What movie did you just see?

[bajo]

Star Trek rules !

[PeterT]

Just saw Star Trek and it was great!
Zap, I agree that it was more action and less cerebral than a lot of the Trek that I (and apparently you) appreciate, but I still thought it was great! And it was just sooooooooo nice to see Nimoy as Spock again. "...always have been, your friend". Worth the price of admission.

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by PeterT

Just saw Star Trek and it was great!
Zap, I agree that it was more action and less cerebral than a lot of the Trek that I (and apparently you) appreciate, but I still thought it was great! ...

Its a great movie, no doubt about it. Will probably go see it again next week. We dont get many "cerebral" movies these days... mostly action. Its like the junk food of moviedom.

[johnrr6]

Star Trek.....Loved it-----and loved the way the young actors had picked up all the little mannerisms of the original cast....

The two who did Dr. McCoy and Scotty were exceptional......

[PeterT]

Just watched "Desk Set" with my 8 year old daughter. She likes Tracy & Hepburn.
Wonder where she got her good taste?

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by ctal

...I'd recommend that at some point when you're in the mood for a heavy, serious film, see Kubrick's "Paths of Glory," with Kirk Douglas, from around 1957, about an incident in World War I. It has an anti-war theme (although you wouldn't know it from the opening scenes). It is also one of the most powerful films ever made, imo, and he accomplishes that with very little of the blood and gore which typifies modern films that deal with similar subject matter.

Best,
-- Al

Just saw it and it is amazing that such an ancient movie can continue to be provocative and entertaining today. Unfortunately I dont think much has changed.

I really thought he should have taken the job, otherwise they will only put some other idiot back in it.

Thanks for the tip, a great movie.

[johnrr6]

Tremendous film.....

Should be required seeing for ANY General....

Show me a Patriot----and I'll show you a fool!....... I love that part......

But it is a pretty bloody film in spots----the attack on the Ant Hill is horrifying.....

How men actually had the courage to climb out of those trenches and advance....

While the General Staff drew lines on maps and sipped wine at chateaus 50 miles back from the front....

Incredible....

[ctal]

Glad you liked it, Zap. If you really want to see a couple of "ancient" films that hold up well:

1)"Casablanca," 1942, with Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Claude Rains, Paul Henreid, Conrad Veidt, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, S. Z. Sakall, Dooley Wilson, and others. Widely considered to be one of the top two films ever made. I agree, having seen it about 15 times (and picking up new details each time).

2)"City Lights" (1931 silent film), starring, directed by, produced by, written by, edited by, and musical scored by Charlie Chaplin. Widely considered to have, in its own very understated way, one of the most touching endings in the history of cinema, and to be one of the greatest romantic comedies ever made. And also including a boxing match that occurs in the middle of the film, which is one of the funniest 6 minutes in the history of cinema.

Regards,
-- Al

[ctal]

John, extremely good comments, as usual!

-- Al

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by ctal

Glad you liked it, Zap. If you really want to see a couple of "ancient" films that hold up well:...

Thanks Al, I'll be looking for City Lights. Done Casablanca several times, own a nice DVD version. And just why dont we have clubs like that anymore? Sophisticated, jacket and tie, dancing and cabaret and dinner with table service!

Speaking of older movies, and if you like sci-fi, have you seen Metropolis? 1927 and silent but its got an amazing prediction of how a robot would be...long before Star Wars or I Robot, masterpiece really.

John, you are so right about the ant hill, the action sequences are astoundingly well done.

Its like the medium, film, reached its peak back then and its just been a series of refinements ever since...

[johnrr6]

And Douglas represented the kind of officer who was a true combat commander in that war. Willing to lead from the front and actually know the men he led.....And who would later emerge as generals in the 2nd great World War

After WW1----because of the horrific casualties and the stalemated situation-----there was a tremendous effort on the part of all armies to "never let that kind of war happen again" hence the developments of "breaththrough" tactics with tanks, air and paratroops. The German "Blitzkrieg" was a direct result.....Patton fought at the front in WW1 and much of his tactical genius came from never wanting to be involved in a situation like the trenches were in WW1.

The Generals who had been the leaders during the war were pretty much shunned by a poulation that had lost so much----there were exceptions: Pershing, Petain, Foch. (only to have the Hero Petain collaborate withy the Nazis in WW2-----a terribly sad story---he was 84 at the time and many believe he felt he was actually saving France again----just like he did in WW1----another story but interesting)

Jesh----you guys got me all excited-----I love that move and what it represents----and shows......and even what it implies.... and I thought Douglas was brilliant in the role.....and in the end----his refusal was true to his character----a Common man's leader....

