Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Prometheus (I) (2012)
8/10
The Keep in space...
12 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Just saw Prometheus in Imax 3D, and thought it was a terrific entertainment. That said, I do understand much of the disappointment. My first impression is that the various scenes, put together in the viewer's mind, suggest the plot. The "plot holes" to me were several missing scenes where the various happenings would be put together by the characters. Instead it struck me as annoying how the characters would just blurt out the conclusions... No doubt the DVD release will contain many of these scenes[?]

Early on, I thought the movie was essentially a revision of Michael Mann's "The Keep" more than a part of the the Alien franchise. The pyramid was sort of like the keep, and I was amused in the end with the malevolent "engineer" who looked sort of like "Molesar" from the keep, and who (like in the Keep) seemed to promise immortality to the frail old man character (here Weyland of The Weyland Yutani Corp., in the Keep Ian McKellan as a crippled archaelogist, etc.) and then turn out to be not only using him in a plot to destroy mankind. Yeah, the engineer does not talk directly to Weyland, but Weyland's mission unwittingly releases him... like in the keep. Oh, and in both the big guy takes out the old man for his trouble... To be honest, near the end I was kinda wishing I was watching the keep in 3D Imax!!! That's because I sorta found the Aliens franchise elements in the end kind of boring.

Overall, I'm giving it a good review not because of the Aliens prequel rubbish, but because Director Scott, the cast, etc. etc. have made a pretty good Sci-Fi film, with marvelous cinematography, etc. So forget the obligatory Alien comparisons, and just enjoy "The Keep" in space!!!!
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ironclads (1991 TV Movie)
Iron-clads don't float.
9 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I remember reading with great relish of this impending project in the pages of Civil War Times Illustrated back in 1990. Fresh off the heels of Glory, I was hooked and couldn't wait for the next BIG Civil War flick. Well, I finally saw it on cable a year later, and was generally disappointed. Regardless, I recently purchased a copy on VHS and have watched it a couple of times to kill time. My conclusions are as follows:

The love story is boring. I can only assume that the only reason it is included here is because the script was based to some degree on the two previous Monitor/Merrimac films (Confederate Ironclad (1910), and Hearts in Bondage (1936); though I have never seen either, both revolve around a female spy/love story/battle of the ironclads triad).

The espionage factor is interesting, and even more so Madsen's character's conversion from a Union spy to to something of a double agent (of course to save her boyfriend, see love story above...)

Overall I must conclude that the above was all just filler to keep production costs down. The love story is even absent on the cover art of the video box (features two models rather than production stars). One of the actors says in the movie "iron doesn't float," and that is certainly true of the leaden script employed here. Alas, there are no elements relating to the extraordinary construction of the two main protagonists: the Monitor and Merrimac! These last two are the real stars of this production.

When the above stars of the show do arrive, the tempo picks up as imagination is put into gear. I actually like the last half of the flick, and find the battle scenes well done for a television production. I almost wish they had just made a straight up documentary out of the models and action scenes. Unfortunately there are the obligatory cutaways to the perils of the love interest/spy/girlfriend...

But hey, its a TV movie, and kills some time. I can recommend it only for the special effects, and for naval buffs.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Southern Discomforts...
7 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The fact this film is a Vietnam War metaphor writ small is well established, (as shown by the previous comments), but there is more to this film than just "Vietnam." The setting is Louisiana, 1973 (a year after the Vietnam War ended for the US) where nine National Guardsmen on maneuvers in the swamps end up on the bad side of the local Cajun hunters. A bloody debacle results, in which the survival instincts of the Guardsmen are subordinated to their training (example: Cpl. Casper is taking them in the wrong direction, yet they continue to follow.) Again and again the voices of reason among the guardsmen are ignored, yet they follow to their destruction. Carradine's character comes to the fore as the leader only too late to save the squad.

The squad's leader, and first casualty is Sgt. Poole (Coyote), a decorated Vietnam Veteran. Noticeable, but not mentioned overtly, is the fact that Fred Ward's psychotic character, Reese, is wearing a 4th US Infantry Division "combat" patch on his right sleeve, suggesting his character was also a Vietnam Veteran (Poole wears the combat service patch of the 1st Infantry Division on his right sleeve). (Notice too the unspoken understanding between Reese and Poole at the critical point when they determine to take the hunters' boats.)

The remainder are all "weekend warriors," having presumably joined the guard during the war to avoid the draft, and possible Vietnam service. There is reference to their experiences battling rioting civil rights protesters and college students. Boothe's character, Hardin, is especially interesting, having served in the Texas Guard, but now transferred to the Louisiana Natl. Gd. to finish out his service. He doesn't want any trouble; with the NCOs (Poole/Casper), or with the "rednecks" of his new squad. Complete with his emotional baggage against the "rednecks" with whom he grew up and had to tolerate all his life, Hardin stands by idly as the events unfold which lead to disaster, but steadily comes to grips with his desire to survive at any cost. Reenter Fred Ward's violent Reese character; his will to survive transcends his duty to the squad, and while this plays out that he is a loose cannon notice that only he is unafraid of the Cajuns and is prepared for survival (perhaps from Vietnam service as noted above). Notice too that in most of his conflicts with the other guardsmen Reese is eventually vindicated. Examples: He carries live ammo in defiance of orders. He does not want to share it, and when he does the others waste it. He tries to get the CAjun Prisoner to talk by drowning him (and later we see he does indeed speak English).

Hardin and Reese finally come to grips and it is personal for Hardin, who discards his rifle and goes for it knife to knife against this embodiment of his bane: the "redneck." From that point on we see Hardin become in the Louisiana swamps what Reese had already become, perhaps in Vietnam ; a paranoid, a soldier willing to do whatever it took to survive, no matter what the cost. (we see the others reactions to this ordeal as well: Casper quotes manuals, Simms is in denial to the last, Bowdin, unable to come to grips with the situation and his emotions flips out totally, unable to act even to defend himself).

What does all this rambling mean? I'm not sure, but I can see here the brilliance of this film. the Cajuns may be pulling the triggers on them because their in the swamp, but what is getting these guardsmen in hot water is the minds they brought from the city! Here is an ugly glimpse of what it takes to survive in mortal combat against other humans: those trying to kill you, by association and outright.

As an aside, The film reiterates several times that these men "are the guard" and not Army regulars like those who served in Vietnam. Perhaps in Poole and Reese we see what their experiences in Vietnam create... the callousness of professional soldiers. Then we see the same in Boothe and Carradine who take their places here as the survivor and the leader. In "Southern Comfort" we see the south at war with itself...race riots of the 60's and the "new south" of the seventies are both referenced in this film, and it depicts the period in the middle. In the midst of the Vietnam metaphor of this movie is the battle between the college educated new south-type and the unthinking and reactionary redneck: between the home town high school football coach and the drug pusher (Cribbs); and between all of them of the old and new south and the Cajuns of the "lost" south. All that and Ry Cooder's music too!
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Alamo (2004)
History Not Artistry
14 April 2004
I enjoyed this movie a great deal, although it definitely reinforces the case that historical accuracy alone does not make a great movie. I concur with many of the previously posted criticisms regarding this movie as ART, but got a kick out of a few elements of it that I noticed. Among the actors who appear in this version of the Alamo were two who appeared in the last major retelling; 1987s "The Alamo; Thirteen Days to Glory:" Tom Everett and Buck Taylor. Also, regarding historical accuracy, a portion of the lost garrison were "New Orleans Grays," volunteers for Texas from Louisiana who wore grey uniforms. I enjoyed seeing them depicted among the motley militia etc. of the garrison. On that score, many of my friends were confused by the references to Travis commanding the "regulars" and Bowie the "volunteers." This was not a reference to the United States Army, But to the ARmy of the Republic of Texas, which included a core group of enlisted regulars (who did recieve uniforms after the republic was established), and volunteers, who were to serve only in wartime; in effect embodied Texian militiamen. These were supplemented by numerous independent companies of Volunteers from the United States, (like the Grays) who went to Texas to join the fray. Among Houston's army at San Jacinto were depicted a number of US Army "deserters" in the sky blue jackets and trousers, who are understood to have joined the Texan Army (with or without official permission is debateable.) The Two scenes that stand out in my mind were all to brief: The scene where the Grays are bayonetted to death in their barracks room was chilling and evocative in a way I have not seen in previous cinematic versions; Second, Crockett's execution, with the mixture of bemusement and rancor evident in the Mexicans. As I understand it is now pretty much accepted fact among historians that C. was executed, but by Santa Anna's staff officers in order to please their leader.In fact, I found myself more interested in the Mexican scenes than the rambling between the Texian principals. I appreciated the redemption theme of the film among the Alamo leaders, but after a few dialogues it was redundant, and I longed for more concentration on Billy Bob's Crockett and Echevarria's Santa Anna.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
master and commander...of filmmaking?
27 November 2003
Director Peter Weir's Master and Commander, like it or not, is plain and simple and extraordinarilly well made film. The nuances of the plot are so many, that despite seeing it twice, I am still musing over the various themes presented: examples include the conflict between science and war making,(or is there one?), the natural relationships of authority vs. independence, etc. Indeed the very title of the film "Master and Commander" references Crowe's Captain Aubrey to a tee. Despite his own references to duty to England and the Crown as impetus to continue, It developes that he has early on exceeded his orders to pursue their opponents into the Pacific. He also chooses to leave the chase to save the life of his friend Maturin. The fate of the HMS Surprise, and of the "197 souls" aboard lie solely in the hands of Captain Aubrey, and his will, or hubris, propel this adventure. Aubrey delivers patriotic speeches to his crew, but at the end he notes the goal was "....for the prize!" the journeys in the Galapogos, considered an annoyance to the plot by some of my friends, I found to be an extraordinarily ironic and fascinating twist. This turn in the film, more than anything else generates the character developement of Aubrey and Maturin as they come into conflict.

While the dialogue is filled with naval jargon, confusing to lubbers, but fun no less, I found the musical score was perfectly mated to the images to form a more complete idea of the emotions at work. thundering drums recall the excitement of preparations for battle, vs. the more gentle strains accompany the excitement of scientific discovery etc. Even the irony of being bested again in the end comes through in the music, literally. I though this flick was a work of art from the first shot to the last. It would be nice to see Weir and the others involved with this film given official credit, via awards; but any failures on that score cannot diminish this fine epic of understated acting and epic filmmaking.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Breakthrough (1979)
boring war action over acting
23 May 2003
This movie is very disappointing. Following on the heels of the fascinating Cross of Iron, this flick is a true dud. Richard Burtons' Sgt. Steiner (as opposed to James Coburns'portrayal in CofI) might have been intriguing but for the bland, and badly made film that surrounds him. Wheras Cross of Iron had at least a feasable script, the main theme of of war disillusionment and the plot to kill Hitler just gets in the way. I suspect this whole red herring was added to make the movie more palatable for its German co-producers etc.(or vice versa) the score by the Berlin Orchestra is ridiculous, and sounds like something from a fast paced breaking news cast; Also very distracting. Regardless, Burtons' enigmatic portrayal of a stereotypically stoic German soldier stands out. It is just too bad this movie's makers failed to capitalize on their best assets: their actors!
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
better when it was called BAT 21
3 August 2002
This movie is not very good. Its morality is drawn right out of overblown journalism, picking villains out of the vault of political correctness. I mention this because few of its audience have much of a clue about the Civil War in Yugoslavia (nor much of an intirest)and the movie tries its preachy best to take advantage of that fact. Regardless, the Serbs have done some bad things, so if ya' gotta pick an enemy, why not them (among many others). My point being they might as well not have bothered laboring this mediocre action film with any "evil does exist and here's an example" morality at all; it is lost in the medium (example: Rambo III). Leave this one on the video shelf unless you are a die-hard Owen Wilson fan, and if you are a Gene Hackman fan, you will see a MUCH better version of this movie by watching BAT 21.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gettysburg (1993)
Epic TV does not translate to the big screen
2 August 2002
Gettysburg was an ambitious project to say the least, but the finished product lacks depth (replaced by length) and fails to break free of the fictional constraints imposed by the novel the screenplay was adapted from. This was an epic television production which is sadly lacking as a theatrical release. The cinematography fails to create tension so much as tedium (I think Pickett's charge could have been filmed better, with less overhead shots, showing the flank etc. It has the effect of minimalizing the movement. Also, only ONE scene, filmed from in front of the troops, gives the effect of a rolling mass, a juggernaut closing ranks as its torn by shell) It may be fine for the constraints of the small screen, but just wasn't as effective on the big one. Regardless, as a TV movie it stands head and shoulders above the majority, and Ron Maxwells' ambition has been proven correct by the wide popular acceptance of his film, despite its gaping cinematic and historical errors. The biggest drawback to this flick is its source material. Its screenplay was adapted from "the Killer Angels." While this novel has been lauded as a great work, it is in the end only FICTION. It suffers most from creating caricatures rather than characters. Author Shaara linked a series of historical anecdotes to a bunch of necessarily inaccurate personal "thumbnail" sketches, Oh yeah, and a big battle, and POOF: instand Drama! The movie suffers from adopting too many of these 2-D paperback personas: Sullen Longstreet, Otherworldly Lee, Wildcat Pickett, Gentle Poet Warrior Chamberlain etc. Again, caricatures rather than characters, although many of the talented actors at work do give life to the lies. Add the overtly simplistic, and outrageously lengthy dialogues and the roar of our greatest battle becomes a tragic groan! I just have the feeling Maxwell could have conveyed some of the inner turmoil through a few well done closeups, body language, you know, ACTING; but he had to fill time to make this a MINI-SERIES, and the end result is just that. Gettysburg; the TV Show. In closing, I would like to say that despite my criticisms I appreciate the efforts made to make this film. I even enjoy watching it now and again, well, only the action scenes anyway (I grew bored with the FICTIONAL dialogues and scenes: when will they learn truth IS more intiresting than fiction in historical films?) Sure most of the reenactors are too old, but they are the ones with enough free time to participate in such projects. I also appreciate the dedication of Ron Maxwell and others to tell this story, even if it isn't truthful as history.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Patriot (2000)
Not history, but still a just a movie.
30 July 2002
Okay, the Patriot is not a great historical document, and it sits better to watch it realizing that it is just a movie and not a history lesson. This movie's main critics seem to concentrate on its historical inaccuracies, which are indeed plentiful. When it comes down to it this is indeed just another Mel Gibson vehicle, but like all of his action flicks there are some meanings embedded into the story as simple as they may be. Like Braveheart this one tackles rebellion from an oppressive power. In both Gibson is of course cast as the hero, but it is notable that both portray historical rebellions, albeit in an historically inaccurate light. Contrast this fact with the thousands of action flicks with the same righteous rebellion theme which mindlessly occur in the future, or in a galaxy, far, far away. At least Mel & Co. have the guts to stand up and admit that people HAVE fought for real causes, even if those causes are unclear from this flick. Another criticism of this movie concerns its soft touch on the slavery issue. Thematically this is explained by the statement of the son while repairing a torn US flag. The country they are fighting for, all of them be they black or white, will grow from the ashes of the old world (an obvious reference to slavery, the principal US inheritance from its British roots) This process was not instant, and the movie does not suggest it was. It merely foreshadows the advances made to the present. As far as the evil British go, it is a shame the movie chose a cookie cutter snarling "Tavington" bad guy. Indeed, the real "Tavington," Bannaster Tarleton, was a reckless and murderous daredevil who executed prisoners left and right, and it would have been better to see his alter ego here commit such acts with the suave air of the gentleman the real Tarleton bore. Propaganda? Sure! but in the end just a movie, and not half bad at that. Many, even here in the US, complained of Mel's character arming his sons for battle. Children have always engaged in war, and our revolution was no exception, take our former president Andrew Jackson, who lived the truth represented here. As a boy he engaged in the guerrilla war in the Carolinas against Cornwallis etc. and he wasn't the only one. What the movie lads are shooting down aren't people (real soldiers wouldn't behave under fire as they did) they are figurative representatives of imperialism, monarchy, oppression etc.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Western Adventure Morality Play!
30 July 2002
I first saw this movie as a small child on television, and twenty-two years later I finally got the guts to rent it last week to revisit it, and to see why I was so interested in it then. I recalled the exciting cavalry charges etc. and I even remembered the opening refrain of the strange musical score. I really enjoyed this movie unlike most of my childhood favorites. While the movie itself is alot like a John Ford Cavalry opera, it plays out alot differently. This one has more in common with the modern action movie, I think, than with most B-westerns of the 1960's. The fast pace of the movie, unearthly fates of the dead, anti-heroism of the protagonist (James Garner), and well done scenes of horse-borne combat combine to create a Western-Adventure-Morality Play that I certainly recommend. There are multiple forces at play here. Among them the bizarre, scorched desert scenery, Garner's quest for revenge for his