Reviews

First, there is not, and never was, an Aviation Officer Candidate School (AOCS) in Washington state. I would assume it was used because the true locale for AOCS, Pensacola, FL, wasn't suitable for some reason. Officer candidates going to AOCS already have their degrees and are undergoing training, physical and educational, to earn their commission. No, it's not four years like the Naval Academy, but then again, it's not four years of hell at the Academy, as another reviewer attempted to posit. Any officer commissioned through AOCS is an officer just like an academy grad and both, ultimately, can end up with regular commissions vice reserve commissions.

Next, the training at AOCS was fairly accurately portrayed in the movie. Lots of running, swimming, academics, inspections, etc. all intended to result in the individual becoming part of a team. Another reviewer, obviously not a Republican (LOL), detests this movie just because of his perception that it endorsed the philosophy of the Reagan years. Utter balderdash, of course. What this movie portrays, again fairly accurately, is the growth of a loner into someone who realizes, as Spock so eloquently stated in one of the Star Trek movies, "(t)he needs of the many outweigh the needs, or the wants, of the one or the few." Mayo learns to be part of a team; he learns to care for others and cease being a "user" of people in his life...an example he learned from his father.

The terminology, during the 80s when I went through AOCS, was still DOR..."Drop On Request." It was an "out" exercised by very few people, mostly because those of us in AOCS were already motivated to come into the Navy and specifically into Naval Aviation. The rigors, as stated previously, are presented fairly accurately although a little melodramatic in places, e.g., the altitude chamber. Never in all my years in the Navy did I see anyone "freak" out in the chamber, which is a required test, along with swim quals, every four years to remain qualified to fly.

The legend of the "Pensacola Debs" was presented to us early on in AOCS. Yes, there are stories, many of them true, of men meeting their wives while going through training in Penasacola, but I'd wager there's not a higher incidence in P'cola than there is at any military base or college town for that matter. Odd, but you put men and women in the same room and some will pair off, and some will marry and remain together forever. The bar in the film, TJ's, was based on a bar in Penascola named Trader Jon's. Trader had a running deal that if you caught him wearing matching socks, you'd get some prize...can't remember if it was money or drinks. Let's just say, he never paid off as far as I know. Trader died a few years back, but I'm pretty sure some of the stuff from his bar is probably at the Naval Aviation Museum at NAS Pensacola.

The Drill Instructor portrayal by Louis Gossett is VERY true to life! While they cussed us, screamed at us, pushed us physically and looked for what would "trip" us up, they also, in retrospect, wanted us to succeed. One thing they never did, and would have been severely disciplined for, was hit us, so the fight scene, while improbable, works in the movie. PTing us into the ground, though...you bet they did! This movie works for me because I lived the life both during the AOCS part and during a career in the Navy in aviation. The portrayals are pretty much spot-on and believable. Sure there's dramatic license, but there is in any movie! Anyone who believes Full Metal Jacket tells it "like it is" is delusional; there's plenty of dramatic license there, too. Relax, enjoy the movie. It's about personal growth, love, and sacrifice; all in all good things. Not the best movie ever made, but certainly not the worst!

Yes, the movie is too long by about 30 minutes. Yes, the CGI is absolutely great. Yes, Jackson stays, for the most part, true to the familiar storyline. Yes, the movie does have some good, not great, moments. No, it does not match the original movie's impact and emotional appeal. Yes, it does surpass the Jessica Lange version. No, I wouldn't recommend it to a friend to see in the theater. Yes, I would recommend seeing it when it comes out on DVD.

Because of how stunning the CGI is, it's possible to lose sight of the fact this movie has no soul to it. I didn't feel the same pathos there is in the original. Jackson is a tremendous filmmaker and that shines through in many places in this movie, but it lacks a certain something that makes one "feel" for the characters. On a technical standpoint, it is a superb movie. As an overall great piece of movie-making, it fails to meet expectations.

There was a time when movies were celebrated for their "escapism," their Capraesque ability to show simple truths...for those who weren't so jaded as to be beyond help. Example: in "It's a Wonderful Life," when George crashes into the tree, the man who comes out is concerned ONLY with his "historical" tree, not if George is o.k. after the wreck. The man is jaded in his world view or as a friend and I refer to certain people, he is "hopelessly lost to the world." Thus it seems with many of the reviewers of this movie.

I was taught that movies require "a willing suspension of disbelief," and that absent our granting that, ANY movie can, and will, be blasted into acetate dust for being "unrealistic," "maudlin," "unbelievable," "insulting;" well, you get the picture.

Is "Love Actually" one of the best pictures of its genre, the romantic comedy? No, it's not. Is it a fun movie to watch? Yes, it is. Let go of the "necessity" for character development (it is a comedy after all) and let your own imagination fill in the blanks. Have we all become so intellectually lazy that we cannot invest ourselves in a film to fill in the perceived "blanks"? I think many minimize the importance of the 9/11 reference. In a nutshell, it points out the critical centerpiece of our lives that LOVE holds when confronted with a crisis. As someone who lost friends in the Pentagon on 9/11, I think it's wonderful to read stories of those in the WTC who were able to make those "profession of love" calls to their loved ones before they met their end. My friends in the Pentagon were not fortunate enough to have that blessing and those they left behind have a void left because of that.

Capra believed in the true essence of man and "universal truths" like those expressed in another, modern movie that makes a valid point about love, "Secondhand Lions." The "what every boy needs to know about being a man" speech, or at least the small piece we hear, perfectly mirror Capra's ideals and, to my mind, these ideals seem to be what Curtis was trying to convey in his movie.

