6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Revolution (1985)
10/10
The most misunderstood movie in History
17 August 2006
This movie was a failure, no one can argue that fact. It made pittance at the box office and stained the careers of the stars involved.

Despie this, however, 'Revolution' is one of the least comprehended films in the history of world Cinema. I suppose it made one mistake, it told history, but not as people want to hear it. If you want the American Revolution told as a 'Patriotic' yarn with goodies and baddies, over the top battles, and a sickening veneer of US history, then watch the aptly named 'The Patriot' with Mel Gibson. It's a good fun movie to sit through, but it's not fact, or to be honest, remotely accurate.This is where 'Revolution' scores the highest marks.

In 1776, American Colonies were a jumble of States that were inhabited by Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Native American, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, German, Dutch, French, Eastern European and Scandinavian settlers. Many have criticised the accent used by Pacino as Tom Dobb but be fair, if you were an illiterate trapper in remote New York, I somehow think your accent would be rather disjointed to say the least.

The Story line is of the highest quality and is deeply touching, that of a man who has lost his wife and most of children and has only one son who is his life. They are caught up in a ruthless and fervent Civil War that erupts as the American Revolution. Dobb and his son Ned want no part in this war but are dragged in against their will. Many die in a ruthless series of battles around New York and Brooklyn. Amongst this tragedy Dobb meets and falls for Daisy, the daughter of a Colonial Loyalist. After much hardship and cruelty they meet at Valley Forge where Daisy is captured and thought dead at the hands of Lord Hampton, played by the great Richard O'Brien. At Yorktown the war ends and Tom returns to New York with Ned to find Daisy. That is a condensed version of the plot but there is so much more in this movie. I heard some claim they sensed a Paedophillic undertone amongst the British, well I see their point but will let the viewer decide that for themselves.

The costuming, uniforms, flags, battles.... this is all how it really was back in the 18th century, rain, dirt and filth. This film is a splendid tribute to those who fought for what they believed in and those who fought for King and Country.

Please, I beg you, give this gem a chance.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Patriot (2000)
10/10
As a Movie..................
16 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is an utterly superb film. The costumes are visually splendid, the scenery is to die for and the story line in a traditional good ol' 'Loving American guy gets wronged by an evil British guy and then during his hunt for revenge teams up with a comic Frenchman and in the end they win'. Exactly the right story line for a Hollywood movie.

The cast could not have been bettered, Jason Issacs, Tom Wilkinson, Mel 'Controversial' Gibson, Joely Richardson and Edward Woodward's son Peter. A really impressive gathering of talent, no doubt about it. The CGI FX are the best of their kind I reckon, who wouldn't want to see a man getting decapitated by a 24 pounder roundshot? All in all, As a Movie.........I'll rate this full marks. It is a quality watch and worth the Dollars/Pounds/Euros or Yen you want to spend renting or buying the DVD. As it is a movie, not a documentary, I will rate it here as such.

HOWEVER!!!!! When the accompanying feature claims that the film makers have 'tried their best to be as authentic and credible as possible', it is then I start to laugh very, VERY loud.

Let me take you through several historical errors I myself have noted.

The British Infantry seem, throughout the film, to be entirely devoid of Light Infantry. A prominent unit in the American War and would have proved a nice little counter to the 'Patriot' militia.

There is only ever one British Infantry Regiment seen in the entire film, despite three major battles being covered. This same Regiment carries the Colours of several other Regiments into action. A bizarre aspect indeed.

Smooth bore pistols and muskets take people out at several hundred yards, a range to make even the most skilled sniper amongst the ruins of Stalingrad gasp.

Gibson's character has 'freed' slaves work his land. That is a serious whitewashing of something that plagues the USA until this day.

In a similar vein, there is only one racist in the whole Southern Rebel army. Even he has 'seen the light' by the end credits. Despite it being a further 100 years until slavery was abolished and even that took a Civil War.

The British soldiers march into Battle like the SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler parading through Berlin.

Why the hell do most of the characters throw away their ramrods like javelins? This is just plain weird. I mean, for a Colonial Rebel with little experience, you might just think it plausible but when a British Colonel does so.............usually the ramrods are back in their hands seconds later. That is a real puzzler.

There is little or no mention of Native Americans, whom, you will understand, are the 'true' Americans and fought on both sides during the war. I think you spot a couple loitering about in one camp scene.

The 'atrocity' performed by Wilkins, under direction of Tavington is fiction, despite equally nasty scenarios being fact. Rebel atrocities on 'Loyalists' were far more cruel. At Concord bridge in 1775, the rebels scalped a British soldier and removed his brain.

The French Naval Officers at Yorktown are dressed in Napoleonic Uniforms complete with tricolour cockades. I think these fellows would be more at home at Trafalgar or the Nile.

