I SHIFT GEARS

 

Well, it’s my damned blog, and I can do anything I want with it.  Right?  Well, I have grown a little tired of watching old movies in the evenings, then writing snarky little reviews.  Instead, I have set myself to reading ALL of Tony Hillerman’s  Leaphorn-Chee novels, in the order they were written.  So far I have consumed the first two, and am half way through the third.  There are about a dozen more to go – so, no Golden Oldies for a while.  But, of course, I may change my mind.  Like I said already, it’s my damned blog.

In case you never have encountered the Hillerman books, they are mysteries set in the Navajo reservation of Arizona/New Mexico and contiguous scraps of territory.  Leaphorn and Chee are Navajo cops.  The adventures Hillerman weaves about them are, to my tastes, highly entertaining, and quite absorbing.  Additionally, we Belligani can learn a lot about Navajo culture and 4-Corners geography by reading these books.  The first one is called Blessing Way.  Read it, and you’ll be hooked. 

 

GOLDEN OLDIE 32: Sense and Sensibility

 

Well, I guess I am just a sucker for good love stories.  In particular, I like them when they are set in the English countryside of two centuries ago, and are portrayed  by fine actors.  Sense and Sensibility fits this bill in all these respects, and probably lots of others I haven’t even thought of yet.  Get the picture?  This is one of my favorite movies of all time.  It was released in 1995, directed by the well regarded Ang Lee.  It starred Emma Thompson (great), Hugh Grant (pretty much likewise), Kate Winslet (pretty darned good, if a bit over-weepy), and a truly magnificent Alan Rickman* as Colonel Brandon.  The supporting staff is excellent, the music fine, and the plot – well, hell, it was concocted by everyone’s favorite English writer, Jane Austin.  The critics liked it, and it won a slew of awards, including an Oscar for best writing.  So what more can I say?  A.

*Rickman died of cancer at age 69.  He was great in the Harry Potter movies, and elsewhere.  I wish he were still around.

 

SOME MUSING ON CORE COMPLEXES

 

For those of Nick’s followers who might be interested in what was avant-garde tectonic thinking in the era prior to terrane-speak and detailed knowledge of core complexes, read the paper below.  Ken did most of the writing and analysis; I merely supplied the paleomagnetics.  Note that he had the extensional stress regime dead on.  Here is the paper.

Paleomagnetic results for Eocene volcanic rocks from northeastern Washington and the Tertiary tectonics of the Pacific Northwest

KF Fox Jr, ME Beck Jr - Tectonics, 1985, vol 4, pp 323-341.

And now, a question:  The classical picture of a core complex has the upper crust sliding off an upwelling lower (gneissic) crustal layer.  This configuration need not necessarily imply extension; for instance, a thermal anomaly might cause a segment of lower crust to rise, and in doing so shed its “overburden” along normal (detachment) faults.  However, in this case one might expect to find compressional features in the detached sheets.  Finding extensional features instead must surely require crustal extension.  In the case of the Cordilleran core complexes the configuration seems to require that the western edge of the continent moved away from points fixed in the North American craton.  And, in passing, the significant clockwise rotation found in Eocene volcanic rocks from the Republic graben certainly implies a trans tensional, dextral, stress regime.

Or am I wrong?

 

GOLDEN OLDIE 31: You've got mail

So, another sweet little fairy tale, staring the always likeable Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.  Set in parts of NYC I never knew existed, with a superlative supporting cast to flesh out the story, You’ve Got Mail is a great way to settle down after a stressful day of watching the stock market collapse.  The director was Nora Ephron, whose name always seems to be associated with good movies.  It was released in 1998.  The critics “sort of” liked it, but – as critics must – found flaws.  It picked up some minor awards but, as far as I can see, was totally ignored by Oscar.  Supporting roles by Dabney Coleman (as despicable as ever) and Jean Stapleton (at her rattle-brained best) significantly enhance the movie’s appeal’.  Watch it; you could do much worse.   A-

So, another sweet little fairy tale, staring the always likeable Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.  Set in parts of NYC I never knew existed, with a superlative supporting cast to flesh out the story, You’ve Got Mail is a great way to settle down after a stressful day of watching the stock market collapse.  The director was Nora Ephron, whose name always seems to be associated with good movies.  It was released in 1998.  The critics “sort of” liked it, but – as critics must – found flaws.  It picked up some minor awards but, as far as I can see, was totally ignored by Oscar.  Supporting roles by Dabney Coleman (as despicable as ever) and Jean Stapleton (at her rattle-brained best) significantly enhance the movie’s appeal’.  Watch it; you could do much worse.   B+

GOLDEN OLDIE 30: Apollo 13

 

This movie would be almost impossible to watch if you didn’t know in advance that everything would turn out okay.  Still, the gradually tension builds up to such a pitch you’d need my new kukri knife to chop through it.  It stars pretty much every male cinema stud of the time:  Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise, Kevin Bacon, Ed Harris, Bill Paxton.  Only Kevin Costner was missing: probably busy making baseball movies.  The female lead, Kathleen Quinlan, is excellent as Hanks’ fearful-yet-brave, long-suffering wife.  The director, Ron Howard, has a history of being associated with important films,  which this one undoubtedly is.  The critics liked it, as did the general public.  It got a slew of critical awards – but not the Best Picture Oscar, for which apparently wasn’t even nominated.  That same period saw Forest Gump, also featuring Hanks, dominate the scene.  But, awards or no awards, this is a darned good movie which you should see.  A-.

And who can forget the iconic understatement of all time:  “Huston, we have a problem”?

GOLDEN OLDIE 29: Notting Hill

 

Okay, so what’s not to like?  Two appealing leads, a cute if preposterous plot, excellent supporting actors, good backdrop – pretty darned rewarding if you ask me.  The concept of a big movie star (Julia Roberts) falling for  a dweeb shop keeper (Hugh Grant), to the point of actually seeking him out to declare her love does severely test the imagination.  But, so what:  suspend disbelief and have fun with a feel-good fairy tale.

Notting Hill came out in 1999.  The critics didn’t hate it, wonder of wonders.  It is set in an interesting section of London, so the many scenes of Grant plodding along outdoors, jacket over shoulder, are attractive.  Rhys Ifans is his usual comic self.  After Charlie Wilson’s War it was nice to see Roberts in a respectable role.  B.

And, yes – now back to my Tom Hanks marathon.

Gplden Oldie 28: Charlie Wilson's War

 Well, heck!  I really liked this movie the first time I saw it, and I looked forward to a lot of pleasure viewing it again.  But this was not to be.  Maybe it was the backdrop of OUR misadventures in the same place (Afghanistan), or maybe it’s just that I have become old, crotchety and hard to please, but I am going to rate this movie a dismal C+.

Charlie Wilson’s War came out in 2007, under the direction of the always able Mike Nichols.  The nominal stars are Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts; the real stars are Phillip Seymour Hoffman* and a hair flopping Amy Adams.

To some extent this is a true story.  Hanks plays Congressman  Charlie Wilson, a hard drinking, coke snuffing, gun tot’n good old boy from somewhere in Texas.  There was such a guy, and Hanks depicts him well.  Roberts is handed an absolutely stupid role and does the best she can.  The real joy in this movie is Hoffman, a (fictional?) foul mouthed, exquisitely cynical State Department under-honcho. 

The story is to some extent  based  on fact.  There was a Charlie Wilson and he did play a major role in arming the Mujahedeen, resulting in the (orderly) withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.  Subsequently, owing at least in part to our failure to help rebuild the country, the Taliban took over, welcomed Al-Qaeda, and attempted to protect Osama bin Laden and the boys after 9/11,  This, as you know, led us (the US) to invade, resulting to a decades-long war that cost many lives and billions upon billions of dollars.  And the result?  Of course, just recently we too retreated from Afghanistan, with our tails firmly between our legs.  At least the Soviets made an orderly retreat; we, on the other hand, botched the whole damned thing, in spades.

If only they had listened to Charlie Wilson!

*Hoffman was a wonderful actor.  He died at age 46 of an accidental drug overdose.  So much talent squandered! 

Well, heck!  I really liked this movie the first time I saw it, and I looked forward to a lot of pleasure viewing it again.  But this was not to be.  Maybe it was the backdrop of OUR misadventures in the same place (Afghanistan), or maybe it’s just that I have become old, crotchety and hard to please, but I am going to rate this movie a dismal C+.

Charlie Wilson’s War came out in 2007, under the direction of the always able Mike Nichols.  The nominal stars are Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts; the real stars are Phillip Seymour Hoffman* and a hair flopping Amy Adams.

To some extent this is a true story.  Hanks plays Congressman  Charlie Wilson, a hard drinking, coke snuffing, gun tot’n good old boy from somewhere in Texas.  There was such a guy, and Hanks depicts him well.  Roberts is handed an absolutely stupid role and does the best she can.  The real joy in this movie is Hoffman, a (fictional?) foul mouthed, exquisitely cynical State Department under-honcho. 

The story is to some extent  based  on fact.  There was a Charlie Wilson and he did play a major role in arming the Mujahedeen, resulting in the (orderly) withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.  Subsequently, owing at least in part to our failure to help rebuild the country, the Taliban took over, welcomed Al-Qaeda, and attempted to protect Osama bin Laden and the boys after 9/11,  This, as you know, led us (the US) to invade, resulting to a decades-long war that cost many lives and billions upon billions of dollars.  And the result?  Of course, just recently we too retreated from Afghanistan, with our tails firmly between our legs.  At least the Soviets made an orderly retreat; we, on the other hand, botched the whole damned thing, in spades.

If only they had listened to Charlie Wilson!

*Hoffman was a wonderful actor.  He died at age 46 of an accidental drug overdose.  So much talent squandered!

GOLDEN OLDIE 27: Sleepless in Seattle

 

You knew I’d review this one next, didn’t you? I am a hopeless sucker whenever this kind of tear-jerking, heart-warming, feel good all over kind of movie comes along.  It was directed by Nora Ephron and was released – can you believe it? – 29 years ago.  You certainly know that it stars Tom Hanks, at his most appealing.  You may have forgotten his co-star Meg Ryan, but you shouldn’t have – she is great as Hank’s misty-eyed, incurably romantic love interest.  Bill Pullman and Rosie O’Donnell have excellent comic roles.  And, yes, there is a kid.  His name is Ross Malinger, and in places he nearly steals the show.  He was about 14 at the time, but did a great job of appearing to be about 8.  He appeared in at least one other movie, then gave up acting and now sells cars for a living.  Too bad, he could have ended up a Lindsay Lohan in trousers.  (Just kidding, Ross.  I thought you were great.)

So, I’m not going to outline the plot; if you are over the age of 40 you saw it once, and probably will want to see it again.  And if you are younger – well, lucky you.  B

GOLDEN OLDIE 26: Splash

 

I am not sure why I decided to include this silly little movie in my Tom Hanks retrospective, but I did, and I watched it last night.  So here goes.

This is a real oldie.  It came out in 1984.  Ron Howard was the director.  In it, Tom Hanks looks like he is about 18 years old; it is disconcerting to hear the unmistakable Hanks voice emanating from the mouth of an adolescent.  Daryl Hannah, with or without tail fins, is at the peak of her exceptional deliciousness.  The only other actor you might remember is John Candy, who is effective as a bumbling jerk.  So, the cast isn’t bad at all.  Only the story is stupid.

Strangely enough, the critics were kind to this picture, as if they somehow sensed that Hanks and Howard would go on to much greater things.  You, too, may enjoy it – if you can somehow convince yourself that, not only do mermaids exist, but our two species can be considered interchangeable.  Or, of course, totallysuspend disbelief.  But, scoff though I must, I have to admit that I enjoyed this little piece of fluff.  You might, too.  B-. 

In passing:  whatever happened to Daryl Hannah?  She was so nice to look at.  I remember her in Roxanne, and in several other minor flics that I have seen but now can’t place.  At the moment she is about 62 years old and a noted environmental activist.  I just may dig up some of her old movies and share them with all of you..