dead Indian wife while pining over the married woman disgraced by her captivity with the Apaches, The underlying loyalty of Poitier's former soldier character to his former comrades (despite his overtly self-serving statements) contrasted with the underlying self-promoting purposes of Bill Traver's role as military commander. Too, I see shades of this one in 1993's Geronimo by Walter Hill (burning vistas, Apaches hidden in the ground, Garner's Remsberg character in Duval's Al Seiber etc.) The musical score is off-beat for standard western fare, but who needs more drum beats, flutes, and rattles?! I think the score compliments the movie well, and is perhaps the best indicator that this production thinks outside of the box, even if it remains within it subjectively. This may not qualify as a classic, but I definitely think its a great action flick, and a breath of western fresh air with intriguing insights into race, warfare, culture, and the winning of the west.
47 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Merrill's Marauders (I) (1962)
Production vs. product
29 July 2002
Merrill's Marauders isn't the best WWII film by a long shot. However, it does have several things going for it. Director Sam Fuller had plenty of army infantry service under his belt from his own WWII experiences. That in itself makes it difficult to argue with his portrayal of the trials of Merrill's foot soldiers. I notice this movie turns on the breaking point of the Marauders, especially how these American infantrymen transcended it in order to win. this is a hallmark of the special forces tradition, but I think Fuller is less interested in the origins of the US special forces than in defining the qualities of physical and mental fortitude necessary for successful soldiers. There is more than the stoicism of normal Hollywood heroes here, these characters do reach the end of their ropes, but fall in for another fight, time and again. The other noticeable production element is the apparent use of active duty personnel as extras. This shows in scenes like the assault on Wallabum, with the men charging in squad rushes (one of the best battle scenes of the movie). Other parts of that same battle scene, and others, aren't so impressive, but This flick isn't about the action. It is Fuller's biggest war production, if not quite his best, and while it may not be his best film, a close viewing may redeem the effort.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Distant Drums (1951)
The scenery outdoes the content of this rare Seminole War film.
29 July 2002
There are not very many films depicting the 2nd Seminole War of 1835-1842, in Florida. This is unfortunate as this was not only America's longest, but its bloodiest Indian war as well. Other films relating to this conflict include Seminole, and Naked in the Sun. Due to the sparsity of Seminole War films I will admit a bias for this film despite its ridiculous plot, bargain basement Hollywood surplus wardrobe (The soldiers are in a mix of fanciful fringed pants and ca. 1898 Spanish-American War hats and shirts etc.), and anachronistic armaments(the soldiers are using M-1873 Trapdoor carbines, the Seminoles the full length M-1873 rifle-both sides used flintlock weapons in 1840). A large chunk of the plot surrounds Cuban gun runners supporting the Warriors. In truth, despite 7 years of naval blockade of the Florida Coast, the US Navy never proved the fears of such a trade from Cuba...I could go on and on... True, this is nothing more than a transplanted "western" in the Swamps of Florida, although I detect a great deal of Director Walsh's previous Objective Burma in this flick (compare the gator pit in the Seminole village with the similar scene in the Japanese held village in Objective Burma) The true star of this one is the scenery, as, almost alone amongst the few Seminole War films, this one takes full advantage of the wildly beautiful Florida Wilderness. Other comments note the great underwater battle scene, but I am spellbound by the cypress swamp and saw-grass settings as well. You won't learn much about the War from this movie, but it does have some basis in fact. By 1840 the army was relying on small patrols like Cooper's in the film to track down hostile Seminoles for removal to the west. Thats about as close as it comes to the history books, but it is still an exciting action film with an O.K. musical score.
26 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed