Reviews

The makers of this film have assembled a collection of statements made by members of the Bush Administration in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The power of the film is in its simplicity. It is dispassionate. No moralizing, no condemnation -- the guilty just hang themselves.

The principal tactic the Bush people used to engineer the invasion of Iraq was to weave together: 1) truths (Saddam Hussein is a bad guy); 2) half-truths (he wants nuclear weapons); and, 3) outright falsehoods (he is a year away from having nuclear weapons). The truths get people nodding in agreement, the half truths sound plausible enough, and the listeners end up buying the falsehoods.

The second tactic was to revert to emotionally laden symbolism. Count the times Bush said he was fighting for "freedom"; Saddam Hussein is "evil"; we are "defending America." There are many people for whom these words and terms resonate. Who can disagree that "freedom" is good and "evil" is bad?

This is a film that should be shown in History classes and Public Relations classes: the first, to show how the disaster happened, the second to teach how to get people to buy into something every fiber in their being should be telling them is wrong.

Toward the end of the movie, one of the main characters says, "Nudity is so boring." That's easy for him to say. He's on that side of the screen.

Anything -- nudity, aliens, raindrops against a windowpane -- anything to relieve the boredom and tedious dialog that so many French film makers think is deep and meaningful but which is just annoying. It isn't deep. It isn't meaningful. It's just silly nonsense to endure.

What a waste of talent from actors to whom art is everything and yet nothing. Wait. Now they've got me doing it.

I'm going to go watch a gangster film.

This movie begs comparisons with the original. It overcomes the slow pace of the 1957 version, but if you value any realism in this genre, you'll be disappointed. The gun violence is way, way over the top. Much too Hollywood, as they say. The acting is excellent and there is thoughtful devotion to those things that make great westerns -- scenery, dialog, music, and plenty of livestock and authentic weaponry -- but the spent cartridges (even excluding a Gatling gun) and body count strain belief. Anyone who merely likes westerns should see it and will probably enjoy it, but if you love westerns, keep your expectations in check.

I'm struggling to see if there is any justification to having spent the money to rent and watch this. I can't find any unless it's to stop others from falling victim as I did. Be forewarned. I can't believe Ron Perlman has sunk this low. I wish IMDb didn't have the ten line minimum, because now I'm spending even more time trying to warn you, dear reader, not to do what I have done. As I look back on my life, I'll remember with regret the evening I wasted on this film. If, by these words, I can help one person -- just one person -- avoid this experience, I'll earn some atonement and find peace. Perhaps I can convince Blockbuster to return my money or even pay me compensation, but I can't get back my time.

If you're even mildly interested in the War between the States, this film is worth watching. It is great historical story telling. No flashing sabres, no cavalry charges, no carnage -- just the story of a sorry group of Union soldiers stumbling into the farm of a Confederate woman and her son and taking as much as their captain's conscience allows. This quantity moves up and down as events unfold affecting his sense of humanity in conflict with his sense of duty to his men and his cause. Ultimately, he reaches a compromise that any of us would be hard put to top.

I appreciate the historical treatment of the war in Kentucky, a slave state that tried to stay neutral but eventually opted to remain in the Union under mysterious political circumstances involving the detention of certain legislators. Roughly half the soldiers from Kentucky fought for each side, but there's never been much treatment of what it was like to have lived there through those times. This film makes a great contribution simply in the "look and feel" of the time and place.

Not your slam bang big budget action film by any means. If you're looking for a recent exemplar of the well crafted, low budget, independent film, this is it. It's the kind of film you might want to see by yourself so that there's no chance for comment or interruption. The characters gradually emerge, the plot thickens, and you're with it all the way. What a talented group of actors this is and the direction and cinematography are absolutely fascinating. My only complaints are that the music is sometime intrusive, disruptive and the tennis match is a little trite -- small criticisms for what is otherwise a really nice movie.

This is a film of annoyances -- annoying characters, annoyingly predictable plot, an annoying voice-over, annoyingly stilted whimsy, but, most of all, the most annoying foreground soundtrack since the Paul Newman-Robert Redford films of the 1970s.

...if you like observing the world of the indolent, directionless elite of inherited wealth and watch them fritter away their aimless lives at the country club causing mischief for entertainment, then you might like this film. I did. Except for one dippy scene on a river with very meaningful SimonandGarfunkelly music, this film engages you in the characters and at the same time makes you glad that you don't REALLY know them. Can't speak about the authenticity of the New Orleans backdrop, but the archetypical characters sure looked familiar and real. Plus, it had a nice ending and everybody got what he wanted pretty much which is what movies are supposed to tell us life can sometimes be like, right?

Acting and script are spotty at best, production values are low, and the music interferes with rather than enhances the dramatic effect; but this low budget film does manage to work in all the cliches of the politically correct Western with a sufficient body count and a plot twist at the end. If you're an uncritical fan of Westerns, you might enjoy it, but it doesn't come close to measuring up to some of the modern classics like The Long Riders, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, The Wild Bunch, or even John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn films. These set a standard that not many films can come up to and this one doesn't even come close. If you decide to rent this one, make sure your fast forward is in good working order.

Just when Hollywood looked as though it was taking WWII seriously, what with all the commercial potential of pandering to The Greatest Generation, along comes a blood & guts exploitation movie that's updated the 1950's and 60's genre with Star Wars special effects, some realistic language, and politically correct attitudes toward race. Watch Nicholas Cage mow down dozens of Japs with his authentic Colt 45 and Thompson submachine gun; see Adam Beech deflect ignorant racism with mystical grace and aplomb; and Holy Toledo look at all them explosions! I kept waiting for Richard Widmark to come bursting over the hill guns ablazing. And how come the Japs didn't yell Banzai?

The movie does tell the interesting and important story of the Navajo code talkers. There's no sappy love story. And when it doesn't go way over the top into the realm of Sergeant Savage comic books, it also captures the confusion and mania of battle truly making this a movie that should be seen on the big screen.

But other recent films have surely treated the terror, sense of helplessness, and random selection of combat a lot better. Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, and We Were Soldiers all struck a more somber, realistic chord without getting too caught up in cliches of religion in the foxhole.

What's really disappointing is how the underlying story and brutality often get sublimated in the stylish choreography so that you're left thinking, "That's cool" or "How did they get that thing to blow up like that?" Unlike other recent combat films, it doesn't make you glad you weren't there and awestruck and respectful of those who were.

In the world of formulaic Indian cinema, I suppose this might be a standout production; but to my American eyes, the fine cinematography and high production values weren't enough to counter the bizarre cartoonish sense of this film. It was like a really really long comic book with simplistic dialog punctuated by: 1) Paula Abdul-syle song and dance numbers right out of 1980s MTV except sometimes with swords and stuff; and, 2) lame joke wisecracking by three comic relief guys with nothing to do with the story. When we do return to the plot, it is as predictable as a 1940s black & white Hollywood Western. You can fast forward the way you can skip pages in any boring story and lose nothing in your understanding of the plot. The violence is truly make-believe, perhaps because of Indian censorship restrictions. The battle scenes will look awfully tame to Americans. Those censorship restrictions probably account for the complete absence of nudity as well, except for some really cool tatoos and piercings on beautiful Indian models... which kind of sums it up: There's plenty of visual beauty, but not enough to make up for deficiencies in the other elements that make a video worth the $3 rental fee.