Reviews

Everyone should watch this just to see Douglas Fairbanks single-handedly storm the castle. It only gets him so far, but still -- well done!

This is an excellent movie that every Fairbanks Sr. fan and Robin Hood aficionado has probably watched and enjoyed dozens of times. If you haven't seen it yet, it's online in several websites(it's the "symphonic" one) -- this seems ludicrously over the top at first, but it really picks up the overall pace and gets you into the properly expansive mood. Also they play for the full intermission.

The story's timing is perfect, particularly near the end: your heart sinks when you realize that the Merry Men aren't going to get there in time. Robin Hood surrendered too soon!

Some overlooked gems here are:

1. Sam de Grasse's Prince John: this man registers volumes just getting up out of a chair. He's my favorite bad guy of the silent era. And his body language in that last shot is perfect.

2. The "weasel" -- the guy who goes to get that bag of gold and ends up hanging out for a while, so to speak. He's in several Fairbanks movies and always is so delightfully slimy (in this movie, especially) and crazy (as in "The Black Pirate").

3. The subtle nuances of Wallace Beery's portrayal of Richard. Yes, they're there -- things like his affection for the fool (it's not obvious but present: we only realize how angry he is at Huntingdon during the tent argument when the fool shrinks away from him in terror); and his inability to understand complex things like Huntingdon's request to head back to England -- notice how Beery conveys that with his hands -- and how he doesn't discipline John at the tournament when the prince turns his back on Richard and stalks away. Richard, we realize in retrospect, has to take some blame for the problems in this story precisely because he is a buff muttonhead. The eventual pail-over-the-head knightly disguise underlines that, intentionally or not.

4. The costumes, props, and sets: geometric patterns, rich materials, jewels galore, lots of decorative details. This movie would have been a feast for the eyes if it were in color!

I took off one point for a few dated things here and there . . . and also because Richard should have given that other dog something at the feast, too - it wanted that treat so bad!

There are a lot of disappointed reviews here and the film didn't do that well at the box office, but I think this version of the exodus out of Egypt will stand the test of time for its exploration of what it means to be a Jew, as well as for Bale's performance, which drew me in despite my initial lack of interest (somebody I know was watching the DVD). I checked it out, wanting to compare it to the 1960s epics that I'm familiar with, and Bale turned Moses into a relatable human being for me.

Much better than the Sixties-style Hollywood epics (though I enjoy those for the spectacle).

There was also that bit of dialogue that summed up the general thrust: being Hebrew means "wrestling with God" rather than "chosen of God," it was explained. The interactions of Moses and the child (which, incidentally, summed up this Buddhist's view of the god in question better than any I've seen on film) were the most obvious form of wrestling, but it was a many-layered presentation in which several lesser-billed characters and unnamed extras did wonderful work.

Finally, it may take years before people can see how much Scott has reflected our current culture in the subtext to "Exodus." That's a brave move on his part - such awareness is not at all popular right now. I especially enjoyed the Expert.

This movie also made me realize how monolithic and "dead-god"-like post-Sixties western society today is.

I took two points off. The CGI was awesome but impersonal (big problem in many movies) everywhere but the end sequence crossing the Dead Sea. Then - SPOILER - Moses got hit by the wave and Ramses survived. I like the traditional version better.

But the ending was perfect, absolutely perfect, and so was Bale in that last scene (he didn't say a single word...and no word needed to be said. The man is a master, and so is the director).

Hollywood has spoiled me into thinking that science fiction movies have to be technologically beautiful, with logical plots.

"Europa Report" felt disappointing because of that silly expectation even as it held me glued to the seat for the full 97 minutes.

The tropes are there right from the get-go. In that sense, it's a very familiar story. This keeps the viewer's attention as things unfold in a very realistic way that, while distracting and irritating at times, puts us right in there with the characters.

By the time they get to Europa, we really know them...well, the ones who are left. And we know the tropes so well, we are (rightly) very, very concerned about them.

As a side point, I like how they leave the question hanging about what happened to that one guy until a crew member volunteers for an EVA and all these super-rational astronauts suddenly argue emotionally against it. They don't want to go through a horrific experience again.

--SPOILERS AHEAD--

Then, when things deteriorate, just when you're thinking it's basically a human story about survival, the focus turns back to why "boldly going where no human has gone before" is such a powerful draw.

We are shown why when when one of the crew takes a walk on Europa. We see the setting AND her intense reaction to it. It's more than pretty pictures. She also finds a definite answer to one of the big questions mankind has about the Universe.

It's very difficult to show wonder because it disappears as soon as you label it. This is a wonder-filled movie, perhaps because they show it always present with its shadow: abject terror.

The greatest wonder of all, it turns out, is life. This movie packs an emotional double-whammy to get that message across. The first time is when the engineer wakes up in the chamber after almost dying during his space walk. It's a wonder he's still alive, and yet as soon as he realizes it, he screams in horror (understandably, given the circumstances).

Y'know, just like the first thing a baby does when it's born.

The second and biggest whammy comes at the end. Things have been happening; it's survival time; and the crew members seem to be reacting just as the viewer would - with gut instinct and refusal to think about approaching death until the last instant. We watch the inevitable play out and finally see the light maker. It's over...no, wait!

Through the last voice over, we learn that we missed what was really going on. These people aren't completely like us after all. They have something bigger than themselves to work for, and so, instead of completely freaking out like the viewer was at that point, it turns out that the last crew members did something heroic right in front of us that made the mission a success.

Also, at great cost, they've shown us the light maker and indeed have "changed the fundamental context in which all of humanity understands itself," not least because it's looking back at us.