If adultness in the world has become such that we must tear apart and parse everything we see, read, watch, hear or feel, then we are a much poorer civilization. If we fail to note that Love Actually IS all around, then we are in far more peril of losing our core selves than we are from the peril posed by terrorists. In fact, the case could be made we are playing into the terrorists hands by abdicating our basic rights to them by letting them dominate our fears.

The story lines, to me, point out the universality of love and its unpredictability. Rickman makes an error; gets caught up in the fantasy and, too late, realizes his error. However, the movie ends with the possibility of a relationship that moves into a more mature phase. Does it require reading into it to come up with that? Sure, but that's what once was the charm of movies. They weren't expected to lay everything out for the viewer; they engaged the viewer and expected them to become involved in the movie. Perhaps in this day and age, we are all too busy to do that. Perhaps in this day and age, we are all too prepared and ready to view criticism as being, necessarily, negative when the traditional definition of critique is to be seen as both positive and negative.

"Love Actually" is not the pinnacle of romantic comedies; however, it does have many redeeming qualities and has enough of that magic that elicits from us the "willing suspension of disbelief" that can, if we allow it, open our eyes to the possibilities. Seems to me the movie does accomplish that goal. It's light-hearted with twinges of pathos in it...if we take the time to notice.

It is revisionist history, of the worst order, to look from a late-90s/early 2000s perspective and comment ONLY on the reaction to the launching of Sputnik as the entire basis for a review of this movie. This movie begins with the effort to break the sound barrier, something the Soviets, the British, the French and other countries were attempting to do after WWII. From that basis, we get a glimpse into the psyche of men who flew to "push the edge of the envelope." These men were the Christopher Columbuses of their age. They ventured into the unknown with absolutely NO guarantee of either success or their survival.

Once Yeager broke the sound barrier, jets became faster and went higher but the ultimate was to go into space. "The New Frontier" as JFK thought of it. At its heart, this movie is about the Mercury space program and the race to put men into orbit and fulfill JFK's, and America's, dream of putting a man on the moon. While the men ARE definitely macho; having met Chuck Yeager and Alan Shepard in person, as well as other astronauts, and having been an aviator in the Navy, I can speak with first-hand knowledge that the portrayal of these men is dead on, but incomplete because it does not show the human side we all have, also. Is some of it posturing to cover up any fears and anxiety? Absolutely! But, it's also the mechanisms developed to allow them to "boldly go where no man has gone before." Sputnik's launch was another anxiety moment for America because it was our Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union, that launched it. Additionally, it was also recognized that putting a satellite into space would lead to where we are today. Spy satellites orbiting alongside defense satellites orbiting alongside commercial satellites. Peaceful means with defense needs. Sputnik's launch made all this possible and refusing to recognize that the Soviet Union's intent was not peaceful is to attempt to rewrite history without acknowledging the facts in evidence both then and now.

The Right Stuff shows some of the warts of Mercury program. America was feeling its way at that time. Were all the tests done on the astronauts necessary? No. But, did they glean the wheat from the chaff? Yes. Was it a perfect process? Absolutely not, but we did, overall, select some tremendous leaders to lead our way into space. They also became some great business and political leaders; that cannot be denied regardless of political stripe.

Egos aside, this movie is a good look at the heroism exhibited daily by the Mercury astronauts. Who else could we get to ride on top of an unproven rocket like the Atlas for the first orbit of the earth by an American? Gus Grissom is seen as the hard luck person he ultimately ended up being; however, don't question the man's competency or his heroism. He died in service to his country and was one of the smartest men in the space program.

Historically, this movie is fairly accurate. It shows LBJ's ego accurately. It shows the heroism and bravery of our astronauts. It shows the fears America was feeling at that time regarding the Cold War, the Soviet Union and our place in the post-WWII world. It shows the successes and the failures of the space program in its infancy. It definitely shows the brave men who led our country into space. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but if you want a good overview that will ignite your desire to learn more about our space program, this movie will definitely do it. It is about the quintessential American desire to be the best...to go farther and faster than any human being alive!

My ONLY regret about this movie is that I didn't go with my wife and her brother to see it in the theater. Its magnificent scenery is paled on the small screen. As for the plot, it's the classic "boy turns into a man" tale. Jim Craig's father dies and Jim must move off the mountain until he's earned the right to live on the mountain.

He's a prideful young man and falls in love with a powerful rancher's daughter who he has more in common with than he realizes. Rather than spoil the plot, take my word for it, this is a great movie. No, it does not have the best acting in the world; however, Sigrid Thornton is a noted Australian actress on a par with some our own American actresses. This movie is a must see and the soundtrack will stick in your mind for years...it's even used as the intro music for one of the network's golf broadcasts.

Sometimes, one wants their movies to be an escape tool. That's what this movie was when it was made and what it has always been. Two young people vacation on a Greek Island and meet a French woman who has led a rather eclectic life. Educated, knowledgeable about life and just plain sexy she is. A love triangle ensues without all the recriminations that would result in the real world. The only "pain and suffering" is the normal feelings of sharing a lover with another.

The funniest part is the surprise visit from the American girl's mother and best friend. For all its risqué subject matter, the movie stays on the surface of all that and plays this for fun and laughter. It's just good old-fashioned escapism along the lines of "California Dreaming," "Hollywood Knights," and other movies of that genre. It serves to introduce us to Darryl Hannah and Valerie Quennessen, who was lost in an automobile accident in the eighties.

If you're looking for a movie that will give you a few laughs, a little titillation and some harmless sexuality, this is a good choice. Who knows, it may spark some interesting conversations between you and your significant other!