Reviews

Whenever I see a film that is supposed to have historical basis, I am always a bit surprised to find out how much people complain about historical inaccuracies. I admit that I have done so in a few cases myself (Thin Red Line). However, in this case, I feel I must point out a few things.

All such films come with a disclaimer saying something to the effect that the characters portrayed aren't real and the story is just that, a story. For entertainment. Martin and Tavington did not actually exist, they are merely characters, possibly based (as has been suggested) on actual historical figures. I often wonder if such films as Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or Rio Grande, or just about any western flick was judged so harshly when it came out as we judge 'historical' pictures today? Or any pirate film? Zorro? Any film with knights in it? It seems to me that unless you are making a documentary, the historical accuracy doesn't truly matter in detail. Certainly, I enjoy films better when they seem to be a reasonably accurate portrayal of a time (costumes, technologies), but I don't carp about whether some person existed. Even if they did, I expect the film to be untrue so I can be entertained. For example, most wars are not constant fighting. Certainly some battles went on for days at a time, but there is a lot of waiting and a lot of marching. Yet most war films seem to be battle after battle after battle, with no real respite except for the wounded. Not so. How about some facts? Fact: Americans fought against themselves during the war. Many Americans served with the British forces. Fact: There were in fact many atrocities committed by the British forces, rapes, property burning, etc. Don't believe me? Check out the history of what happened to the original signers of the Declaration of Independence, their families and their properties. That's actual history, not just entertainment history. Of course, this wasn't only limited to the British forces. According to Massachusetts history, the Revolutionary forces (not necessarily the armed forces even) were, um, not kind to people who sympathized with the British. The tavern recruitment scene suggests this quite well. Were churches actually burned with a town's population inside. Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly was dramatic, wasn't it? Fact: Literacy was not as common at that time as it is today. Many people, especially the lower classes, and slaves could not read.

Did Cornwallis have a pair of great danes that were 'captured' by the enemy? I doubt it, but possibly. Were slaves that served in either army freed after a certain term of service? Again, I don't know. (I am not even certain that slavery was allowed in Britain at the time. Indentured servants, I think yes (though the difference is slight, I grant you), but actual slavery, hmm. I'll have to check on that.) The colonies typically did form their own militias for local use. The americans did, as a general rule, fight using more guerilla tactics (especially early on, the american forces were composed largely of more militia than regulars, see below for comments on militia), check the accounts of the battle of Concord, and what happened to the British forces as they withdrew.

War is brutal and ugly. People die. Many of the soldiers don't want to be there. Militia, being less well trained and thus disciplined, does have a tendency to fight very poorly in set piece battles (check current and past arguments for keeping a 'standing' 'professional' army).

Ignoring the historical accuracies or lack thereof (and btw, Braveheart was not 100% accurate either, though the main characters , Wallace, Robert the Bruce, King Edward, did all exist, but again, I don't seem to recall people complaining so loudly about that) I found Mel's character to be believable and well portrayed. Yes, there were elements of Hollywood happiness in the film (the beach town, he workers attitudes, the romances) and Hollywood sadness' in the film (the massacre, the child's death), but it was very entertaining. I found many of the battles to be very realistic (okay, pistols WERE NOT that accurate and never have been) and sufficiently entertaining for my needs.

Overall, a very good film. Hollywood, certainly, but entertaining.

Gladiator is an epic film. A moving story with good characters. I must compliment all the actors, Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix especially. I felt I understood all the characters, each had motivation, goals, and a personality. To those who have belittled Phoenix's performance, I suggest you check whether he was merely playing an unlikable and deranged character very well, or if his actual acting was lacking. I think the former is the case. I did notice a few flaws. The first was the excessive and obvious use of CGI, which I feel gave the movie an unreal and unbelievable look at times. The second flaw involves the historical accuracy of the film. While this only slightly detracted from the film, I did find it distracting. For example, I seem to have noticed stirrups in use (certainly the actor's foot position suggested stirrups), which weren't invented until the millenium after the time depicted. Pens and paper, and other minor inaccuracies were to be noticed if you were in the know. As I said though, these minor inaccuracies did not take away from the depiction of the film. Of course, the largest inaccuracy is the eventual outcome of the film, with regards to the fate of the Roman empire, which I will not reveal. In the end however, this is a story, for entertainment, not a historical documentary, and I am more than happy to forgive and overlook such transgressions in the name of a good film, which this definitely is. The only other complaint I have about the film was the use of cuts to the 'dream world'. These cuts are confusing for most of the picture. Who is having them? Why? What do they mean? They gave the film a disjointed feel to me. Though eventually the reasons for these 'dreams' becomes clear, their execution left something to be desired for me. The conclusion? "Gladiator" is a fine film, worth seeing. The closest to an epic film I have seen in some time, "Gladiator" regales with war and love, vengeance and madness. What more can you ask?

I went into this film expecting to enjoy it. I like thinking films, I like war films, I enjoy philosophy. Seems like a match made in heaven, from all that I had heard. I only wish it were so. In all honesty I must say that I have not seen the entire film.

After 2 years I finally borrowed a DVD from a friend and sat down to watch it. After 2 hours of this meandering drivel I found that I could not bear the idea of watching the remaining hour. So, I may have missed something important, but I doubt it. Why? For one, I couldn't relate to any of the characters. Each of the characters seemed insipid and 2 dimensional. The flashbacks were confusing and didn't successfully reveal anything about the characters of the film. It seemed that the characters tended to think and speak in fragments rather than complete sentences and thoughts. There wasn't enough context or character development for me to understand why a character was saying or thinking something. Over and over, I found myself asking "Who is this person?" , "Why should I care about this person?", "What the heck was that about?" Characters uttered odd out-of place philosophical and sweeping statements. They mouthed cliches and said nothing when explanation was wanting, but kept talking when there was nothing to say. Nothing was making sense to me in the way of character development. I found the characters to be inconsistent, non-sensical, unbelievable, and, well, pointless. Which may have been part of the point. One of the themes of the film seems to have been (mind you, I am not certain of this) that war is awful and destructive, pointless even, and nature is serene and beautiful. But even a character in the film points out that such a statement is false. If that was the theme, it failed. As for plot... well, if it hadn't been for the theme of the battle, there wouldn't have been one. We skip around, lighting on this character or that, with seeming randomness. Very disjointed. Very tough to follow. I must also say that the directing was a disappointment. The characters seemed aimless and unmotivated. The entire film seemed listless and petty. The only character with any energy, Nolte's Col. Tall seemed very small-minded and selfish. No adequate contrast to his character was made to make any sort of statement, only a succession of weak and half-hearted protests to his personal quest. Also, though I may be on a limb here, I have read a bit about WWII, and in the Pacific in particular. If I recall correctly, Guadalcanal was early enough in the war that the Japanese forces were still highly motivated and organized. Even when obviously defeated, accounts I have read suggested that the Japanese forces were highly tenacious in defense. Not the desultory and leaderless bandit types that our heroes (and I use the term loosely) seemed to be facing. The Japanese army, especially early on, was well equipped and acknowledged as a skilled fighting force led, particularly on a small unit level, by able and driven (often brutal) commanders. So, to me, the historical accuracy seemed to be lacking a bit.

However, I will say that the cinematography was excellent. Stylized in a way that I did not care for, but excellent. Also, the scenery was very nice, and provided an excellent visual testament to the horrors of war.

I gave the film a 3 out of 10, and almost gave it a two. It is rare that I cannot watch an entire film, but having wasted utterly two hours of my life on this film, I couldn't bear that loss of another hour.

This film was fantastic. The transformation of Spacey's character from a whiny, middle-aged, run-down and pathetic man to a vital and happy (middle-aged) man is believable and heartwarming. The film has a lesson, but isn't preachy. The lesson is, quite simply, take charge of your life and do what you need to to make yourself happy. Carpe Diem.

I even found it impossible to be truly saddened by the end. The climax of the film is somehow uplifting and leaves one with a kind of happy glow.

It makes a definite statement that some people are confused, some people know what they want, some people listen to their fears without taking counsel from reality, some people don't care, some people do, some people need others. This film is a must see.

I wouldn't say the film is the best I've ever seen. I would quite readily admit that it is one of the weirdest. Very funny. Good solid entertainment, but no more than that. An interesting idea, well-rendered on screen.

I found the main characters (with the exception of Malkovich) to be a bit on the unbelievable side. The transitions that the characters make do not seem to be supported by the story or the dialogue. The acting jobs were quite excellent (especially Malkovich), but I think that the material was lacking. I think some of the ideas brought up in the film were intriguing, but the film doesn't really delve into them, which is a bit disappointing. (Does everyone have a portal? Who does? Is there only one? Why? What does it really mean? etc.) Still, worth a matinee, its was good fun to see.

I was thoroughly impressed with this film. The only film I can think of that "Sixth Sense" can be compared to is "The Shining", and it comes off rather well in that comparison. Haley Osment gives what is probably one of the best child performances I have ever seen. His character is believable and you can empathize with him quite strongly. He does a terrific job portraying a bright child with a very traumatic gift. The film is filled with subtleties. Unless you are fully alert while watching the film, you are bound to miss things, just as in any good mystery. I know, I did. It was only in retrospect that the group I was with could recall all the details we had missed at the time.

Another aspect of the film is how well it hangs together. Credit is due to Shyamalan for his excellent writing and directing (the cameo was a bit much). The film takes you into a riveting and almost surreal world. It makes you question the world around you. The cinematography and perspective makes the film very real. I nearly jumped out of my seat several times during the film, and from the jerking throughout the audience, I was far from alone. An excellent and compelling film.

Critically and popularly, this film was a success. I must disagree. I couldn't stand this film. Had I not been with someone, I would have walked out on the film. Had I realized that they were thinking the same thing, we would have. I found all the characters, with the exception of the father, to be totally separate from reality. In some cases, this can be forgiven, because the characters are supposed to be young. But in the case of Max, Herman, and Rosemary this is unconscionable. I expect growth and learning in a character. The characters started and ended in their own worlds. I found their environment unbelievable, I found the characters started and ended self-absorbed, full of self-pity and childishness. Little, if any, self-exploration is evident for any of the main characters. Any humor in the film was lost on me. I found that some of the absurdity of the film was mildly amusing, but I don't think it was meant to be. The only redeeming character in the whole film was the father, played by Seymour Cassel. He was very well-adjusted and knew his place in life. He attempted to give Max some advice and guidance, but of course, Max would have none of it. Considering that I normally love quirky films ("Lair of the White Worm", "Blue Iguana"), I was extremely disappointed in this film.

(beware of hyperbole in this review) Since I saw this film almost a decade ago, the utter horror of it has never left my life. Since I saw the film it has been my standard by which all other bad films are judged. The phrase " it wasn't as bad as Highlander II," is oft heard after viewing a bad film. If I could have given this film a zero (or less) I would have. Considering that I sort of rate things lorgarithmically (a 1 is ten times as bad as a 2) this film is the all time worst, it is the only film I have ever given a one. And I have seen such losers as "Crime Wave" and "BC Rock". The only explanation I have for not walking out on this film is that I was so stunned by how awful the film was that I was unable to move. I do not understand why the actors involved (particularly Connery) would agree to do this film (contractual obligation, based on the success of the first film?). I am forced to resort to threats of physical violence when friends who have not seen the film suggest it as a rental. If you get the idea that I think this film was bad, you just might have the right idea. This film might not have been so bad (might have gotten a 2 or 3) if it hadn't been for the first film, which was a classic sci-fi/fantasy film. "The Sickening", as HII should be called, utterly destroyed every idea that the first Highlander led you to believe. I firmly believe that much of the second Highlander was pieced together with bits from first film that hit the cutting room floor. There are approximately 20 seconds of good footage in this film (the prison morgue scene and the Shakespeare stage scene, for the curious). I found myself clinging to those scenes in my memory, just to remain sane. In order to recover from this film, I had to go to counseling for several years. As you value your soul and your mental health, do not see this film.