"Compared to the breadth of knowledge yet to be known... what does your life actually matter?" That's something you can only show, not tell, and they did this so well in "Europa Report" that I didn't take off a vote for showing Earth gravity on Europa - the only technological misstep in the movie that I could spot.

(By the way, that quote really should be in the Quotes section here - it's the whole point of the movie.)

You will be disappointed if you go into this movie expecting the same seamless storytelling and FX spectacle that "Iron Man" was from start to finish. That said, the good parts of this movie will grab you in exactly the same way and they come frequently enough that you can easily overlook the more disappointing parts.

A good example of this high-low effect in "Iron Man 2" is our reintroduction to Tony. That sequence where, suited, he leaps out of the plane and flies into the Stark Expo is just mindbogglingly good, and the subsequent speech and old-time movie get you interested in what's coming up next. Unfortunately, then we are immediately introduced to Tony checking his blood toxicity - this being Tony Stark, the viewer immediately assumes it's a blood alcohol check. We aren't really given any preparation or hint that it's anything more than that, so we're left more confused than anything else until the reason for that gradually becomes clear as the movie progresses.

There are some really good high spots, though. To mention just a few: The start of the movie, with that overlapping narrative from the last movie while we're dropped unexpectedly into somebody's apartment in Russia in wintertime; the Monaco racetrack scene; the fight during the party; that little confrontation in the jail cell between Tony and Vanko (even with no FX, it had good dialogue and atmosphere); and more.

There are also problems, but I'm not going to go into those, as the high points are so good, other than to say that I'm not sure whether to rate the big fight at the end as a high or a low point. There's a bit too much CGI and a bit of a sense of Deus Ex Machina lurking somewhere in the rafters. Vanko is the most emotionally invested one in it, unlike back at the racetrack in Monaco, when Tony very definitely was reacting emotionally to the Russian and what he had done. A little more of that reaction at the end would have been nice.

Overall, though, the movie is a solid 8 on a scale of 10.

I miss Terrence Howard as Rhodey, but Don Cheadle really gets into the character and he handles those action sequences perfectly. You really believe he is the one person (ignoring SHIELD's existence for the moment) who can effectively say "NO!" to Tony Stark, while his conflict as he tries to do the right thing is very clear.

Outstanding performances by Sam Rockwell and Mickey Rourke as the bad guys, and Garry Shandling was a delightful surprise, especially at the end.

****Spoiler alert****

Gwyneth Paltrow had a lot tougher job this time around, but in relatively few screen appearances, she conveyed Pepper's many transformations and her inner turmoil (in addition to the obvious freak-out in Monaco, of course) so well that you could feel Pepper's relief at the end when she finally and completely quit her employment at Stark Industries, and you can also understand exactly why Tony took the resignation the way he did. A very unexpected but satisfying outcome to that whole subplot.

It took me three goes at this to get the full experience. The first time, I was wanting another "Gettysburg" and was disappointed. The second time, I was just kind of overwhelmed. Just got done the third time and broke it into three views: 1) Up to the Marye's Heights; 2) The Battle of Fredericksburg; 3)From December 25th, 1862, on to the end.

Seen that way, it is a great movie, one of the best ever. There are the same set pieces as in "Gettysburg", but occasionally on a larger scale, and in each, the characters are more developed. It is too much to deal with if you try to watch the whole thing like a typical movie, and that's a flaw, as it is supposed to be a typical movie. I took 2 stars off for that and a couple minor editing goofs, but otherwise would have given it a 10.

Some favorite scenes: "Silent Night" around the piano, segueing into an absolutely perfect encounter between 'Johnny Reb' and 'Billy Yank' in the middle of the river; multiple scenes where the chaos of battle is reflected and the actors provide believable actions, generally not knowing what is going on and holding themselves together, more often than not, by quoting some piece of literature. It's not how we would do it today, but what this movie shows more than anything is what it well might have been like for the people actually caught up in it.

I think that shows most strongly in Martha's conflicted expressions of love for the Beales and her impulse to tell the general she wants to be free, and her sons, too, all the while chaos is going on around them in the makeshift hospital, and the scene ends with that blood dripping onto the piano keys. Freedom is like that - it is a must, but it breaks apart established orders.

I'm really glad I didn't live through that time.

My other favorite scene is how that wonderful charge at Chancellorsville devolves into a long, uncertain battle, and the leaders end up far from their own lines in the dark and run into problems on the return (trying to avoid a major spoiler there)...and then how that whole terrifying return is played out, running between lines of firing soldiers. War must really be like that, not as "pretty" or "stirring" as it often appeared in the "Gettysburg" movie. Just a bunch of people scared in the dark, sometimes.

There are many excellent performances. Stephen Lang, of course. Frankie Faison manages to convey without saying so just how absolutely horrible it was for a black man, even a freeman, thinking so hard before saying anything at all, even when spoken to, and sort of cringing around, and yet he has the courage to make a bold prayer out loud when the general has expressed his own faith. That's an excellent scene, too. It's a tremendous ensemble piece, as well.

I haven't read the books yet, but I would like to now, to see if the movie followed it closely, daring to bring us onto the battlefield and out of our safe chairs at a distance. That would really be excellent.

I hope someone makes "The Last Full Measure" to complete what is two-thirds of the way to an excellent trilogy.

Just to get this out of the way first, Doyle's "Lost World" got quite a bit of the science (as it was known then) right, but it was terribly inaccurate in many places, for example, a volcano erupting in a sandstone plateau. However, that's what the readers and he envisioned, and he wrote it that way; it worked. The movie in 1925 was even more inaccurate, and really sliced up the book, but Doyle made a cameo in it and by all accounts enjoyed it quite a bit. The point is, the Sherlock Holmes canon should be always treated with deep respect but not absolute veneration; rather, with a spirit that its author might have enjoyed.

