Reviews

I really wanted to like this film. I truly did. The cast seemed excellent (although the inclusion of "Homer" should have told me all I needed to know about the script). Sadly, the best looking men on screen could not save this one.

The language is always a problem, and I realize that it is hard to decide between going for pure period speech or making it all modern. I prefer the former with some latitude for comprehensibility, but too many writers today don't even realize how people spoke in times past, so the occasional slip into a modern cliché is just glaring.

So as long as you don't pay any money for it and put your brain in neutral you'll get through it fine. Chant the mantra: entertainment value.

Being an historian sometimes makes it hard for me to watch a film and just enjoy it without finding faults with this and that. This film is one with which I can find no fault.

More than that, it is "elegiac" -- poetry in scudding clouds and stunning sunsets, acting that ranges from raw to reserved. The cast is excellent. Unlike other films on Jesse James, this one does not glorify him nor does it focus on the exploits that made him famous. The movie picks up after the end of the James-Younger Gang in the twilight years as a harsh post-war world crashed down on the old time outlaws.

This is more the story of Robert Ford and how hero-worship turned to bitterness. He was the Mark Chapman of his day, driven to kill the man he idolized in order to take his place.

From all I can tell this film is historically accurate and well worth watching.

Shaara's book reshaped how the battle is viewed by the public and the film is a further refinement from the novel. As an historian I have to point out that Shaara shaped his narrative by selecting from the memoirs of the surviving generals, and the film went even further in its picking and choosing of portrayals. Shaara made choices. For instance we only hear Chamberlain's account of Little Round Top -- not that of his subordinate Ellis Spear who had a variant tale to tell, nor do we hear from Col. W. Oates of the Alabama regiment that was at the bottom of the hill, attacking upward.

So the film is excellent (except for the men's beards which appear to have been culled from local small mammals), but it is a script based on a novel based on memoirs, and that is a far cry from the history of a complex three day battle in the midst of a four year war.

By choosing his voices, Shaara's Union POV is left only to Chamberlain with little mention of the men who commanded and died on Little Round Top. Until 1974 Chamberlain had vanished from the accounts and Shaara put him back in the spotlight to the expense of Vincent, Weed, Hazlett, The Army of Northern Virginia is reduced to the Army of Nothing but Virginia. "Longstreet's Assault," later called the "Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Charge" (Longstreet didn't want his name attached to it) has again been popularly reduced to just Pickett -- whose men suffered no worse than those in the other two divisions. The plan was Lee's and Lee's alone. And General Pickett hated that the charge bore his name and he hated Lee for ordering it. It comes out in the film but only just barely.

Shaara was a novelist, not an historian and the film is based on the novel, not the history. So enjoy the film, get a taste for the subject and then go seek out the rest of the story. Far more happened than could be contained in any memoir, any novel or any film, but this is a good start. Just don't base your history term paper on it.

"Into Thin Air: Death On Everest" is a wonderful film and a good start into understanding -- if that is possible -- the need some people have to climb mountains. The film covers the main events of Krakauer's experience and condenses characters to fit the needs of a 90 minute TV film. While the basics are here, the story has been greatly slimmed down and the amount of time involved, truncated. For instance, I would have liked to have seen the daring helicopter rescue by a very brave Nepalese army pilot. To mark a landing spot, those on the mountain made a large X in the snow with a red sports drink.

Since the film was produced directly from Krakauer's book, it does not reference other accounts. Krakauer later admitted that some of the details he wrote were incorrect because he was as addled as everyone else, mistaking one climber for another. Krakauer's book is only one of several accounts of the tragic climb that took a fifteen lives in all. This movie could have used an extra half hours to cover more details, but it is fair to say that this is not meant to be a documentary. It comes down to a study of human hubris when faced with the drive to challenge the highest peak on Earth.

For those who want to understand the complexity of the real drama, it is necessary to study the other points of view, some of which contradict Krakauer. A good second film to watch is the IMAX film "Everest" which was filmed during the same climb. Anatoli Boukreev wrote a reply to Krakauer in his book "The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest." Scott Fisher's lead Sherpa, Lopsang, also responded to Krakauer's criticisms in writing. Tragically, both Boukreev and Lopsang died in separate climbing accidents not long after the fatal Everest events (Lopsang in September 1996 and Boukreev in December 1997).

For those who wonder about what it would be like to climb Everest, it is much safer to watch the film. It is about all the experience most of us will ever need.

What makes this action drama particularly moving is the comparison between the extended family of a Sicilian crime boss and the clannishness of the hillbillies. While Joey Rosellini insults the mountain folks as people "who farm rocks" his boss John Isabella sees the link -- "that is what they said about our people back in the old country." It is not a matter of who wears the nicer suit; it is a matter of blood, of kinship, and of ensuring that the one with the greater grievance has justice is done for his family. This is a very old tradition, both in the Sicilian families and in those Celtic clans that moved into the hills of Appalachia. In this aspect "Next of Kin" reaches a level of art not usually found in action films. The scene of the women packing sandwiches for the big hunt shows a level of clan community not well understood by us city-folk.

Watch this film and enjoy.

This is one of the best versions of "Robin Hood" I have ever seen and I would love to have it on DVD. It is a complete story as a mini-series, instead of on-going escapades that must always leave the full cast in place at the end of each episode. This is not the cheeriest version of the story but it is indeed one of the most accurate to traditional legends.

The merry men are remarkably well-cast. The villains are believable -- not strictly evil, but power hungry. David Dixon really shines as Prince John, as a weak-willed young man easily led into the plans of stronger men. I really look forward to seeing this one come out again.

After watching many Asian horror films I am finally getting used to the genre. The Thai films are amongst the best for creepy, twisted tales with some erotic content. "Sisters" certainly filled that promise admirably.

The story is told in flashback form, which some would say breaks the suspense. I find the return to supposed safety of the "present" a welcome relief between scenes of terror. While flashback form can be a little jarring at first, once I got used to the film's pace, I was not bothered by the shifts.

There are elements of "The Ring" in this, but that just may be an eastern cultural similarity, coupled with what you can do with limited funds and a camera. Like many other Thai horror films, this one does not strive to be funny nor seek redemption.

One other blessing -- "The Sisters" is dubbed in English. Being able to listen rather than read greatly added to my enjoyment of the film.