:36)
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Genre: animation / drama / family
My Rating: 8 of 10
----------------------------------------------
MAIN STARS:
Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Cary Elwes, Robin Wright Penn, Steve Valentine, Daryl Sabara, Sage Ryan, Ryan Ochoa
----------------------------------------------
See More of My Movie Reviews
----------------------------------------------
No one was more surprised than I was at how good this movie is. Normally, I can't stand the entire genre of bubble-gum, cartoon-inspired, hokey martial arts films.
When this movie was first advertised, I immediately forgot about it. But recently, watching another ad on TV for the DVD version, I paid closer attention. It actually looked good.
It was. Dragonball: Evolution was also funny, insightful, and a nice, clean feel-good movie.
Simply put, a teen boy (played by Justin Chatwin) has been trained in the art of fighting by his grandfather for years, and has been entrusted with one of seven "Dragonballs" that — when combined — can stave off the ultimate evil power in the universe.
Early on, his grandfather is killed as the evil power also attempts to collect all seven balls. Chatwin's character goes on to meet helpful friends, overcome his own self-doubt, and works to save the world through his fighting skills.
A few years ago, fight scenes in martial arts movies took a quantum leap forward, and this movie's action scenes lives up to the new standard. They're flashy, fast, and pretty impressive.
The coloring throughout the movie is slightly over-saturated, but that's to be expected in comic-book style films.
The small cast of characters was skillfully chosen. All of them overact just slightly, but again that's to be expected in this sub-genre. Chow Yun-Fat carries the movie for the most part; he's the only one that appeared to play it close to reality, and his years of experience are evident.
But the most impressive fight sequence actually came from Jamie Chung, who's pitted against her evil counterpart, a woman that's taken on her exact appearance. Using a stunt double, the scene was filmed several times, with Chung taken each side. The film is cut together so it looks like Chung is actually fighting herself (instead of using CGI for this effect). It was brilliant.
I took off points for some improbable electronic gadgets. I know the world in the movie isn't supposed to be present-day Earth, and I'd already suspended my disbelief for the outlandish powers of the martial arts used by the characters. But a car that fits in your pocket and unfolds to real-life size? That was a little too much.
There was also one slightly unbelievable character arc. Joon Park plays a desert bandit who waylays the good guys early on, but he's convinced to join their quest by the promise of money. Within minutes, he's one of the good guys, helping them out of the goodness of his heart. That swing was a little far-fetched.
But overall, this movie was worth watching, and quite a bit better than I expected.
----------------------------------------------
IMDb: Dragonball: Evolution
Wikipedia: Dragonball: Evolution
Rating: PG
(for intense sequences of action/violence and brief mild language)
Length: 85 min. (1:25)
Director: James Wong
Genre: action / adventure / martial arts
My Rating: 8 of 10
----------------------------------------------
MAIN STARS:
Justin Chatwin, Chow Yun-Fat, Emmy Rossum, Jamie Chung, James Master, Randall Duk Kim, James Masters, Joon Park
----------------------------------------------
See More of My Movie Reviews
----------------------------------------------
With a couple of exceptions, Zombieland is a fun, funny, and thrilling 88 minutes.
The basic plot is much like that in any other zombie movie: a few surviving people fight off the thousands of zombies that have taken over the world.
But that's where the similarities end between this film and the ones that came before it.
The filmwork is superb, action scenes believable, and the dialogue is witty rather than full of clichés. Woody Harrelson, though not the main character, carries the film with his confidence, slight craziness, and willingness to do or say anything for a role.
The main character, played by Jesse Eisenberg, at first seemed like one of the film's weak points. But he grew on me. He portrayed a regular person, a nerdy loner who survived the initial onslaught of zombies partially through luck, and partially through planning and know-how. His was the most believable character in the bunch, simply because he's a normal guy with no special abilities.
Perhaps the funniest parts of the movie are the "rules" that Eisenberg's character has laid down for himself to survive zombie attacks (#31: Check the back seat). The rules are superimposed on the screen as he mentions them, along with visual explanations. This running gag provided a central theme and constant laughs.
The rest of the movie is funny too, not so much because jokes are written in, but because real humans do funny things (especially in stressful situations), and the characters are presented as real people doing these things.
Another top moment is Bill Murray's brief appearance in the film (playing himself). I won't give away the surprise moments, but look for this when you're watching.
I took off points for over-use of narration by Eisenberg's character. A lot of what he said straight to the viewer could have easily been worked in as dialogue, except the parts right at the beginning. Sometimes it's tiring when a third of the movie consists of the main character explaining things directly by narration.