Anti War----sure-----but it also depicted a unique time of dramatic technological change (the machine gun against infantry) ramming head on into social change with the final decline of any aristocractic class control over the common man....

Again----one of my all time favorite films.....

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by johnrr6

...
Jesh----you guys got me all excited-----I love that move and what it represents----and shows......and even what it implies...

The only thing the movie didnt cover is how we can avoid men like that general getting into positions of authority in the first place... ditto for politicians.

Here is a piccy of that robot I was speaking about from Metropolis (remember this is 1927 !!). Compare with Robbie the robot from the 50's...

[johnrr6]

Originally Posted by zapionics<alt>

The only thing the movie didnt cover is how we can avoid men like that general getting into positions of authority in the first place... ditto for politicians.

Agreed.....

Over the years I found that there were basically two types of Generals/Admirals

The Combat Generals and the Politicians

The combat type did NOT flourish or advance in a peactime environment. They were not invited (for the most part) to the big social gatherings and many in the civilian world feel somewhat uncomfortable being around these guys as they are WARRIORS---totally unconcerned with the niceties of politics. But totally necessary during a war. Some of these type are Rah-Rah fanatics and hard to work for----but most are quiet, efficient, hard working, tremendously knowlegeable, have a VERY deep sense of duty and understand that the common men they command are NOT just material to be used up. Having said that---the have a lions' heart----and dogged determination and they are FIGHTERS.

The other type were the Politicians----and I'm probably going to shock folks when I say that this type is totally necessary for the survival of a military in a peacetime environment. They get the budget dollars necessary for a military to be effective. They decide what new weapon systems and tactics need developing. And they smooth out the road between a civilian populace that is basically uncomfortable with a military presence and a warrior group that preaches controlled violence. It's those types you will find roaming the cocktail circuit in Washington, or stumping the halls of congress looking for money to fund this new weapon or that new communications system.

Both types are totally necessary. It's when you have a crossover where a politician type gets command of a combat unit----or a gruff combat type gets put in charge of development of a new system or liasing with congress or just generally interfacing daily with the civilian side of government. Well---that's when you have trouble.

Some, rare Generals can live in both worlds effectively----but most don't....

France----in 1914 hadn't fought a major engagement since the Franco Prussian war of 1871 (in which they got their heinies kicked)....

And the French Army----mighty as it was-----had been shocked by the Dreyfus affair...

Four generations later----almost ALL the French generals at the beginning of the war had virtually NO combat experience (except for maybe small colonial wars and police actions) and came from the Politician type....and a certain aristocratic class....

A recipe for disaster.....

[ctal]

Originally Posted by johnrr6

Over the years I found that there were basically two types of Generals/Admirals ... The Combat Generals and the Politicians

Both types are totally necessary. It's when you have a crossover where a politician type gets command of a combat unit----or a gruff combat type gets put in charge of development of a new system or liasing with congress or just generally interfacing daily with the civilian side of government. Well---that's when you have trouble.

That rings very true, John. And it's been my observation over the years that the key to success for pretty much any organization is to have the right match-ups of personnel and assignments. And for that to happen, you have to have the kind of person at the top who is capable of recognizing and understanding both the capabilities of the personnel and the details of the assignments (in other words, what it's like down in the trenches). He'll then put the right matchups of people and positions in place immediately below him, and those people will do the same for the positions under them, and so on down the line.

My career was in the defense electronics industry, and over and over again I saw exactly what you are describing. The right matchup of people and assignments was invariably the most significant determinant of success or failure.

Anti War----sure-----but it also depicted a unique time of dramatic technological change (the machine gun against infantry) ramming head on into social change with the final decline of any aristocratic class control over the common man....

Yes, my use of the term "anti-war" was oversimplified; your characterization is much better!

I thought Douglas was brilliant in the role.....and in the end----his refusal was true to his character----a Common man's leader....

Yes, I thought it was Kirk Douglas' greatest role, and I've seen a great many of them -- "Spartacus" etc.

Speaking of older movies, and if you like sci-fi, have you seen Metropolis? 1927 and silent but its got an amazing prediction of how a robot would be...long before Star Wars or I Robot, masterpiece really.

Haven't seen it yet, although I've been aware of its reputation and historical significance. It's on my (lengthy) list of films to see.

Best,
-- Al

[ctal]

A bit more on "City Lights." Last year the American Film Institute named it as the best romantic comedy of all time:

AFI's 10 Top 10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And in 2007 they named it as the 11th greatest American film of all time (see the column headed "10th anniversary 2007 list"):

AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-- Al