This movie, "Sherlock Holmes," gets most of it right:

1. The opening focuses on building the relationship between Holmes and Watson; it may be a sign of the short attention spans of this age that they actually had to resort to a glance between the two when somebody talks about "brothers."

2. The visual interpretation of Holmes' thought processes and contrast between that and his later, incomplete verbal explanations is perhaps the most powerful insight I've seen yet into how Sherlock Holmes worked in the stories. It's also extremely well done. Kudos!

3. Direct sampling of many different stories. (***SPOILER FOLLOWS***) To the excellent list here at IMDb, I would add the last scene of Holmes and Adler on the bridge, with the approaching thunderstorm, as a reference to the ending of "His Last Bow" (more on this later) ***SPOILER ENDS***)

4. The occasional meanness of Holmes here is not too different from the post-Reichenbach Falls Holmes.

5. "His Last Bow" is one of the few stories in the canon told from Holmes' viewpoint, and that is really how this whole story is told, from the viewpoint of the most interesting and complex character. That may have influenced how they ended the film's climactic scene.

What they didn't get right include the fist fight (injuries overall really didn't get that dramatic until after gloves were introduced and boxers could hit harder without risk of hurting themselves; also, Holmes as himself rather than a street character could have only fought in the gentleman's version, not a pit); the lack of that courteous and gentle streak in him that Doyle included; the representation of Victorian London (Andrew Mayhew's description of the slums was effective precisely because most of parts of the town where the action takes place were clean, relatively safe, and decent places full of people well enough off to be able to care about the poor).

However, that representation of London works if you quickly adopt the reference frame that this is a Bizarro version of the setting (as we do in the 2009 version of "Star Trek"); once that's done, it really is a treat to see how closely they actually stay to the original spirit.

Other treats include:

1. The Jeremy Brett homages, IMO, used in Downey's characterisms and voice.

2. Irene Adler (obviously this one never sang in an opera, but remember...Bizarro London).

3. The bonds and bickering between Holmes and Watson, of the sort that the good doctor would naturally have left out of his reports but which the movie explores in depth.

4. Watson himself (best movie Watson ever!).

5. That last scene, because it is so radically different from the stories and yet so close to them in spirit. It is also awesome.

Sometimes a movie can be too good.

This movie is a real slice of life, and considering its subject, that's challenging to deal with. One of the other commenters said not to watch this for entertainment or if you can't take a lot of stress; it is also a fun movie, but overall they were right.

Everything was put into making this as real as it possibly could be, and considering that it's hard even for meteorologists to believe that the Hallowe'en Noreaster had 100-foot waves out there in the vicinity of the "Andrea Gail" (it more than likely did, based on interpretation of measurements taken by a buoy not too far from the spot where she went down), it is absolutely mind-boggling that the film makers re-created this so well.

I have read written accounts of big boats "surfing" down huge waves, and of attempted sea rescues that are difficult because the sea is so rough that sometimes the person in trouble is high up above the rescue ship and and, the next second, is far, far below it (note the difference in usage between "boat" and "ship" there, referring to sizes respectively, of the "Andrea Gail" and the Coast Guard vessel). The X, Y, and Z axes are just going all over the place out there when the sea gets really bad.

You will see all that and more in "The Perfect Storm," just as it must happened in real life. One can't say that too often about movies. There are just no words to describe the experience. It is exhilarating and draining at the same time. It helps that the director has built in some quiet moments (where it definitely wouldn't have been too quiet in real life) to give the audience a break, but generally you get as hyped up at the edge of your seat as Clooney and Marky Mark are in the bridge of the "Andrea Gail" or as the Coast Guard would-be rescuers are, first in the aircraft and then at their ship's rail, as that whole thing plays out for them.

It's fun, but not in the way that an amusement park ride is. Once it's over and the adrenaline drains away, a bit of an aversion/reaction to the intensity of it all sets in. But that's later on, after the movie is over. While you're still in the movie, you have to watch all these people you have been introduced to and grown to care about in the ultimate moments leading up to their deaths, right at the point where they realize they are going to die.

That's hard, but we are also given the chance to see what a real captain does in a situation like that, and the last moments of Marky Mark/Bobby are so scary and yet fine. There is still hope...no, not really, but there is still love. That's confirmed at the very end of the film story, and it's a good way to close. The last part of the film is a silent tribute to the **ten thousand** Gloucestermen who have been lost to the sea since the 1600s.

A favorite scene: The whole Michael/Irene subplot. Surprising, and beautiful, and believable human transformations in that.

Favorite quote (from memory): "We're back in the 19th century now!"

A complaint (really the only one): There's a shot of Hurricane Hunters flying into a Category 5 storm somewhere: it couldn't be in this storm, though, because the hurricane contributing to its formation never got above a Category 2.

Nice little detail: The "you are floating above the Earth looking down" shots of the hurricane are "live": they show the clouds rotating around the eye (this had to be special effects, not archival film). Most movie makers just slap a satellite image in there for everything, but in "The Perfect Storm" they only do this where it would have been real: when the meteorologist has pulled up the latest satellite images on his computer.

This is a good example of the attention to detail they took to make this "real."

It was a success financially and it won some awards, though I'm surprised it didn't win more. The BAFTA's got it right with the special effects, and after you've watched the movie, check out the names of all the people who got a big award for their "water work." Kudos to all!

