Just watched The Wind And The Lion last night...decent adventure yarn, but I was annoyed by the huge unexplained holes in the plot that didn't make any sense, and while some actors did a great job, there were others who were terrible! At times the dialogue was kinda cheesy as well. I thought Connery was ok in the role, but it certainly wasn't his best performance...his Scottish/Arabic hybrid accent was laughable. The visuals were nice, and the music score had some great parts. All in all an ok movie, but I was disappointed that its full potential was not realized.
*SPOILER ALERT*
Maybe part of my problem is that I'm a history major and I have to say that they took rather large liberalities with the plot...the movie is definitely fiction based on real events, rather than an accurate historical portrayal. There's nothing really wrong with that, but when they put certain scenes in the movie that make no political sense in context of the time and setting, then I get kind of annoyed, but bah, maybe I'm reading too much into it...it is just entertainment after all. I guess I'm referring to the tactless way the Americans invaded Morocco, despite the presence of all the great European powers (which is ridiculous), or the scene near the end where an all out battle occurs between the American and German factions over the prisoner, which is silly and never explained, and just what did the Germans want with Connery's Raisouli? To me it just looks like they were added into the plot at the very end just as a cheap excuse to stage action scenes with the usual stereotypical Hollywood villains (Germans).
I also feel that there was too much inappropriate humour, such as scenes where Connery's character helplessly sulks and complains when laughed at by the kidnapped children and by his own men over his lack of control over Candice Bergen...believe me, a truly ruthless, brutal leader would not act in such a manner. I think the film would have worked much better had the tone been much more serious, rather than trying to work subtle elements of romantic comedy into the story. The smirks you see on Connery's face and his men really sap the necessary feeling of danger and suspense that the film should have...I never felt like any of the characters were particularly dangerous, especially whenever Connery would spout off so-called "deep-meaning" proverbs that came across as completely cheesy, and had my friend and I rolling our eyes and laughing when we weren't supposed to.
At least Connery and Bergen never got it on, because that would have been unrealistic and painful to watch...I was quite relieved that they left that cliche out, but Bergen's sudden Stockholm Syndrome turn at the end and the Americans' unflinching willingness to go along with her plan was pretty dumb I have to say.
That having been said, it isn't a downright *bad* film, it just could have been much better.
*SPOILER ALERT*
Maybe part of my problem is that I'm a history major and I have to say that they took rather large liberalities with the plot...the movie is definitely fiction based on real events, rather than an accurate historical portrayal. There's nothing really wrong with that, but when they put certain scenes in the movie that make no political sense in context of the time and setting, then I get kind of annoyed, but bah, maybe I'm reading too much into it...it is just entertainment after all. I guess I'm referring to the tactless way the Americans invaded Morocco, despite the presence of all the great European powers (which is ridiculous), or the scene near the end where an all out battle occurs between the American and German factions over the prisoner, which is silly and never explained, and just what did the Germans want with Connery's Raisouli? To me it just looks like they were added into the plot at the very end just as a cheap excuse to stage action scenes with the usual stereotypical Hollywood villains (Germans).
I also feel that there was too much inappropriate humour, such as scenes where Connery's character helplessly sulks and complains when laughed at by the kidnapped children and by his own men over his lack of control over Candice Bergen...believe me, a truly ruthless, brutal leader would not act in such a manner. I think the film would have worked much better had the tone been much more serious, rather than trying to work subtle elements of romantic comedy into the story. The smirks you see on Connery's face and his men really sap the necessary feeling of danger and suspense that the film should have...I never felt like any of the characters were particularly dangerous, especially whenever Connery would spout off so-called "deep-meaning" proverbs that came across as completely cheesy, and had my friend and I rolling our eyes and laughing when we weren't supposed to.
At least Connery and Bergen never got it on, because that would have been unrealistic and painful to watch...I was quite relieved that they left that cliche out, but Bergen's sudden Stockholm Syndrome turn at the end and the Americans' unflinching willingness to go along with her plan was pretty dumb I have to say.
That having been said, it isn't a downright *bad* film, it just could have been much better.