Reviews

Is it a movie or a documentary? Bits of interviews, over the place. If I want see a interview or a statement I want to hear and don't need music. What's the point of the smo slo for the grief ?

If it didn't have Renee Zellweger in it I would rate it at under zero.

A landmark movie, which seems to have been forgotten or deliberately rubbed out like the eponymous tapes. It's interesting to read Roger Ebert's review now and see how he thought the emphasis on secret taping was an unnecessary addition to the story, when in fact it was of the essence.

A fairly superficial coverage of significant events in Roman history.. I don't think I learnt anything new at all, and I thought the dramatisations a bit simplistic, and quite unnecessary. I also though it a mistake to have the presenter dressed so as to emphasise her ample cleavage. Bring back Mary Beard - she makes the most mundane of Roman things interesting and exciting.

Wow ! What a surprise packet this is. In the same vein as, and at least as well made as "Zulu". The direction, casting, and acting are all first rate, and the combat scenes are realistic and convincing, and without any corny Hollywoodisms. Thoroughly engrossing war action. In addition, the film gets across to us an understanding of the global situation at the time and the significance of the assassination of Lumumba and the purported secession of Katanga from the Congo. The strongest message though is how the major powers failed to support the UN in the Congo, so that not only were a company of soldiers expendable, so was the UN Secretary-General himself. And De Gaulle had no hesitation in sending in legionnaire mercenaries to fight against UN peacekeepers. Jamie Dornan as Commandant (major) Quinlan and Mark Strong playing Conor Cruise O'Brien were outstanding, and I thought the actors playing the parts of Prendergast, Tshombe, and the legionnaire leader of the mercenaries were top class too. For a movie to be so good all round, a lot of credit must go the director. Looking at IMDb, it appears this is Richie Smyth's first directorial effort. I don't think it will be his last. Interestingly, or ominously, this movie comes out at a time when the clouds of civil war appear to be gathering over the Congo again, so there is a topical relevance as well.

This is just superficial, weak, clichéd Hollywood crap. There's hardly a western movie cliché that's left out. I should say that I've enjoyed quite a few Audie Murphy movies, but when the movie is otherwise bad, he comes across very unconvincingly. He's such a brave boy isn't he ! What is interesting and museum-worthy is the basic premise of the story, namely that the natives are the bad guys for trying to stop the European settlers taking over their land. I was surprised that this ethos could be on display as late as 1966 when the movie was made. If this was the mainstream attitude at that time then it is no wonder the US felt no reluctance in waging war on Vietnam as punishment for its outrageous behaviour in objecting to the US invasion. Times were of course achangin' : "Little Big Man", one of America's greatest movies,was made only 4 years later in 1970.