I saw this when it first aired, after I had read the book. Unfortunately, I was looking for differences from the book (there are some) rather than watching the story unfold. Also, and again unfortunately, you just don't see this quality presentation of television very much. I didn't like it much. Saw it again somewhere a decade or so later, and liked it a lot more. After seeing clips of it on YouTube, I just *had* to get it for this Halloween, and watched it tonight (the 180-plus-minutes version). It's just so good. Hooper really did something wonderful with this, something most of us in the general audience couldn't appreciate back in the 70s.

On the DVD, what happens to poor Faithful, the dog, is clearly visible -- they seemed to muddy up that image on the television broadcasts (and even Hooper's version is much less unsettling that what happens in the book). All in all, the extra time added in this uncut version mostly develops a character or a scene more fully; all but one are very enjoyable.

Here is the one that was a little disappointing, and this is where the spoiler comes in (not a major one): In the edited scene where undead Mike attacks Jason, Geoffrey Lewis (Mike) has this snake-like, almost floating moving to him that is spooky and very enjoyable; you just don't know if he's actually floating or just moving like that, and this is close to the feeling one would expect to have if actually confronted with a supernatural character for the first time. They apparently redid the whole scene because this uncut version is extended, with the focus more on Jason; the scene is rather closer to the book, actually, but that snake-like movement and funky floating sense in Mike is totally absent.

This time around, I really appreciated the sets. Just one of the little gems: In his room, Mark has literally hung a Charlie McCarthy dummy from the ceiling, after painting its face a livid green. It's in a corner and not emphasized too much, but it appears just before Ben tells Jason about seeing Hubie Marsten hanging in the house, and how green his face was...with such a lead-in, you just know Hubie was all dressed up in a suit as he hung there. Hooper couldn't show that directly on network TV, and this is a good example of how he worked around that limitation.

I wish more horror movie makers would do that, and let the real gruesomeness come from the audience's imagination rather than showing every little splatter, etc.

I had heard so much about "Sunrise" that my expectations were very high, perhaps too high. It has some very good parts to it, but I can also see why it wasn't a financial success at the time of its release.

Good points:

1. George O'Brien: I had accidentally rented "The Iron Horse" with this movie and so got a double dose of an actor who I hadn't heard much about until now. He's very good in "Iron Horse," but his complex performance in "Sunrise," with both the very good and very bad mixed in this one man, is a masterpiece.

2. The chemistry between O'Brien and Gaynor, especially during that key and very long and painful scene where she is broken hearted and he is trying to get her trust back again, but throughout the movie, really. Looking back on it now, it seems strange to remember it was a silent: could have sworn I heard them talking...actually, I watched them talking. Very powerful performances from both.

3. The plot is mature and quite complex compared to other silent films that I've seen from the 20s, and the darkness of much of the film, both visually and in the plot, balances the rare saccharine moments well, keeping them from becoming sappy.

The not-so-good:

1. Lose.The.Drunken.Pig. Nuff said.

2. All the arty shots seemed more to clutter up the screen than anything else. They would work better for complex, urbane characters than the Man and the Woman.

3. All the rural characters seemed vaguely European, but the city was quite American. I realize from the initial title cards that this was intended to be a universal story, but the two cultures depicted didn't seem to belong together.

The awesome:

1. That tram ride into town, looking over the driver's shoulder.

2. The church scene. Murnau was walking about as close to the edge of maudlin as you can get without falling into it, but it was fresh and very moving. I cried a little bit. Maybe it worked that well because he moved straight into it from the whole delightful photographer's office scene, which was earthy and very funny.

3. O'Brien's alternating dark and light moods, and his guilt phase. The man could act. I can't describe it -- watch the movie.

EDIT: This movie kept coming back to me after I wrote the above review for some reason. Then...I saw that the drunken pig was the key to the whole thing. Its presence was jarring, but that is exactly what Murnau wanted. To go into detail on that would lead to some *major* spoilers, so I will just drop some hints and then finish by briefly explaining why this realization of what Murnau may well have been up to made me take 3 stars off my vote:

1. What if you trust your true reactions instead of the story line, right from the point at the very start where you realize that the woman's reactions to her husband's walking out in the middle of dinner to go hook up with the floozie in the swamp are not what you expected?

2. That pig would fit in perfectly on the farm, no? The really strange part wasn't the pig: it was how the city woman, a/k/a floozie, insisted on having her shoes polished before she went out to walk through the mud on the village street.

3. Didn't it kind of ruin the bride's special day, and a bunch of other stuff, when another couple came walking out of the church instead of her and the groom?

4. What exactly is the song, mentioned in the subtitle, that presumably this couple is singing and why did Murnau run the risk of breaking the viewer's suspension of disbelief by training his camera on his actors posing for a camera? And why is the sunrise at the end so dark?

5. Thinking about it a bit, doesn't that tram ride into the city seem a little like the swelling orchestra background in the Beatles' "A Day In The Life" at about 1:45?

Well, tried to keep that short. This is a review, not a discussion. However, "Sunrise" is an unusual movie and rather difficult to describe otherwise. It's not what it seems, and that may well be why a lot of people think it is so wonderful. Seen from the perspective opened up after realizing the purpose of the pig, it really is an incredibly insightful look into a very common type of human pathology that is still around today.

However, I go to movies to escape and so was disappointed by the major-league mind games going on in "Sunrise." I also didn't particularly like being tricked by the director. That's why my vote dropped down to a 5. It would have been lower, but the acting is really incredibly good, and so is the production.

I don't think Murnau ever really understood America's innate sense of hope and possibility very well.

It's hard to know where to start with a review of this film, because it has so many different elements woven together expertly in interlocking layers.

Suffice to say that in the closing scene (not a spoiler as we already know what happened at Promontory Point), a bunch of big-wigs (Leland Stanford, etc.) pose for a group photograph in front of the two locomotives (the original two that met at the actual event, if the title card is to be believed: the Jupiter from the C.P. and #116 from the U.P.). The picture is taken, but the movie viewer wonders who all these people are; as in real life, the big, important people in society get the credit and fame for a job that was done by the unimportant but very interesting little people.

This movie is about those little people, pretty much all of them it sometimes seems, and in it a young John Ford does all the things right that, as an older man, he would get wrong in "Cheyenne Autumn."

Ford was making "The Iron Horse" for audiences who were already familiar with the gritty realism in William S. Hart's films, so he had to give it almost a documentary feel in some parts, as another commenter noticed. There's also a lot of give-and-take between ethnic groups that at times gets pretty sharp-edged, just like reality, but it always (and sometimes very subtly) is resolved by their work on a common project, for a common goal.

Ford also seems to build clichés just to blow them away. (Spoiler coming up.) The big Indian attack on workers at the end of the line goes pretty much as we expect at first, up to the point where the reinforcements arrive--no cavalry in this movie; it is fellow workers coming to the rescue, but only after a verbal brawl between the Irish and the Italians back in town, which was resolved when Texans arrived with several thousand cattle, and when they saw what was going on, stampeded them through town to force the Italians to get onto the relief train (Ford uses his excellent "run directly into the camera" view with the stampede and also a few other places in the film).

See what I mean about layers? Right; back at the end of the line, the Indians are still whooping it up in a circle around the workers who are holed up under the cars. Reinforcements arrive and drive the Indians off.

But then the Indians regroup, line up, and charge, cavalry style. Things look desperate for our heroes but they are finally rescued...by more Indians.

It's a well-prepared surprise and that is so enjoyable. There are no deus ex machina moments in "The Iron Horse"; you just start wondering what is going to happen next and watch it all come together perfectly.

Other excellent points include the casting of Charles Edward Bull as Lincoln (what else did he do, I wonder; his IMDb bio is empty). The bar fight scene is excellent, too, and so is the death match between Davy and Two Fingers (which O'Brien's training as a fighter makes especially realistic).

By the way, Miriam doesn't care that Davy went into a bar; her problem is that Davy broke his word by fighting Jesson after telling her he would not. It's a really stupid move on her part, and the audience recognizes that - kind of an old melodrama touch, but it keeps the story moving.

It's interesting to see Ford's explanation of the buffalo hunts in this movie (they were food for the workers) and contrast it to the one suggested in "The Searchers" (they were slaughtered to starve the native people off the land).

Well, enough. See this movie. It's over 2 hours long (how many reels was that, I wonder) and that is just the right length.

If they hadn't bundled this with "The Fugitive," I probably wouldn't have seen it; like some of the other commenters here, I avoided the sequel, thinking that it would be a disappointment."US Marshals" isn't as good as "The Fugitive": it lacks the superb score, the camera work that moves the story line along, and there's nothing in it like that inspired sequence where Ford, Jones, and the camera man just went out into the Chicago parade spontaneously.

Nonetheless, "US Marshals" satisfies all the requirements I had for the sequel:

-- More of Gerard? Check.

-- All the original team members with Gerard? Check.

-- "Big dog" reference and Biggs barking? Check.

-- Newman has to make a tough call and then shoot (just as Gerard had to in an incident Newman was involved in)? Check.

-- A Harrison Ford type of actor with good he-man and action credentials to balance Gerard? Check - I knew Wesley Snipes would be good in this, having seen him in "Passenger 57."

-- A Jeroen Krabbe (Dr. Charles Nichols) actor who can be a superbly civilized and erudite office dweller and yet be tough and macho enough to believably fight and almost beat both Tommy Lee Jones and Wesley Snipes? Check - Robert Downey, Jr. may have hated doing this picture, but he is superb in it.

-- The same sort of edge-of-your-seat action, camera work, and story that takes you over the weak parts (yes, there were some of those in "The Fugitive," too)? Check.

It has a couple of problems, too -- that chicken suit, for one thing, and the silly search among pill boxes in the drug store. Also, Snipes' role and predicament depend too much on verbal explanations and not enough on showing it to the audience, as happened in "The Fugitive." The plane crash is excellent, though. And unlike "The Fugitive," the action in "US Marshals" takes place in two major cities and a southern swamp, which is not something most film makers try to do. It's ambitious, and it works very well here. In fact, the big fight with Jones and Snipes takes place first up in the air and then down below the waterline, and at that point you're so focused on the two men, it could be happening anywhere. That's good storytelling there.

One line I wish they could have put in but didn't, as it wouldn't have fit Gerard's mental state at that point: "He did a Douglas Fairbanks right off this roof! Right here!" That was a terrific stunt, and is even more appreciated, knowing that it was done just like it played out.

If there were any justice in the world, this would have spawned a hit TV series. Sigh. Well, we've got the two movies anyway.

This episode starts out with a long setup for Jim and Rocky having to come meet the foster child Aaron, who Rocky once took in as a kid and is now a huge success and a multimillionaire, in a beat-up old VW decked out with grungy pizza signs and ads. Aaron comes out of his private jet to meet them and thinks the VW is just wonderful: "So, Jim, you're in the pizza business?" He has his people follow them in the limo but he hops aboard the battered old car quite happily because his family is in it.

That makes you really love Aaron, and appreciate his brains, too, since we find out right after this that he knows darn well Jim is a PI. This affection we have for Aaron holds throughout the show, even though in some respects he is (to put it mildly) a manipulative skunk and a fraud.

It's that appeal and the problems his illegal activities cause, as well the "good ole boy" interaction between him and Rockford (Garner lets his Oklahoma twang really show here) that makes this one of the best of the "Rockford Files" episodes ever. You really *believe* these two men grew up together...that's not easy to do with a one-hour weekly show and a whole new character.

