U.S. astronauts reach the moon, in the 1950 Destination Moon, only because they choose to defy the government, which has ordered them to stay on the earth.  The public fears radioactivity after liftoff, but the determined astronauts slip away and take their historic flight regardless.  After they land on the moon, they are distressed to discover that getting home just might be a nonstarter.

Adapting one of his novels, Robert Heinlein co-wrote the movie’s script, so the frequently spot-on technical information is no surprise.  And for 1950 the sets are admirable, even though the outside rescue of an astronaut adrift is hopelessly stagy (and with plenty of silliness).  To be honest, DM is marred by much, but it is Hollywood earnestness at its most entertaining.  Too, I found it nigh spellbinding, and not only in the outer space scenes.  Watching it, I got a hankering to read Heinlein’s Have Space Suit, Will Travel, which will at least spare me, as this movie does not, the presence of Woody Woodpecker.

Directed by Irving Pichel.

U.S. astronauts reach the moon, in the 1950 Destination Moon, only because they choose to defy the government, which has ordered them to stay on the earth.  The public fears radioactivity after liftoff, but the determined astronauts slip away and take their historic flight regardless.  After they land on the moon, they are distressed to discover that getting home just might be a nonstarter.

Adapting one of his novels, Robert Heinlein co-wrote the movie’s script, so the frequently spot-on technical information is no surprise.  And for 1950 the sets are admirable, even though the outside rescue of an astronaut adrift is hopelessly stagy (and with plenty of silliness).  To be honest, DM is marred by much, but it is Hollywood earnestness at its most entertaining.  Too, I found it nigh spellbinding, and not only in the outer space scenes.  Watching it, I got a hankering to read Heinlein’s Have Space Suit, Will Travel, which will at least spare me, as this movie does not, the presence of Woody Woodpecker.

Directed by Irving Pichel.

The 2003 Peter Pan is pretty good, except for the boringly routine fight scenes.  P. J. Hogan‘s film version of the 1904 British play (very old) captures much of playwright Barrie’s sophistication and all of his high spirits.  It concentrates on Wendy Darling’s youthful affection for Peter Pan and is aware of Peter’s inability to love, albeit he does know how to grieve for a dead or dying Tinkerbell. . . It dazzles the eye and, almost as much, enchants the mind.

Jeremy Sumpter (Peter) is one of those child actors who, to borrow another critic’s truthful phrase, merely follow the director’s orders, nothing more.  Not so Rachel Hurd-Wood as Wendy:  she’s spontaneous and unmannered.  In a double role—that of Mr. Darling and that of Captain Hook—the versatile Jason Isaacs is thoroughly engaging, while Lynn Redgrave never sounds a false note as the Darling children’s aunt.

The 2003 Peter Pan is pretty good, except for the boringly routine fight scenes.  P. J. Hogan‘s film version of the 1904 British play (very old) captures much of playwright Barrie’s sophistication and all of his high spirits.  It concentrates on Wendy Darling’s youthful affection for Peter Pan and is aware of Peter’s inability to love, albeit he does know how to grieve for a dead or dying Tinkerbell. . . It dazzles the eye and, almost as much, enchants the mind.

Jeremy Sumpter (Peter) is one of those child actors who, to borrow another critic’s truthful phrase, merely follow the director’s orders, nothing more.  Not so Rachel Hurd-Wood as Wendy:  she’s spontaneous and unmannered.  In a double role—that of Mr. Darling and that of Captain Hook—the versatile Jason Isaacs is thoroughly engaging, while Lynn Redgrave never sounds a false note as the Darling children’s aunt.

After the release of Antonioni’s Eclipse, some of Truffaut’s stuff and, Heaven help us, Godard’s movies, Ingmar Bergman decided to make a film that was weird.  He made the soporific Persona (1967) with its weird opening montage and its weird bits and pieces.  A complete failure, the film has very little significant meaning.

A Passion (U.S. title: The Passion of Anna, 1969) was better—at least it wasn’t dull—but, sadly, it was never enough to be weird (or unusual).  It is quite evident that after the making of such films as Wild Strawberries and Winter Light, Bergman’s intellectual development became stunted; he was no thinker.  Cries and Whispers (1972) was a candid intellectual fraud.  Well did it depict human agony, but there were no real brains behind it.  Face to Face (1976) was just as weak, and, for all its power, Scenes from a Marriage (1973) was unchallenging enough to have the Jan Malmsjo character, Peter, question superciliously the meaning of an old Christian hymn.  This is because Bergman questions it.  But it doesn’t much matter what the Swedish director questions since he mainly provides only emotional depth.  He fashions art, to be sure, but so far (I haven’t yet seen Thirst or To Joy) it is only in Winter Light and My Summer with Monica that I can enjoy this art in full measure.  I’ll be leaving Persona on the shelf.