Change Your Image
DRF
Reviews
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
What else can be said? Superb
I don't know what else I can add to the comments that hasn't already been said. This is genuinely one of the most under-rated films in the industry. The ensemble group played against each other so well it was as though we weren't actually seeing a movie but watching real people in a real profession. This is a stunningly great movie. I was in sales for many years so I could certainly sympathize with the characters. Lemmon, Pacino, Spacey, etc. pulled it off to perfection.
This movie should be used as class-room material for young wannabe actors as an example of how it is supposed to be done.
I gave it a 10 because it deserved it..if I could have given it an 11 or 12 I would have done so.
Flags of Our Fathers (2006)
Could have been better had Eastwood not inserted his own political agenda in the movie
I read the book and the book is excellent therefore I can accurately comment on the movie as compared to the book. First, what baffles me is Eastwoods inventing out of thin air controversies that simply were not in the book.
For instance, Eastwood presents the 7th Bond Tour as a modern day cynic towards big government and goes to many lengths to present the 7th Bond Tour as being run by a bunch of political hacks whose only thought is how much money they could squeeze out of the American people. None of this was in the book.
In fact, America was actually united in supporting the war and our troops and most if not all of the politicians who put together the 7th Bond tour with the 3 surviving members of the flag raising on Mt. Suribachi were genuinely in awe of these soldiers even though they really were not the "real heroes" as the three always mentioned. But, Eastwood makes it a point to present the politicians in charge of the 7th Bond Tour as a group of hypocritical jerks who were playing the three soldiers and the American people for a bunch of chumps which was complete BS inserted in the movie by Clint Eastwood. I have lost all respect for Clint Eastwood for using this great story as written by the son of one of the flag raisers "Doc" Bradley and using it as a vehicle to promote his Hollywood political agenda which most of the hacks in Hollywood do these days.
The truth of the matter is that in the 1940's the federal government had no defense budget thus it had to go to the American people to ask for money to help support the war effort. Much by selling war bonds to American citizens which in effect was a loan by the citizens to the federal government.
The other agenda that Eastwood played up that was not in the book was the racist comments towards Ira Hays from the government politicians in Washington. None of this happened so Eastwood had to again pull this out of thin air to play up the class victim mentality that is being continually perpetrated by many of the race brokers today.
Also, Ira Hays was a Pima Indian and as clearly discussed in the book the Pimas would not speak unless spoken to first and Ira was even more introverted than the normal Pima Indian seldom speaking to anyone, but Hays was played up in the movie as the man who seemed to always be the guys who spoke up for everyone else - not true. In fact, Ira Hays was such an introvert that his most favorite pastime was playing solitaire with cards.
There were other complete fabrications by Eastwood presented in the movie that were not in the book but are too minor to bother to mention here. After watching the movie, I got the impression that Clint Eastwood never even read the book and just got second hand information from one of the typical Hollywood screenwriters, or he simply decided this story would be the perfect vehicle for presenting our government and the American people in World War II as having the same cynicism and down right distrust of the federal government by the American people as today.
This was a great story and if anyone has not read the book, your missing a great book written with compassion and love for our soldiers who sacrificed their lives in Word War II and the families who also suffered greatly.
Clint Eastwood, in my mind, basically urinated on a great story just so he could present the usual Hollywood garbage that has a continual hatred for middle class America and our government.
This has to be true because Eastwood was obviously more concentrated on promoting a political agenda then producing a movie that faithfully followed the story from the book and anyone who saw this movie probably got the same impression I did. Which was after he got through with the politics of the movie, he spent about 15 minutes in the editing room and spliced together a story that was so incoherent that unless one read the book first, could not follow the story line or the time line at all.
Don't bother watching the movie. Read the book.
The Big Country (1958)
Easily one of the most underrated movies of all-time.
I've read all of the comments about Wyler's "The Big Country". I don't even remember the first time I saw this movie but I have never tired of watching it. William Wyler went to the vault and pulled out the often used theme, "the showdown on main street at high noon" genre that many directors had tired of and felt was the kiss of death to western movies of the day and he pulled it off in grand fashion. Why this movie has never received it's just due has mystified me for years. Maybe the late '50's became the time of the "brat pak" movie genre, ("Rebel Without A Cause"), but the performances in this movie are classic. Jean Simmons was absolutely intriguing. As a man watching this movie, I soon realized what Mr. Peck would begin to see in this woman as the movie progressed. Just that little glimpse from Ms. Simmons as she measured up the man she would soon fall in love with had more sexual power than most flicks today that try to thrive on the sexual theme to sell theatre tickets.
This is not just a western. It is pure greatness from William Wyler and a cast that added strength to the film. Burl Ives and Charles Bickford played their respective roles with the intenseness and professionalism of a classic Shakespearean play and Charlton Heston was perfect as the antagonist to Gregory Peck. This film has no weakness and has gotten better with time.
Of Mice and Men (1992)
Of Mice and Men
Gary Sinese' 1992 version of "Of Mice and Men" written for the screen by Horton Foote is the closest to the original Steinbeck classic to date capturing the very essence of the Steinbeck characters in exactly the same way I remember them when I first read the book.