Reviews

I just watched this two part episode this morning and felt honored to have been able to see something this excellent.

It was better than 95% of anything Hollywood has put out in the decades since.

Incredible acting, direction, the whole deal was so advanced for the time and frankly more advanced than most things out today.

This has to rank in any honest top ten list of the best episodes of any series ever filmed.

From what I read, ABC spent over $300,000 on this one episode, a great deal of money in the mid 60s for a TV series.

It was an investment that should be remembered. ABC should consider running this again, in prime time as a movie.

What a horrible movie. It was just above a community college level film. The acting was horrible. Why can't Bruce Campbell get some projects worthy of him?

As to the premise that had JFK lived, things would have been wonderful, I simply had to gag. Kennedy is perhaps the most overrated person in history.

Only Lady Diana approaches the level of a person being elevated to veneration when in real life they were next to worthless.

The old slur against Hoover is brought out again. There is nothing aside from the last minute allegation of a convicted felon against Hoover to support the contention he was a transvestite. But the liberal community in Hollywood as agreed to run it again and again until it becomes accepted as truth. When you see any film doing this, it lets you know what a joke it is.

Additionally the acting here was sad. Ralph Waite's performance as the time traveler bordered on being so saccharine that I had to check my blood sugar.

Jackie Kennedy is shown as this wonderful paragon of virtue when most comment now on her actual vapidness. I wonder what trophy wife Onassis picked up in the alternate timeline.

This movie was terrible.

I think some people have certain deadspots as it relates to certain actors. Steve McQueen is one of my own deadspots.

Aside from a furrowed eyebrow and smiling now and then, I really don't see any risk of McQueen being mistaken for a great actor.

As to plot problems with Bullet, what immediately strikes me, from the prespective of a former police officer is the security or lack there of.

It basically goes like this, "Officer, there is a suspect that the mafia with all its resources wants to kill, you have to protect him for a couple of days." "Will do, I'll drop one guy off and go out and grab some dinner at the club."

I mean you leave one officer to protect this guy in a location that you didn't choose, and have no clue how many people might know where you are. They didn't even bother to push anything up against the door. They relied on that really solid 1/4 inch chain and a few screws.

As with a lot of movies, it's mainly remembered for one standout scene, something that captures the public's imagination and becomes a national icon. Without the car chase, who could really see Bullet as anything special?

Selleck proved once again that he is a fine actor and was not merely some beefcake actor that had a good run before his series left TV. Here, within the time and the nature of the story he shows Eisenhower as the military leader, politician, and diplomat that Ike had to be.

It also shows the burden of leadership. The naysayers, even the ones with good intentions and concerns in the end do not have to make the decision. Selleck shows us the nature of the man who does. History is written by the winners of course and as with many a war, to include very recent ones, there will always be those who will be critical of every decision, every choice made.

Eisenhower, as with all leaders, made a choice, followed through on it, and put everything, to include history's judgment of him on the line. Few then as now have the guts to do this.

As to showing Patton in a negative light, I had at first that very same feeling as many posters who didn't like seeing someone such as Patton treated this way. But his entire fate rested in Eisenhower's hands, despite Patton's greatness in battle, there did come a time when he was completely at the mercy as it were, of a former subordinate. If we see a sense of shame, it's has to be reflective of what the actual Patton felt in Ike's office.

I think Monty came off better. Granted, his ego was shown, but was not overdone. There was actually before and well after D-Day Monty's habit of doing everything he could, right up to a certain limit to challenge Ike's leadership. One level of genius for Monty was knowing precisely how far to go and when demanded, knowing how to back off gracefully. The film could have demonized him, but didn't. It seem actually rather fair.

As to the French, what can you say....the truth hurts....at least you can say they have been proved consistent in their ways over the years.

The dialogue here between these soldiers sounds more like the Peyote inspired conversation of some freshmen philosophy majors.

It's just so overwrought and tries to hammer its points of war is bad, the beauty within, and every other obvious pop psychology theme of the last half century.

Caviezel is excellent and gives his usual and unique from another world performance as does Penn. Nolte however must have been taking the drug he was linked with during a DUI arrest for longer than we knew. His performance is simply terrible. Granted his roll was written by people who obviously see the military as a collection of every cliche and neurotic type possible. Your typical Hollywood writer knows few people outside those in his various therapy session groups. Who in Hollywood is sane?

The people in this production have read way too much Mailer and have seen Apocalypse Now too often. Perhaps doing so under the influence of the above mentioned Peyote.

There should be a rule of sequels that one does not invalidate the entire purpose of the one preceding it.

Aliens 3 cynically opens with, "Hey everything you saw in Aliens 2, everything Ripley endured and did meant NOTHING."

Once you strip away that gleam of hope, instill a complete sense of futility, you create in the viewer a, "What's the purpose, they are all gonna die anyway" mindset.

Sequels these days while complained about do carry with them advantage over say the trilogies of even a decade ago. Today most films with even a promise of a sequel or a series of sequels carry along with them a story arc. There is a lot less of the making it up as we go along to the writing of each installment than in the past.

Even this is a double edge sword. Where as you don't have to explain how a person who in the first movement was seen having their head chopped off didn't really die, you loose the creativity of having to write yourself out of what was once a story's deadend.

The problem with satire, is often the more well done it's made, there will be more people who won't get it.

Everything here is over the top, but that's the point. Quentin knows what he is doing in this wonderful mixture of styles.

Just like South Park, Big and Uncut attacked the concepts and social structure of profanity (while not glorifying it by the way), Kill Bill does the same to notions about violence in movies.

Having anime in the film isn't just a device to tell background or because Quentin is a fan. It admits that the rest of the film can be seen in the same context. The blood sprays from a newly headless body would require a hundred times more blood than the average person has, the ability to take on and defeat a hundred villains is something only a superhero could accomplish.

The film calls upon a viewer to think about how they view different genres of film, what is true violence on film and what is of a cartoon nature and how far and just how dark a hero, can be allowed to go.

Italian produced films often try and paint their own involvement in World War 2 as some sort of accident.

Here in Anzio, the film tries to treat Italy as just another country like France, waiting with baited breath for liberation. Granted, Italy did surrender in the middle of the war but ask the Brits from the 8th Army at Tobruk if the Italians were neutral.

It takes on sides in a debate over the handling of the battle by the various generals. That the film is so unworthy to do so is like listening to a lecture from a 14 year old about how society works.

The film tries under the guise of being gritty to portray a number of the American soldiers as criminals, nutjobs, and horndogs. While the horndog might be accurate, the other two groupings do not represent the American military. Of course some in the military were like this, but the producer tends to shape it as if it were the rule, instead of the exception.

Robert Mitchum, one of the most over-rated actors in Hollywood history tries to play it both ways here. He talks about why men kill other men. A comment, during the second world war, which would require only a 5 second film clip from one of the concentration camps to explain why the Brits and the Americans were fighting and thus killing Germans. Within 2 minutes, however of this pacifist musing the director wants you to get all jazzed over some Germans being shot.

The stereotypes are sloppy. Falk, another actor that gets more credit that he deserves is way over the top and seems not to have a grasp of what his character is all about.

Like the actual Anizo campaign, this film is disorganized and doesn't at all live up to the potential that was there.

I would have liked this movie more if Wolverine wasn't shown killing a bunch of US Special Forces Soldiers sent into the school. Yeah, let's have those mean old soldiers try and go in and hurt those poor little kids.

The Hollywood cliche of showing every US General as either a fool or a villain continues. Of course it follows the comic on this, but comic book producers are as left wing these days as the folks in Tinsel Town.

The fact that it doesn't even raise an eyebrow with people is proof of just how well the public has been conditioned to think poorly in some ways of what its government does. When was the last time the CIA was show in a positive light? It hardly ever is. Well I got news for you, they put stars up in the lobby for CIA officers who die in the line of duty. The crew that puts those stars up stays pretty busy. Those are men and women who have died and continue to die defending this country. Some can never, even after death, have their names revealed.

As to the soldiers, the "snake eater types" that Wolverine kills, there is something else to be remembered. There are real heroes in this world and they are United States soldiers. They along with their allies (Brits and others) are the ones that keep us safe from evils far worse and real than you are going to find in a comic book or movie.

This movie has a soul.

It shows respect for the American Soldier. It isn't politically correct among many, including some of the posters here to do that it seems.

Pity those who can't grasp the concept of men who believe there are things bigger than themselves and who bet their very lives on that belief. The film accomplishes this tribute to the soldier by also giving due to the NVA Regular who fought with bravery. Nothing shows the nobility of a fighting man than by showing the quality and courage of his opponent. Like Colonel Moore says in his prayer however, he understands their humanity to a degree but wants them to die in battle and not his men. That's compassion laced with a real world understanding of how things are.

Men who throw themselves on grenades, who charge into enemy fire, who while wounded themselves risk themselves again to save a comrade are not Hollywood cliches. There are countless citations of such acts made from Breed's Hill to the Sunni Triangle. With the Sunni Triangle, it's happening as I type these words.

Kinear did a fine job showing the humor that is so common among men in the military. Sheppard caught the spirit of the professional Sgt. Major, Barry Pepper displays well a time when an American journalist saw that he was first an American and then a reporter.

This movie captures the worth and nobility of the typical American soldier.

By the way, the only reason we have a film industry that produce films from all perspectives is because the American soldier made it possible. And this holds true for every nation in the world where films are made that are not censored by their government. Because if it wasn't for the United States and her soldiers, freedom wouldn't exist anywhere.

Remember that when you eat your popcorn.

This was an enjoyable film. I couldn't help but wonder if it had an influence on other films. It almost seems a bridge film, with it positioned between The Wizard of Oz and Willy Wonka.

You would think just for the title alone the film would be known, but I just discovered it the other day and I have been watching films for 40 years.

Hans Conried performance makes you wish he had been given even more work as a lead. He is an Anti-Danny Kaye type. Same abilities, same range, but made for bad guy roles.

His work as Snidely Whiplash to this day remains among the very funniest of any animation. This film showcases him as well it should.

The other actors, including Lassie's best friend frankly seem to be more for background than anything else.

The music could have been a bit better as well. If the producers didn't use some of the folks who worked on the aforementioned Danny Kaye movies, they should have.

All in all, this movie will kill some time on a rainy afternoon perfectly.

Now granted, if you are one of those types that complain because your ice water was served cold and wet you might not like this. But if you go into with the knowledge you are not in some USC film class, you can enjoy a lazy afternoon watching this.

Urich is his usual engaging self. This actor while in some pretty broad roles always managed to keep his performance low key.

He does so as the pilot of this doomed plane. There is a question of potentially sacrificing the lives of some to save the others, a nice little addition to your standard disaster movie.

This movie as well as some of the well meaning comments about it have to make one wonder.

Most prison movies focus on the prisoners and more often than not make them the heroes. Of course guards are shown as being brutal. If more people knew who was being kept in prisons, they would send thank you notes weekly to correctional officers for keeping the bad guys and gals locked up and society safer.

Of course we have to forget the fact that the people in prison are there for raping kids, killing old folks, committing fraud and taking the life savings of someone, thieves who take a family's hard earned possessions, and on and on.

No, we forget that and have actors in this movie talking about escape as being part of a noble goal to shut down an inhumane prison.

I thought the acting was rather poor, the direction phony, and the piggybacking on to a real event with a totally unproven conclusion false.

This was a silly and funny little movie.

Everything from the narrator to the faux Indian tribe was done for laughs and it was clean family worthy viewing.

Alfred Molina makes a perfect Snidely Whiplash and how anyone can watch this film and not notice his timing, his interaction with the other actors and not be impressed is beyond me.

It's not a bad way to kill 77 minutes.

The cast had a certain chemistry about them that worked rather well. There was a fair amount of humor to the show, but too many questions, such as one poster put forth, "when he goes back, why doesn't he see himself?"

Another problem the show had was their trying to take hits at Republicans, especially George W. Bush. It then had that "oh so Canadian" feel to it.

This is a problem that has plagued other shows based in Canada, John Doe recently is a good example. While a decent show, it would have it's actor make disparaging comments about the United States military.

The problem of course is that the core audience of a lot of action adventure shows are males who often have been in the military. It makes no sense to alienate them, but it seems the North of the border producers, wanting to do more than produce a successful little show, try and interject their politics.

Cox did a fine job as Goering, but Baldwin's acting as useful was all over the place and completely about him. He is simply one of the worst actors around and his career path is reflecting it.

The debate between Goering and the Jewish Captain took many things completely out of context and almost seemed to argue on behalf of the Nazi point.

Goering going on about how the Americans would not have bombed Germany as they did Japan is a liberal lie that has been touted for a long time. It ignores the fire bombing for example of Dresden and other German cities. Now an argument can be made about the moral right of a nation to target, via air bombardment, dense population centers. But this movie tries to equate America's racism with Nazi Germany. The other lie in this same vein is that only Japanese-Americans were interned in World War 2. This also isn't true. While not politically correct to mention, for fear it will somehow lessen the injustice to the Japanese-Americans, thousands of Germans, German-Americans, Italians, and Italian-Americans,were in fact were placed in American detention centers. These were not the POWs caught during the war, but civilians detained at the start.

When a movie makes as a basis a historical event and is so wrong on certain important points, it has an adverse effect on the rest of the film.

I had some hope for this movie, in that it would be original. I found however a film that despite what some critics say to be poorly paced, forced, and at times not funny, but just silly. The acting was fair, but the direction and the editing didn't add to any sense of narrative.

Save even your rental fee on this one. Perhaps in a few years, around 3am on HBO when watching an informercial is your only other alternative will be a good time to watch this.

This wasn't a bad movie, it's just that I have seen it done a dozen other times and mostly done better.

Dwayne, AKA The Rock, didn't do a bad job and could do other roles. Doing a role as Vin Diesel's brother comes to mind.

There just wasn't any way to care about what happened. The viewer wasn't allowed to forget for a second that they were watching actors and this was all a movie.

Watching the alternate endings on the DVD just reinforces how they must have had a list of cliche tag lines, "Catch this" "My prophecy says you are going to die" and so forth. This wasn't a story turned into a movie, it was a marketing plan for a film built around The Rock.

If you want some excuse to eat some popcorn, watch a few swords and arrows tossed about, and look at nice set of abs (his or hers), this movie will do.

What a terrible movie.

I mean this really proves that there are different levels of hell as they relate to chic flicks.

This is the movie that would be showing in the Hitler and Stalin level.

Sarandon over-acts as she normally does and Goldie, well Goldie is doing what she has done for 30 something years now.

Men should do a preemptive strike, ala President Bush, and rent "Terms of Endearment" instead. Perhaps that bit of fake sensitivity will get them out of having to go see this.

This sequel sets the standard for sequels being inferior to the original. Aside from some interesting camera angles, Ms. Welch's clevage, and some pretty scenery, this movie is just a collection of oh so clever scenes.

It's a waste of time.

McQueen is one of the most over rated actors in film. But what studio idiot ever thought he could do comedy? He couldn't. This movie has nothing going for it.

Now add that with the large part of the cast of "Where the Boys Are", and you have what could be used to get the truth from inmates at Camp X-Ray.

This is a show that never gets the respect or attention of its' better known relatives, "The Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits".

The show has a simpler format than the above mentioned series but is, or as a result of, able to maintain an air of "hey it could happen" throughout each episode.

Most of the performances are well done by the various actors, with only some being ham fisted.

Newland's performance as the convert host also enhances the production as does the haunting music.