I really enjoy the way James Hampton presents Aaron Ironwood -- the whole Southern combination of expensive lifestyle and down-home casual friendliness is there (he knows the private jet he came in on cost $2 million and yet the VW, with its trashy decoration, delights him), as well as the whole business with the sales pitch.

At the very end, where he's pacing the cell while Jim is keeping everything locked down inside himself, it could easily have gotten very dark...until Aaron decided to make the best of it. You can forgive him all the other stuff, because he really believes it himself: "Dare To Be Free!" And if anyone can pull that off, it will be him. He's a very likable character.

It would have been nice to see Garner and Hampton interact again during the series, but maybe they couldn't have done it as well since we already knew Ironwood was a slicker. Now, in another movie, if Garner was playing a grifter, too, that might have worked out, but it just didn't fit "Rockford."

I happened to catch the ending of this series on TV when it was aired in the 90s. That is powerful and I always wanted to see the whole thing. Finally I got the 2-disc series from Netflix. The production values are high, but the beginning totally turned me off: it opens with a young soldier being seduced for fun in a bar (in a way that doesn't help define the characters of him or his buddies in any depth) and then goes on to some blarney in a bathtub made for the movies (with a degree of realism that was hardly portrayed in real movies back then: it is just meant to shock the modern viewer early on and set them up for the ending). I hung in there despite all this, but they totally lost me when they showed the two soldiers stealing food during Churchill's speech and the glib justification for crime the one soldier gave; nonsense. This is all modern stuff--the emphasis on sex, the cynicism, the foolery; they didn't seem interested in portraying the real times and mores of the people back then, so I just took the disc out and watched something else.

Be warned that the third paragraph will contain a very big spoiler as I discuss the ending. Meanwhile, there is a lot to praise in this movie. In particular, Sam Elliott's performance is superb, and he is given one of the most succinct summations of the reality of war I've ever seen, this in the ongoing business where the officer wishes him a good day and gets a foul chewing-out in return, and then later on Elliott explains to him on the battlefield what a real good day is for a soldier and the officer reacts. Also excellent is the realism of this movie; it makes you appreciate what all those pilots and grunts went through during that time. Also, the scenes from the Communist perspective are short but illuminating, and the drum soundtrack gives them additional power. There was no way the Americans could know who the enemy leader was at the time, but later on they did meet and talk with Nguyen Huu An. His role in all this is very well done. Please note: Vietnamese wearing a coolie hat and black pajamas are VC; those wearing a uniform--and this applies to the young soldier who charges Col. Moore, too--are member of the North Vietnamese Army. Finally, extra depth is given to the movie by showing the wives coping with it, too; I just marvel at Mrs. Moore and her friend: how could they do that? Love, of course; just like their men, they are taking care of their own.

Overall, this is a very good movie. Now that somebody has portrayed the first contact between North Vietnamese and American foot soldiers, I hope somebody will come out with the first armor contact between the two armies, at Ben Het in 1969. That would be interesting, too. (Next paragraph contains the spoiler.)

Now, the criticism. It's really too bad that Gibson gave in to his desire to "hero" it up with that fictitious bayonet charge at the end. What the cavalrymen actually did there was heroic enough, and there really wasn't any need, apart perhaps from ego, to add in anything extra. In fact, it's the one thing our war in Vietnam never had--there was all this WWII-style carnage, but then the survivors were just transferred out; there was rarely this soul-satisfying win (or loss). From what I've read of the November fight in the Ia Drang in 1965, it was about as close to a traditional win as we got during those year, but that happened without the charge. This ending definitely subtracted from the overall credibility found in the rest of the film.

The way Monument Valley is presented here is symbolic of half of what is wrong with this movie: unlike "Stagecoach," "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon," or "The Searchers," the mesas and valley are not revealed to us here as anything unique. They just serve as a backdrop, like any other picture-perfect-postcard generic movie setting. Seeing the river again, for instance, as the Cheyenne cross it, is pretty strange, like seeing an old friend who doesn't recognize you any more. And in "Autumn," when the soldiers yell out orders, they prolong it until the echoes are heard from the rocks. That's what this movie is, in a sense: just an echo of earlier, stronger movies.

The other half of this film's awfulness is that it just can't get a focus; it sprawls out all over the place, and this is only worsened by the Overture, Entr'acte, and Intermission breaks, in spite of which apparently Ford still wanted to put the Dodge City sequence in there as an "intermission." That said, nothing by John Ford can be totally bad, and we can find here echoes of his vision: the sound the quiet, dignified, silent Cheyenne make as they move, like dry leaves falling to the ground; the nightmarish end of Karl Malden's scene at the fort; the whole "Cossacks" scene in the tent between Mr. Sergeant Wachoski (? spelling) and Captain Archer; and that wonderful little "noble savage" scene in the New York newspaper office.

Maybe, given the chaotic times (those of both the 1960s AND the 1870s), Ford couldn't have come up with anything else, but the man who did "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" could not be the same man who did justice to the story of the Northern Cheyenne exodus in the fall of 1878. Maybe he knew that, too, and wanted to do a little penance; and that is why he put in that excerpt from "Ribbon" of the stagecoach rushing in and the driver tossing off some newspapers. That's real sad.

However, Ben Johnson's riding skills are given more screen time than in "Ribbon"; that's something.

I do hope that some day somebody as good as Ford but without his baggage does an in-depth film about what happened in 1878. That was really something.

