janburn007

I went to see this film, when I was at a bit of a loss for something else to do on a quiet Sunday afternoon. I had seen previews of this film when I had gone to see another film at the cinema a week or so earlier. I was fully expecting this film to be a fairly typical, run-of-the-mill "disaster" type of film & did not hold out high hopes for the quality of the film, nor did I know much about the actors in it.

The previews I had seen seemed to indicate that it was based on a true story - but that did nothing to allay my pre-conceived notions as to what the film would be like. I also knew nothing about the "true story" on which the film was apparently based - so knew nothing of the story at all, & had not bothered to research it prior to seeing the film.

I was quite surprised then, when the film turned out to be so much better than I had expected. It wasn't exactly a star-studded cast, but there were a few recognisable faces there - the likes of Miles Teller, Jeff Bridges, Andie McDowell, & I scarcely recognised Josh Brolin, whom I had not seen in a film for a long time. The actors all played their roles well, so that we got a real idea of what their characters were about.

The film shows a group/squad of about 20 rural US fire-fighters going through their paces in training & real life scenarios, as they were trying to gain their accreditation as a "hot shot" group of fire-fighters. One of their training exercises involved the prompt deployment of their individual "fire shelters" (part of each fire-fighter's standard equipment) - specially designed shelters which one presumes were designed to shield them from the fire, as a last resort, if worst came to worst. I felt somewhat relieved knowing they were equipped with such special shelters for protection - because I was previously unaware of the existence of such shelters.

However, over the years as we watched this particular group of rural US fire-fighters in action, through several different fires, fortunately they'd never had to use them. Because of this, I found the film's ending particularly sad - it was quite a tear-jerker - so I'd recommend taking some tissues with you if you go to see this film. You might also want to do some reading about the true story on which this film is based. I only did that after I actually saw the movie - but it does sound like the film follows the reality of what happened quite closely -which is rather unique in the world of film-making.

I give this film an 8 out of 10 star rating.

What struck me most about this school is that it was supposedly an elite school in Ireland (& presumably charging quite high fees), located in an old stately home. Yet the actual "physical school facilities" that they had (on the inside of the building) were not very impressive by the standards of most modern schools.

I thought their facilities & classrooms looked somewhat old & decrepit & run-down, & very much below standard, when you compare it with any other modern-day school. However, it looked like their class sizes were very small, & it seems that the quality of the teaching must have made up for a lot of the good facilities which they lacked, because some of them obviously managed to get into the British schools of their choice such as Eton & Harrow.

You don't ever see either of the 2 main featured teachers do any really serious "subject teaching", though they do seem to have a unique way of getting across to their students in a lot of areas. The casual-ness of John's classroom attire as a teacher seemed a bit below par to me -often wearing just a sweat shirt & an old pair of jeans. I think in most countries, a certain standard of dress would normally be required of teachers, especially in a school which is quite elite, & therefore also one assumes, quite expensive in terms of school fees. John's standard of dress did make me wonder how well these teachers are paid. Perhaps teachers are not very well paid in Ireland, even in very elite schools which charge very high school fees. John came across as being a little bit eccentric.

The school's boarding facilities also looked rather cramped to me. In most modern boarding schools these days, students could normally expect to have their own small study-bedroom cubicle or room & a bit more privacy than these children had. It looked like there were at least 4 students per room/study-bedroom, & the students were all in bunk/double-decker beds (I guess they must have been short on space). The secondary school I attended back in the 1970's was also a boarding school, but there were no bunk beds in the dormitories even then, & the older-style cubicles/rooms (if one could call them that) were very large, with about 6 beds - 3 on each side of the room, alongside each other, with plenty of space in between for a wardrobe etc for each person. But by 1975, most students had their own small cubicle/study-bedroom.

I don't know how many students this particular boarding school in Ireland (called Headfort School) catered for, but it looked like possibly only a few hundred at most - which is quite small by most school standards these days. Often these days, schools claim they need to have at least 1,000 pupils to make it viable, & they are always trying to "grow" the student numbers. It looks like Headfort School does not have much capacity to increase its student numbers.

The 2 featured teachers at this particular school were obviously very devoted to the school & its students, & had been there for almost 50 years. They are both approaching retirement & are wondering what they will do once they don't have to come to the school each day to teach. It looks like they live in a house provided for them by the school, & just a short distance away from the school. But even the inside of their house, like the school, also looks rather old & somewhat run-down. Once they retire, they'll no longer be able to live in school-provided housing.

I definitely think this is a documentary well worth seeing, even if just to see how the other half lives. And I do wonder how the 2 featured teachers (a husband & wife) will enjoy their retirement & what they end up doing in their retirement years. I can well imagine it might be something to do with helping children...

I saw this film just this evening. Having read a lot about Scientology in the past, & also seen quite a few interviews with their leaders & followers, I already had a reasonable knowledge about Scientology, & this film mostly just reinforced what I already knew.

What I have always found strange about "The Church of Scientology" is that it calls itself a religion, & many of its buildings can be seen in the film, having Christian-style crosses atop them - yet I've rarely heard any Scientologist even mention the word "God" or "Jesus Christ". It is perfectly true what one of the interviewees says in the film - that if you were to ask any mainstream Christian what their basic beliefs were, they could probably state all the basics in a couple of minutes - yet it would be difficult for most Scientologists to do the same thing, because the real basis of their beliefs does not get revealed until one reaches the very highest levels of Scientology. It has always therefore seemed to me that Scientology is more like a "philosophy" or "life-style" than an actual religion which believes in God, or a god. However, Scientology has obviously been successful in convincing the US government that it IS a religion, because the US government has now granted it tax exempt status as a religion.

While Scientology does practice "disconnection" - the "shunning" of those who leave the "religion" (even family members) - it would not be the first religion to do so. Jehovah's Witnesses also practice shunning (they call it "disfellowshipping"), the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) also practice it, & even the Amish & similar Christian denominations also practice shunning of those "full/baptised members" who leave the religion.

Many years ago when I was a university student back in the 1980's, I can recall encountering Scientology people on the streets of the city where I attended university. However, I did not really understand who they were, back then. Of course, they were offering people their free "personality test" & one of the last questions they asked me, after I agreed to do the test, was something like, what was the most important thing for me in life. I think I recall saying something like living a good & enjoyable life & being happy. Of course they then said to me "we can help you with that" & asked me to come to their office where they could give me more information. However, I got the impression that no matter what answer I had given them, they would have told me they could help me with it. I went to their office, where I spoke to another person & completed another questionnaire & was then offered the chance to purchase the "Dianetics" book. I politely declined their offer & went on my way. However while there, I happened to notice another person in their office (who had taken the "personality test" like myself) who was from the same university college as myself. But he was "giving them heaps" & telling them what a load of rubbish all their "Dianetics" was! I must say, I do find it hard to understand why so many celebrities in particular seem to "fall" for Scientology, which is like a form of psychology in a way, but whose methods have in no way been scientifically proved. However, Scientology does seem to treat celebrities very differently to the way it treats its "regular" members.

All in all, I thought this was a good film, & most people who do not currently know much about Scientology will probably find it very interesting & revealing.