Another point-remover was the lack of explanation for a couple of things. For instance, the main characters drive across the country in stolen cars (because the original owners are now either dead or zombies). But it doesn't explain how they're getting gasoline for these cars, or how the batteries in the cars are still good, even months after society collapsed.
Also, the theme park scene near the end didn't make sense either. The characters are able to ride the rides without someone operating the controls, and the power grid seems to work just fine, though that seems unlikely considering the scale of society's collapse in the film.
(I recommend that makers of disaster movies or writers of apocalyptic novels first read "The World Without Us," which is a well-researched book that explains how much of our infrastructure would break down or at least cease to operate without constant human attention.)
Conclusion: If you're into zombie movies, this one is a must-see. I'm not into zombie movies, but still loved it greatly.
----------------------------------------------
IMDb: Zombieland
Wikipedia: Zombieland
Rating: R
(for horror violence/gore and language)
Length: 88 min. (1:28)
Director: Ruben Fleischer
Genre: comedy / horror
My Rating: 8 of 10
----------------------------------------------
MAIN STARS:
Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin, Amber Heard, Bill Murray
----------------------------------------------
See More of My Movie Reviews
----------------------------------------------
If you've somehow missed all the talk show appearances by Chris Rock over the last month or so, "Good Hair" is the latest project by Rock, a documentary look into the multi-billion dollar hair product market aimed most at black women.
As Rock points out in the movie, African American women comprise only 6.5% of the U.S. population, but buy 40% of the hair products sold in the U.S. (about $9 billion per year). "Good Hair" aims to tell us why, but falls slightly short.
I enjoyed the film, but points have to be taken off for several reasons. One, the video work looks like it was done with a camcorder or even a cell phone camera in some places, not what you'd expect for a big-time icon like Rock, who plays to sell-out shows around the world.
Two, for a "documentary," the movie seemed to focus on the opinions of just a very few people. Most of the famous people who were interviewed were people whose careers peaked 10 or more years ago, and there was only a handful of them.
Three, many of the black women interviewed — even those who spoke against the practices of "relaxer" or weaves — were either wearing weaves or sporting relaxed hair during the interviews. He seemed to have trouble finding people with "natural" hair.
Also, for someone as bold as Chris Rock, I expected a stronger stance, more outrage... something. Perhaps he took his documentary role too seriously. Doesn't he know that most modern "documentaries" aren't neutral? Michael Moore's "movies" would be a prime example. By now, we expect documentaries to be one-sided, to express an opinion, to tell us what to think.
This movie built up to it several times, but fell short of an actual stance.
Don't get me wrong; it was a fun movie, and very informative.
The film points out that black culture in America is riddled with the idea that straight, silky hair is "good hair," while natural, kinky hair is "bad hair." Children as young as two and three years old are getting dangerous chemicals rubbed into their scalps to "relax" the hair. They're told at this young age that it's the only way to get "good" hair.
Perhaps the funniest moment for me was when Rock asked a scientist about this chemical, and was told how destructive it is. The guy seemed genuinely shocked to hear that people put it on their heads.
Rock also points out in the movie that most of the hair for weaves comes from India, where people regularly have their heads shaved as part of a religious ceremony called "tonsure." These people give their hair (without compensation) to their temples. The temples then sell the hair to dealers who bring it to the U.S. to sell to black women, sometimes for $1,000 or more *per weave."
Huge parts of the documentary also focus on the Bronner Brothers Hair Show in Atlanta, where hair products are marketed to salon owners across the country, helping to emphasize what a large business this is.
That sub-plot, though, actually took away from the film, since Rock focused so much on the four stylists involved in a competition at Bronner Brothers that had nothing to do with "good hair" or the rest of the movie.
Conclusion: Good Hair was funny and informative, but could have been much better.
Advice: Wait for the DVD.
----------------------------------------------
IMDb: Good Hair
Wikipedia: Good Hair
Rating: PG-13
(for some language including sex and drug references, and brief partial nudity)
Length: 95 min. (1:35)
Director: Jeff Stilson
Genre: Documentary
My Rating: 6 of 10
----------------------------------------------
MAIN STARS:
Chris Rock, Maya Angelou, Sandra "Pepa" Denton, Cheryl "Salt" James, Eve, Melyssa Ford, Meagan Good, Ice-T, Al Sharpton, KRS-One, Nia Long, Raven-Symoné
----------------------------------------------
See More of My Movie Reviews
----------------------------------------------