I had seen bits and pieces of "Band of Brothers" on TV while traveling, and decided to watch the whole thing via Netflix. After watching the first two episodes, "Currahee" and "Day of Days," I was just in awe of this whole thing and rushed that disk back so I could get the next one ASAP (the series is spread out over six disks, and I'm on the three-at-a-time plan). It was bedtime, so I didn't watch the next disk right away; and as I cooled down in the meantime, it occurred to me that I thrilled to watch the planes take off in "Day of Days," but for no reason. The phrase "Fortress Europe" is used once by an Easy Company member on the train up to New York, but that's all. We're just supposed to know the background, I guess. Why, then, was the take-off so moving?

On thinking over the reason for that, I realized it was meant to give me a thrill, quite apart from the actual context. Once that sunk in, the suspension of disbelief disappeared and it was possible to analyze what I had just seen in a rational way. Some visual references of what they were actually up against--something like old footage of Rommel inspecting the German defenses overlooking the channel--would have helped, but all we got were some long-distance views of a single German battery during the admittedly stirring American attack on it, as well as an atrocity against German POWs--which I find very hard to believe, considering that it was Italians who killed the perpetrator's brother; and also given that it occurs along a roadside at a meeting point where Allied soldiers are present in large numbers, and even at My Lai, where there were far fewer American soldiers, there were some who objected to and reported the slaughter--and something arty with dead black horses to convey the image of death on the battlefield without the ugly realities that would lessen the fun and start the viewer thinking.

As for characterization, Sobel is the only character who is drawn with any depth (and David Schwimmer does a superb job!). Everybody else, even Winters, is basically a cartoon: an excellent cartoon, granted, but still, not a thoroughly drawn character, which is one of the basic requirements for drama, even in ensemble performances.

It's intended to be a roller-coaster ride for the eyes and ears and emotions, without much input from the brain required. I was expecting something else. D-Day and the invasion of Normandy and breaking of the German stranglehold on Europe were very much about people versus the machine. On a different subject, I might have enjoyed "Band of Brothers" very much, but not for this one.

Volcanoes, earthquakes, pirates, fire sacrifices, elephants in the Alps, camels in the deserts, ships all over the place, a heat ray, secret messages in poisoned jewelery, the first film appearance of Maciste/Hercules in a sword-and-sandal movie: what's not to enjoy? It's just unbelievable that this movie is almost a hundred years young.

Well, there's a bit not to like. The first time I saw this, I spent most of the movie trying to figure out if Bartolomeo Pagano was really black. I don't think so, but am not really sure about that. If he wasn't, then it is off-putting to have a white star in black-face (in his case, 'black-body') with real black actors as extras. There's that plus some anti-Semitism, not to mention all the fascist salutes. These were the times during which the film was made.

The first time around, the Moloch scene is horrifying on its own, and...

***spoiler alert***

...you're cheering on the heroes as they save the child. The second time around, after more thought, it's the invocation to Moloch that's so incredibly creepy against the perspective of all the young lives that would soon be offered up on battlefields throughout Europe (including Italy) in the upcoming 20th century wars.

The storming of the city of Cirta near the end of the film is okay, but one can imagine D.W. Griffith sitting through it thinking, "I can do a battle-on-the-city-ramparts scene better." He did, too, with the storming of Babylon in "Intolerance." However, he didn't have Sophonisba. She makes a late appearance in "Cabiria," but...

***spoiler coming up***

...her death scene ends the film perfectly. And she makes another appearance at the very end. Yay!

It's still an incredibly good movie, well worth watching.

Maybe it's because I looked up the history of the Irish troubles in the 1920s and then the sad Civil War that engulfed the Free State after the signing of the treaty before watching this movie. Anyway, the sudden turn at the end brought tears to my eyes.

Victor McLaglen isn't as famous today as he was back then, and he should be better remembered. In this film, I think he's playing himself as he would have been without his innate talent and brains. For example, the scenes where his buddy in the crowd is challenging men to fight with him is probably quite reminiscent of what McLaglen actually did in earlier years, when he was a world-class bare-knuckles boxer. John Ford is partly responsible for that; the IMDb trivia section shows how he tricked McLaglen into getting a really bad hangover for the trial scene. This director also could bring out a lot in his actors, even without such tricks. Mostly, though, McLaglen is firmly in control, especially when his character is almost totally blotto (which is difficult for an actor to do believably), and he also plays Gypo Nolan with a depth and emotional power that is surprising for someone who has only seen McLaglen later in his career, in "The Quiet Man." I especially like the contrast between this role as an IRA man and the much more obviously controlled performance he gave as the IRA man Denis Hogan in "Hangman's House."

In "The Quiet Man," of course, McLaglen is a country squire at odds with the local IRA. Victor McLaglen was big and bully, in the old-fashioned sense of the word, but he was a good actor, too, and capable of wide range and fine nuances of performance that we just wouldn't expect of a such a man today. It's a rather sad comment on our own set of expectations and prejudices.

Ford, as usual, packs a lot into a little bit of film. All the characters are excellent (though the Commandant's mostly American accent is distracting) -- NOTE: There be spoilers ahead! -- Knowing that Gypo once drew the short straw and was ordered to kill a man but let him talk his way out of it instead, we really empathize with the man who draws the short straw for executing Gypo, and the humanity he shows, most notably when they go to take Gypo in Mary's room.

John Ford really shows his genius here, taking what could have been a gruesome and yet expected outcome to the whole story and instead using it to set up a totally unexpected and yet very satisfying ending that makes us think not just of Gypo and the other characters, but of poor Ireland during that tortured time.

I started watching this with expectations of seeing a hero right at the start, and a very human, tarnished man appeared. That shouldn't be surprising, since what is just so difficult to grasp is that this movie accurately portrays what happened that day in the Argonne. Wow. You have to ask: how did a real man do all that? This is what the movie as a whole tries to answer, and I think it succeeds pretty well in doing so.

On an external level, it was really fun to watch Gary Cooper, Ward Bond, and Noah Berry, Jr.,partying all over the place; and there was Walter Brennan bringing "old time religion" to the Tennessee hills. I didn't recognize Brennan at first, just his voice. The eyebrows were a bit much, I agree.

The story is an exceptionally deep one, about a man's religious conversion and then testing. I'd like to see another movie today, this time with the real story of his conversion, although the version in this film is powerfully and well done.

The major's comment after York returns from his 10-day furlough really gets at the heart of the matter. The captain is concerned that York's ongoing struggles with conscience will make him a battle risk, but the major understands that York has really proved that he is an ideal fighter -- one who will work away at a challenge until he beats it.

The battle sequences are done with as much authenticity as the sequences in Tennessee were. There really isn't much screen time for the set-up scene in the trenches, but Hawks wastes no chance to convey the hellish battlefield setting, the soul-numbed and battle-shocked human being that stares out at us from the British soldier's eyes, and the nervousness and yet willingness of the new American troops as they wait in the trench for the signal to go "over the top."

This meant a lot to me since I recently found out that the local VFW post is named after a local man who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions in the same general area where York and other Americans were operating, a week or two earlier than York's action on October 8, and who was killed in action three weeks to the day after York's action and less than two weeks before the Armistice. His story moved me quite a bit; I don't know much about WWI and appreciate learning a little more about it.

In this movie, Hawks also shows York's new status as hero and how he deals with it (which is the same as he has handled all his other tests, by thinking it over until he sees the right way to proceed). That was a good thing to include.

There were a couple of weak spots -- the major's telling York on the battlefield that York's desire to save lives was the most remarkable thing of all. Actually, from all I've read, that is what motivates generally all soldiers, including those who eventually are given medals for their actions. I think the major would have known that, and of course, soon all America would re-learn it.

Also, the last part where she surprises York is totally unbelievable, since the field is right out there by the brook and he would have seen all that probably even before he crossed the bridge. Still, even though it's hokey and you pretty much know what is going to happen, it's enjoyable, and it's a good place to end the movie.

The Netflix version of "Tumbleweeds" is the Paul Killiam version redone in the 1970s, and it has Hart's farewell to the screen. Sure, it's over the top today, but the man was a Shakespearean actor long before he started doing Westerns, and his other stage roles included that of Messala in, I believe, the original stage production of "Ben-Hur." He then, at age 48, didn't sit on his laurels but instead went into the physically demanding field of making Westerns, apparently because the current Westerns of the time didn't portray accurately the real Wild West he had grown up in; and he did some fine work there before finally retiring.

After all that, if the man wanted to pull out all the stops in his final farewell, more power to him!

Some of "Tumbleweeds" is a little hokey (the singing and some of the plot developments, for example), and Hart's acting seems a little wooden today (although it does convey an inner strength that helps his character get through physical trials, like that long hard ride in the land rush), but the authenticity grabs your attention in spite of that. Right at the start, for instance, it seems as though they are showing film of a 19th Century cattle drive. The interiors are very realistic, too, as are the vehicles, costumes,and mannerisms (I love the way Barbara Bedford reacts when Richard Niell puts his hand on her shoulder -- quite in character with those times and quite a contrast to the mores of 1920s America, let alone modern times).

The land rush scene is very famous and has been copied a lot, but it still is terrific to watch, particularly the way Hart works the story line into it.

I really enjoyed Lucien Littlefield's performance, too (Kentucky Rose, Hart's sidekick). It takes a lot of skill and hard work to look that "stupid" and yet carry the plot along so well: it is so easy to overact and turn it into a farce. Littlefield walks the line but always stays on the right side of it and is very funny and yet also touching (the secondary romantic plot). This was the first role I noticed him in (though he was in "Sons of the Desert," too -- I don't remember him in that). He worked a lot. The Wikipedia entry for him notes that his years of activity were 1914-1960 (the year of his death). Not too many other actors had such a long career.

Kentucky Rose would be considered very politically incorrect today, as would (NOTE: there be spoilers ahead!) the shooting of a snake, but there are some very positive things in "Tumbleweeds," too: rescuing two wolf pups and describing the debt the cowboys owe them because they poisoned their parents; apologizing (sort of) to the snake after killing it; showing African-Americans present in the land rush crowd; and presenting Indians (presumably Cherokee) in a positive way, as Hart's friends (though that sign language discussion seems a little long-winded and overwrought, given what they're actually saying).

Speaking of sign language, this is the first silent film I've seen that doesn't leave much dialogue to the audience's imagination. Everything is spelled out carefully in the titles, and I think that shows it was aimed at a very specific demographic and not necessarily the same one, say, that Douglas Fairbanks, Sr., was reaching for with his costume dramas at the same time.

The filming is also very straightforward and a little rough. Having just watched "Hangman's House" (1928), I couldn't help contrasting the land rush scene here with the horse race in Ford's film, which is very "arty" in comparison. In both films, horses rush at the camera, but the image and its effect on the viewer are very different. One approach is not better than other, of course; each technique fits the film in which it occurs, but it's interesting to note that even in the 1920s, there were different audiences to be catered to.

It's also interesting to note that this "rough" film stars a Shakespearean actor while Ford's "arty" film stars a former bare-knuckles boxer (Victor McLaglen) and is also famous today as being the first movie in which a former USC football player, John Wayne, can be clearly seen on camera.

Hollywood, especially in the early years, is full of delightful little surprises like that.