Hamnet is a historical fantasy that speculates on the origin of the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Since no one was there and there are no accounts of what really happened, it’s pretty much pure fantasy. While historic fantasy is not that uncommon, I find myself a little uncomfortable with some of it. While books and series like The Man in the High Castle are historic fantasy, everyone knows that they’re make-believe because everyone knows that Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire did not win World War II. With something like Hamnet, it’s so close to reality, I fear that people will take it as gospel, and instead of remaining historical fantasy, it will become history. But that’s just my concern, and no one really cares.

I try to avoid actually discussing movie plots when I do these reviews because I don’t want to spoil it for anyone, so all I’ll say is that a number of unpleasant things happen to Shakespeare, his wife, and family, and the movie speculates that the writing of Hamlet served as a means of catharsis for Shakespeare. That’s the premise, but like I said earlier, no one really knows.

The movie is well-executed, the environment is beautiful, and the acting is fine, but the majority of the story is pretty depressing and may not be for everyone. My wife went into this expecting something more along the lines of Shakespeare in Love, and while she liked the movie, it was not the pleasant outing that she was looking for.

For me, the problem is that I’m just not into Shakespeare. I know, I should be ashamed of myself. There’s little doubt that he’s probably one of the most important figures in literature, and his contributions have shaped all modern storytelling, and I won’t argue any of that. I just can’t read his work. I’ve tried, but every word is painful for me. I don’t know Old English, and I have little desire to learn it. Even if I take it word by word and understand what he’s saying, it has little emotional impact on me since the decoding process is so slow and painful. So I’ll trust the opinion of others on this one and spend my time on other things that work for me.

For what it’s worth, the movie was nominated for nine Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Casting, and Best Original Score.

Ultimately, only one award was won, with Jessie Buckley winning for Best Actress. She does an excellent job with the part, and while I’m not in a position to judge, since I haven’t seen all the nominated movies, I suspect she was a good choice.

Summing it up. It’s a well-executed, somewhat depressing but entertaining movie that might not be for everyone.

When our local theater was still open, movie-going was pretty much a weekly event.  Even if there was a movie playing we knew little about or had gotten mixed reviews, we’d go to see it.  Mostly, we went because the venue also served food, so even if the movie was marginal, we still got to enjoy a meal and get out of the house.  Sadly, the theater has closed, and although there has been some talk about resurrecting it, I suspect it will never happen.  Unfortunately, the audiences just aren’t there, money is tight for a lot of people, and for this particular theater, there’s practically no parking in the area.  I expect that this place will go the way of my old hometown theater.  The building will sit empty for years and deteriorate over time until it reaches a point where too much money would be required to restore it.  It’s sad to see all these old places close down, but times change.

Anyway, back to the movie.  

I had listened to the Project Hail Mary audiobook when it first came out, and I loved it.  It’s a really special book with a strong, engaging story, great narration, and sound effects that bring the story to life.  I liked the book so much that I just didn’t see any way that the movie could live up to it.  And I was right.  The movie wasn’t quite as good as the book, but it’s really close.

Project Hail Mary is a hard story to bring to the screen.  It’s a complex story, filled with technical puzzles and intricate details.  Since film is mostly a visual medium, the story isn’t really a good fit for the screen, yet somehow the director pulled it off.  The movie does a good job telling the story; it’s suspenseful, holds the viewer’s interest as the backstory unfolds alongside the main story, and it’s visually beautiful.  It’s very much worth seeing.

Before we saw it, I was somewhat concerned that the story’s complexity would make it hard for someone who hadn’t read the book to fully understand it, but if my wife is any indication, that’s not the case.  Outside of missing one detail in the plot, she pretty much understood everything that was going on and really enjoyed the movie.

So go out and see the movie, and while you’re at it, get the audiobook.  As good as the movie is, the audiobook is even better, and I think you’ll find both very enjoyable.

Why is it that so called ‘creatives’ always feel the need to get together, pat themselves on the backs and tell the world how special they are? Possible low self esteem? You don’t see awards ceremonies for plumbers, factory workers or garbage men and I would say that each of those groups do more to benefit society than any of the people that play pretend for a living. It’s not bad enough that they’re obsessed with themselves, but they also believe that their ability to act somehow gives them the right to lecture the rest of us about politics and social issues. Can’t they just shut up, take their awards and be done with it?

The there’s the foolishness, like ‘And the Oscar goes to …’. It used to be when someone won and Oscar it would be announced with the phrase, ‘And the winner is…’ but that wasn’t good enough. Even though someone had ‘won’ an Oscar, it was decided that saying that they were ‘winners’ was somehow too offensive and competitive and it had to be toned down and changed to ‘And the Oscar goes to …’. What a bunch of overly sensitive losers.

The final straw for me was when they instituted diversity requirements for Oscar eligibility. If your movie doesn’t meet their standards for representation and inclusion it can’t win an award. It doesn’t matter if you’ve produced the best movie ever made; unless your production includes one from column A and one from column B you’re out of luck. Liberal fools!

They have four standards that films must meet to qualify for an award:
– On-screen representation, themes and narratives
– Creative leadership and project team
– Industry access and opportunities
– Audience development

I won’t go into the details of all of the above foolishness, but it’s about what you would expect from liberal out of touch fools.

Here’s an example from their website…

At least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors submitted for Oscar consideration is from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group in a specific country or territory of production.

This may include:

• African American / Black / African and/or Caribbean descent
• East Asian (including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Mongolian)
• Hispanic or Latina/e/o/x
• Indigenous Peoples (including Native American / Alaskan Native)
• Middle Eastern / North African
• Pacific Islander
• South Asian (including Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Indian, Nepali, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan)
• Southeast Asian (including Burmese, Cambodian, Filipino, Hmong, Indonesian, Laotian, Malaysian, Mien, Singaporean, Thai, and Vietnamese)

How freaking obnoxious, not only do they dictate diversity, but they tell you exactly which type of people you need to hire.

Then there’s this gem:

At least 30% of all actors not submitted for Oscar consideration are from at least two underrepresented groups which may include:

• Women
• Racial or ethnic group
• LGBTQ+
• People with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing

How Orwellian that the Academy believes that it can dictate to artists what their art needs to include. You would think there would be some push back on this, but no, the liberal sheep fall right in line.

My hope is that the future will be brighter. I suspect that in the not too distant future all of this will end. AI and modern technology is giving the average person the ability to produce films that currently would require hundreds of people and millions of dollars to make. The barriers to entry in the entertainment industry are falling and soon people will be able to produce movies that they want to watch instead of being force fed movies and propaganda produced by out of touch, liberal fools. I can’t wait.

I was looking for a movie to watch the other night and after doing a bit of searching, came across Barry Lyndon. The movie came out in 1975 and was directed by Stanley Kubrick, a man whose movies are almost always interesting. I’ve seen a lot of Kubrick’s movies such as Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and found all of them worth watching. Somehow though I had missed out on Barry Lyndon. I was aware of the movie but I just never thought it looked interesting enough to spend time watching. I checked out its IMDB rating which was an 8.1 and followed that by checking out its Rotten Tomatoes rating which was 78% Tomatometer (critics) and 92% Popcornmeter (the rest of us). Normally, I ignore the critics opinions since they’re often pushing an agenda instead of reviewing a movie but the 92% Popcornmeter rating was encouraging. Average people seemed to really like this movie. I was convinced.

So do I agree with 92% of the viewers? Nope but it’s not that simple.

The cinematography is incredible. This may be the most beautiful movie ever filmed, you could pause it at any point during it’s running, take a screenshot and you would have a work of art that could be displayed at a museum. I’m not exaggerating, it really is that good.

Not far behind the cinematography in quality are the costumes and locations. You can tell the people who made this really cared about what they were doing and put the effort in to make sure it was perfect.

The problem though is that the movie run’s over three hours and is just not that compelling. IMDB describes the story as ‘An Irish rogue wins the heart of a rich widow and assumes her dead husband’s aristocratic position in 18th-century England.’ OK, that seems reasonable enough and has potential for a good story but it just never delivers it. The three hours is spent just watching Barry Lydon, move from situation to situation while moving up the social ladder. He doesn’t do anything all that interesting to accomplish this feat, it’s more a matter of luck and being at the right place at the right time.

Then there’s the character Barry Lyndon himself and Ryan O’Neal the man who plays the part. Both totally lack charisma. IMDB described Lydon as an ‘Irish rogue’ which seems to imply some sort of interesting, whimsical personality, but Lydon/O’Neal doesn’t have one. The character is laid back, never says anything all that interesting, isn’t funny, doesn’t come across in the least bit charming, and does nothing that would make him standout in a crowd. Why would anyone ever center a story about this man?

I’m not blaming O’Neal for this, perhaps he’s a fine actor that just wasn’t given anything to work with and even if it was his fault, Kubrick was in charge and could have done something about it. Since he didn’t, I’m assuming that the performance was exactly what Kubrick was looking for.

Is it worth watching? Yes, but mostly for the spectacle and the visuals. If you want a great story, look somewhere else. I put this in the same class as Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, both movies are spectacular and special but the stories don’t do the production justice.