The whole film is too 'squeaky clean'. There was no regular bathing then, even the King of France bathed but once a year. Cleaning one's teeth was far from an oft performed duty. The lack of top dentists would also hamper the eye shielding shine of the teeth in this film.

A man and his two young sons take out a section of infantry belonging to the best army in the world? Don't make me laugh. 'Aim small miss large' methinks.

I could go on but I've lost the will to live!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Culloden (1964 TV Movie)
10/10
The first true depiction of war
27 July 2006
Peter Watkins's much underestimated Docu-Drama that, frankly, has to be watched by the individual to have the maximum impact. This is, without doubt, the fairest and most realistic depiction of war in cinema history. Here we have no poetic licence and no particular bias, despite some claiming a strong swing in favour of the Jacobites. Men are men, war is war and blood is blood.

There are few ways in which to describe this masterpiece in a simple review. If you desire a stark wake up call to the brutality and pain that war and Civil War creates, get hold of a copy of this film.

If you are not moved, then you have no heart.
32 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
All the King's Men (1999 TV Movie)
10/10
Lions led by Donkeys
23 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Few screen depictions ever hammer home the blunt and pointless nature of the Great War, especially the futile Gallipoli Campaign. This much under-rated BBC film achieves just that, an historical tableau never matched since on the small screen.

The cast contains the cream of British acting talent, including David Jason, Maggie Smith, David Troughton and Patrick Malahide. The story, in a nutshell, is that of the Sandringham Company, a territorial unit formed by Frank Beck, agent on the Sandringham Royal Estate for King George V and his mother Queen Alexandria. The Company is dispatched to Turkey and go down in legend as advancing into action whilst being enveloped in a cloud, rumoured to be the hand of God. Their fate is determined after their bodies are discovered several years later with bullet wounds to the skulls. They had, for the most part, been executed by the Turks after surrendering.

The graphic nature of the conflict is commendably realised and the veneer of heroism and medals stripped when we see the horrors and cruelty of war in it's starkest form. The death of Captain Claude Howlett, the tortured Boer War veteran, is one of the most moving ever witnessed on film. Patrick Malahide once again displays his unique gift like few others are able to.

This is certainly not for those who are used to the rather bloodless 'Gunga Din' depiction of warfare that has been made but if you desire a few hours of historical enlightenment and superb performances by some of the finest actors in the world, then this made for television film is the piece de resistance.
15 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sharpe: Sharpe's Challenge (2006)
Season 6, Episode 1
10/10
'Say Hello to Mister Nock'
26 April 2006
Just one word to sum up this fantastic new dose of Sharpe and that is 'SU-BLOODY-PERB'.

It's been ten years since we saw Richard beat the Imperial Guard on the bloody field of Waterloo, and, like many of the life long fans, I believed that was the last time we would see Sharpe on screen. Of course, there was always a rumour that 'Tiger' would be made into a feature film but that hope died after a few years.

Now, we have been treated to an extra long two parter that was excellent in every aspect. A plentiful amount of tension, action and valour. Beano and Daragh were top hold as usual, excellent to see the old faces such as fopp Simmerson, Ramona and Wellington back on the screen.

The new characters were utterly splendid, Stephens as Dodd was one of the most evil villains ever to face Sharpe and Peter Hugo-Daly as Sgt Bickerstaff was a vile sight, yet a great performance. Even prompting Bean to jokingly remark in the 'making of' feature that he looked 'F***ing 'orrible'.

Not enough time to list all of the supporting cast, but none were a disappointment.

In conclusion, one of the best Sharpes to date and I would not be wrong in stating that the series as a whole is THE best historical drama to grace British television.

To any of the Producers that might browse these boards, I hope that another two movies are made to give a complete feel to the saga. Plus if you want any extras who want no pay, there's a huge fan base out there plus plenty of ready-trained re-enactors.

As you can tell, loved the whole show. Can't wait for the DVD on May 1st.
50 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ned Kelly (2003)
9/10
A tribute to all concerned
15 April 2006
The performances were superb, the costumes delivered a unique feeling for the period and being a Victorian Living Historian, I was impressed with the accuracy of weaponry and attention to detail.

I wouldn't say you need any knowledge of the Kelly saga to stay with the flow of this movie but to comprehend the happenings and attitudes of the time you will require a bit of basic historical knowledge. Do not expect, as some rather silly people do, any of the characters to have the Auzzie accent as we know it, it was, at that time, a country during infancy.

OK, the story had some elements of fiction but these are required for a wider following of the film. Gregor Jordan said in the extra feature on the DVD that he wanted his movie to 'inspire an interest', and that is exactly what happened with me so this movie gets the thumbs up here.

See it and you WILL NOT be sorry
27 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed