Reviews

Not just Allan Quatermain, but anyone who would watch this movie has to be out of their skull. This was such a terrible movie that I wanted to walk out of the theater and go home. The problem was I was already home, watching it on a DVD.

There were so many things wrong with this movie that it would be impossible to list them all, but I'll give you a few examples.

How about going off for a hiking expedition without taking any supplies, not even water or food. They didn't even carry canteens. All the bad guy, who was after them, had was a rifle and pistol and the clothes on his back - but no hat. I thought it got hot in Africa? No one was sweating. I know this because the leading lady's heavy eye makeup never ran.

How can the bad guy take out two crew members of a moving train with two shots but never hit Quatermain even when Quatermain is standing still or is only a few yards away. This happens several times in the movie.

And where did the earthquake come from? Just thrown in for good measure, was it? And when was the last time you explored a dark cavern without any lights? If Quartermain took the job to get the tuition money for his son and then gave it to his housekeeper to mail, what happened to the envelope when the housekeeper went on the trip with him.

At least they didn't have any trouble finding the unknown land where King Solomon's mines were, as a wide dirt road had been created for them to follow. The bad guy had a truck, so why did Quatermain and his party have to walk on the road? Since his house is in the country, you would think he would have a vehicle too.

I have watched many movies where the actors had to walk to get where they were going. I'm surprised that Quatermain's party ever got anywhere. I have never seen people move this slow. I walk faster inside my own house.

And what was that terrible flying swarm? Bloodsucking locusts? Day flying bats? Enraged hummingbirds? Would have been nice to know.

I could go on, but why? So I'll sum it up.

No plot. No character development. No one with any acting ability. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a -3.

Most everyone else praises this film and I can't help but agree with them.

However, some of the comments state that this film was made in Monument Valley. This is incorrect. The film actually was made in the Moab, Utah area.

I once backpacked down into the canyonlands south of Moab and the scenery is fantastic. This is also a great microbrewery in Moab if you are ever in that town.

Another thought, a very minor one for historical accuracy, at the end of this film General Phil Sheridan gives permission for the band to play Dixie. I doubt that the real Sheridan would have done this as he hated the Confederates as much as Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson hated Yankees. At Appomattox, Sheridan bitterly protested the truce before Lee's surrender. He wanted to take the Army of the Potomac and wipe out the last of the Army of Northern Virginia. Thank God, General Grant knew better.

There are Bad sci-fi films, there are Rotten sci-fi films, there are even the Worse sci-fi films. However, this film is in the rock-bottom Bad, Rotten and Worst category. The music and the special effects (nothing more than weird, spiraling colors) give you a headache, and the costume designer committed suicide after completing the crew's uniforms. Humans haven't worn hats like that since the 11th century.

But the film has one saving grace. This takes place in two ridiculous scenes where the commanders back on Earth try to brief the press, all of whom act like they are suppose to portray air-headed journalists. With reporters like these assigned to a BIG STORY, only God knows who is handling national local news. I shudder to think, but then we see their like on TV every night.

The absolute best lines in the movie go to the two commanders who, after trying to convince the reporters that Earth is not in trouble but seeing the reporters rush to their communications devices to tell their editors that the end is near, say to each other:

First commander: "They didn't buy it." Second commander: "No way."

This film is so bad it makes David Bowie's The Man Who Fell To Earth look like a science fiction classic.a

A great war movie if you ignore the fact that much of the story was rewritten for Hollywood.

I have the 2005 DVD version of this 1965 movie. This version include a movie trailer, and two short subjects, "History Recreated," and "The Filming of the Battle of the Bulge." One shows film shot of the cast during the filming and starts off by showing "actual" combat photography of the battle. Although I had not seen this movie for some time I immediately recognized some of the "combat photography" as just scenes from the film that were converted to black and white.

The other shows what must be British TV interviews with the director and Robert Shaw. The director, who was an American combat photographer in the Pacific during WW II, must have been hoping for a sizable British audience as he twice credited British Gen. Montgommary and the British army with coming in to destroy the German forces at the Battle of the Bulge after the American held them up. There were NO British forces involved in this battle, proving once again that for Hollywood profit is more desirable than truth.

I really enjoy this film despite its historical shortcomings, especially since I was able to buy it at a discount store with four other great WW II movies for a little less than $20.

While some scenes of training were realistic, too many of them depicted military instructors as ex-Nazi types. Obviously, the people who wrote the screen play were either anti-military types or writing a film for that audience.

I am a Viet Nam vet and, even during this period, military instructors who behaved in the manner some of these did would probably still be serving time in military prison.

And I really loved the scene where the "hero" and his buddy (both privates) are sitting down in the Captain's office, smoking cigarettes and talking and cussing with the Captain as if he were their buddy. This sort of thing never happened in training or in a formal situation, as was the purpose for the scene.

At the end I asked myself, "What was this film about?" as it seemed to wander around all over the place with no focus except "I hate all authority." Thank God I got it from the library and did not pay to rent it.

If someone can figure out the plot for this movie, please let me know. The story line jumps all over the place, except during the many times when stock footage is shown to make the movie longer - way too much longer.

The "City of the Dead" is so obviously Asian (perhaps Anwat) that I was surprised they had the gall to show it in this "African jungle" movie. That was also stock footage as the actors and the "City" are never seen together. The budget for this movie was probably a couple of hundred dollars.

I like Buster Crabbe, but I was hoping the sharks would kill him in this movie.

This film has all the excitement of a "Jurassic Park" or sequel. There is so much going on in this three hour movie that you don't want to drink too much before going to see it as there is no intermission to allow a visit to the facilities and you don't want to miss anything (Well, OK... you can miss the end which is too drawn out). I even enjoyed the background shots of 1920s New York - the cars, the clothes the people were wearing, the buildings, etc.

But three items I wish to comment on:

1) For a small tramp steamer, there were too many crewmen. No way was the ship's captain making any money on his cruises after paying off the crew. So where did he get the cash for all the tommy guns? I guess they needed all that crew so most of them could die on Skull Island.

2) If I am ever attacked by giant cockroaches (If that is really what they were.) I'd like someone to get them off of me some other way than shooting them off at close range with a submachine gun. Especially if it is just a kid who never handled one before. But I guess getting shot to death is better then getting eaten alive.

3) The final scenes take place in winter in New York. There is snow on the streets, the people are all bundled up and the pond in Central Park where Kong and Ann slide around is frozen solid. So what is she doing in a light gown that is more appropriate for a summer cocktail party? She spends the entire frigid night out with Kong and early the next morning she and Kong are on the top of the Empire State Building. Any idea what the temperature is up there? Plus the building sways for a reason (high winds) but Ann stands up on the tip top with just a light breeze through her hair. Believe me, this girls dies from pneumonia soon after the end of the film.

But just ignore these and other errors. It is a fun movie! Especially since I got to see it for free with a coupon from the Jurassic Park DVD set.

Yes, the "Eastside Kids" are not exactly as young as the characters they seek to portray, but then this is the movies. I bought 10 CDs of the Eastside Kids for $19.95 and considered it a steal. Their movies are fun to watch, if only for the goofs. This was the fifth movies in the set that I watched. Of course, when I was a lot younger, I used to watch their movies on TV, but that was a long time ago.

I have to disagree with the other opinion about this film. Of the five I have watched so far, this was the best. It actually had a plot, and even subplots, and some good acting. I enjoyed it and laughed out loud at the final scene.

I just wish they had listed Ernest Morrison by his real name in the credits, as they do for all the other actors, instead of listing him as "Sunshine Sammy." Considering the part he has to play, he deserves it, as he plays meatier roles than some of the white actors.

Oh, and they finally got a good looking actress to play the female lead.

Tom

I grew up watching the "Bowery Boys" on TV. Their movies were always fun and you could enjoy them without having to deal with a message. Everything always worked out in the end. Yes, the plots were corny, but they were always enjoyable. I recently bought 10 CDs of their films as "East Side Kids" for $19.95 and considered it money well spent.

However, I wish I had missed this particular film. I know of racial prejudice as I was born in the late 40's. I understand the social attitudes of the times, even if I don't approve of them. But this film, which is suppose to be lighthearted, has so much racial stereotyping that at times it is hard to watch. I could give specific examples, but why bother.

I've been a Civil War reenactor and living historian for 12 years. I've been reading about the Civil War for 45 years. I have heard some Civil War reenactors say that "Gods and Generals" is the best Civil War movie ever made. Well, all I can say is that this must be the only Civil War movie they have ever seen, unless it was the laughable TV series "North and South." The Three Stooges did a movie called "Uncivil Warriors" in which they portrayed Union spies behind Confederate lines. THAT was a better Civil War movie than "Gods and Generals"! I've been going to movies since I was four years old when my parents took me to see Bambi. In all those years, I've never been so happy to see someone die in a movie as I was when General Jackson got killed in "Gods and Generals."

The special effects in this movie are very good, but then that is commonplace in many big budget flicks today. Although, when viewing the Special Features CD I was surprised to see the producer, director, etc. all make a big deal out of it. I guess this must be the first time any of them ever used computer generated effects.

I thought the acting was pretty substandard. In fact, while watching the movie on CD, although I had never seen it before, I often turned the movie off to go do something else for awhile. Maybe it was because I already knew the ending. I watched the entire movie over two days.

In one interview from the Special Effects CD, Brad Pitt says, "Brutal" over and over again to describe the rehearsals and training for the movie. This just reinforces my belief that actors have no idea what ordinary people put up with on a daily basis. Moreover, I suspect Brad Pitt was the perfect choice to play Achilles as that character was also a self-centered person.

However, I do think that the writers made a good choice when they only had the characters refer to the gods, instead of having the so-called gods appear themselves (i.e., shades of Steve Reeves).

One part of the film that I thought could have been better was the banquet scene in Sparta. It looked like an orgy, very unlike what would have taken place and the food was far better than what the Spartans really ate. In fact, one quote that has come down in history is from a Greek, visiting from another city state, who after having eaten supper with a Spartan family remarks, "Now I know why the Spartans are not afraid to die." I guess what I hated most about this flick was the way they rewrote the Iliad to kill people off in the war when they didn't die until post-Troy, and to kill people off in the burning of Troy long after they were dead in the Iliad. If I was Homer, I would sue.

But then this is Hollywood... Don't forget to read the book.

There have been a large number of Civil War movies of every type made over the years. Yet The Red Badge of Courage is probably the best movie of this period, perhaps because it is also the simplest of any of them. It is based on Stephen Crane's great novelette of the same name. It almost makes one think Crane experienced the War himself, but he wasn't born until four years after the end of the Civil War and learned about the feelings of the veterans by reading magazines issued for Civil War veterans when he was in his early 20s. There is also some speculation that he visited veterans at a nearby old soldiers home and asked them about their experiences.

And how could Houston pick a better person to play the lead then Audie Murphy? Murphy was a combat veteran of the greatest war ever fought, and suffered post-traumatic nightmares from it. I fully understand why this great director fought the studio bosses to give Murphy the lead role. Bill Mauldin, a WW II veteran himself, also does an excellent job as the companion of "The Young Soldier."

I've been reading about the Civil War for 44 years and have seen most of the movies on that period, but I am always amazed at how this film captures the emotions and illusions of the millions of young men who fought in it. As a veteran of another, later, war, I can identify with the emotions of the young men depicted here.

The fact that there is very little dialogue (narration is supplied from Crane's book) actually helps the movie convey the mood of the volunteer soldier. And although Murphy plays a Federal soldier, he could easily represent a Confederate.

The movie espouses no side or cause, it is about the individual solider and his personal battle as he prepares to "meet the elephant," as the soldiers of that time called experiencing combat for the first time.

One last remark... the 1974 TV remake of the Red Badge of Courage, with John Thomas, suffers greatly in comparison, in both acting and authenticity.