I've just watched "Valmont" and "Dangerous Liaisons" back to back and immediately after reading the book (I had seen "Dangerous Liaisons" before and loved it). I loved the book, and "Dangerous Liaisons" is a good and reasonably faithful adaptation of it, and certainly close to its bitter spirit. "Valmont" is a much looser and poorer adaptation of the book, and thus deserved to lose out on its rival film. The acting in Valmont is pretty decent, particularly Colin Firth, but John Malkovitch (Valmont), Glenn Close (Merteuil) and Michelle Pfeiffer (de Tourvel) are much more convincing in Dangerous Liaisons. Only Fairuza Balk (Cecile) is more plausible in Valmont than her counterpart in Dangerous Liaisons (Una Thurman).
Reviews
15 Reviews
Valmont
(1989)
Poorer and looser adaptation of the novel, than Dangerous Liaison
7 July 2010
I've just watched "Valmont" and "Dangerous Liaisons" back to back and immediately after reading the book (I had seen "Dangerous Liaisons" before and loved it). I loved the book, and "Dangerous Liaisons" is good and reasonably faithful adaptation of it, and certainly close to its bitter spirit. "Valmont" is a much looser and poorer adaptation of the book, and thus deserved to lose out on its rival film. The acting in Valmont is pretty decent, particularly Colin Firth, but John Malkovitch (Valmont), Glenn Close (Merteuil) and Michelle Pfeiffer (de Tourvel) are much more convincing in Dangerous Liaisons. Only Fairuza Balk (Cecile) is more plausible in Valmont than her counterpart in Dangerous Liaisons (Una Thurman).
Uneven but very funny in places
23 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this black and white comedy noir yesterday at the London film Festival. Structurally, it has been compared to Pulp Fiction but it is perhaps closer to the structure of Amores Perros and the slacker mood of Kevin Smith's Clerks. Four stories intersect at a French motorway diner. The first vignette has Franck (Edouard Baer) bungling a hold up at the diner. The waitress, Suzie (Anna Mouglalis) takes pity and tell him her story. The second has two incompetent kidnappers, Leon (Bouli Lanners) and Paul (Serge Lariviere) take a teenage girl from her rich family. Unfortunately for them, she is suicidal and her family don't appear to want her back. The third is a dialogue between two ageing rock stars who bump into each other at the diner (Alain Bashung and Arno playing themselves). The final part is about four ex-criminals who smuggle their old partner out of hospital to visit their old hideout which has since been turned into
the diner. An 'epilogue' returns to Franck and Suzie to complete their story (not really an epilogue, more a conclusion).
The structure does not really work. The stories are not sufficiently intertwined as in Pulp Fiction. Nor is the diner crucial to the action to at least two of the stories in the way the car crash was crucial in the four stories of Amores Perros. The quality of the individual stories varies. The hideout story is a cute idea, with a couple of good gags, but does not come off; and the rock star reunion is pointless and dull. On the other hand, the kidnap story is hilarious, although its connection to the diner is tenuous. The most balanced and successful story is the Franck and Suzie one.
This film isn't entirely successful but has moments of interest and hilarity. I look forward to seeing more of Writer/director's Samuel Benchetrit's work.
The structure does not really work. The stories are not sufficiently intertwined as in Pulp Fiction. Nor is the diner crucial to the action to at least two of the stories in the way the car crash was crucial in the four stories of Amores Perros. The quality of the individual stories varies. The hideout story is a cute idea, with a couple of good gags, but does not come off; and the rock star reunion is pointless and dull. On the other hand, the kidnap story is hilarious, although its connection to the diner is tenuous. The most balanced and successful story is the Franck and Suzie one.
This film isn't entirely successful but has moments of interest and hilarity. I look forward to seeing more of Writer/director's Samuel Benchetrit's work.
I hated it!
26 June 2007
I always needed at least a bit of narrative drive in a film. This has virtually none, despite a promising plot. Cosmo Vitelli (Ben Gazzara) owner of a strip club (possibly the worst strip club ever) has just paid off his last set of gambling debts to a loan shark and celebrates by going gambling. to pay off that set of debts he eventually agrees to murder a Chinese bookie for the hoodlums to whom he owes the debt. He murders the target half way through the film, who turns out to be a bigger fry than just a bookie, and then realises he's been set up by the hoodlums.
John Cassavetes, however, decided to concentrate on the characters rather than the action so you see lots of interactions between Vitelli, his girls and the gangsters and lots of shots of Vitelli thinking. The only action point is the actual murder.
I understand that audiences stormed out of the cinema during and after the film during a couple of initial screenings when the film was finished. As a result Cassavetes cut the film by half an hour, to a still mind-numbing 109 minutes, but it didn't get a theatrical release. It was only shown on video after his death and has slowly become regarded as an avant-garde, character driven, masterpiece.
I'm afraid, however, that I agree with the initial audiences. The film has no pace. It is dull. Even as a character piece it fails. Gazzara is good as Vitelli and the gangsters are well acted. However, the girls are pastiche and the film's view of them is horribly dated.
John Cassavetes, however, decided to concentrate on the characters rather than the action so you see lots of interactions between Vitelli, his girls and the gangsters and lots of shots of Vitelli thinking. The only action point is the actual murder.
I understand that audiences stormed out of the cinema during and after the film during a couple of initial screenings when the film was finished. As a result Cassavetes cut the film by half an hour, to a still mind-numbing 109 minutes, but it didn't get a theatrical release. It was only shown on video after his death and has slowly become regarded as an avant-garde, character driven, masterpiece.
I'm afraid, however, that I agree with the initial audiences. The film has no pace. It is dull. Even as a character piece it fails. Gazzara is good as Vitelli and the gangsters are well acted. However, the girls are pastiche and the film's view of them is horribly dated.
The Lady from Shanghai
(1947)
Visually stunning, but badly written and acted film noir
23 September 2003
Apparently Welles made this film to help finance a Mercury Theatre production. It shows. It's sloppy.
The film noir plot is complex. Too complex for Welles, it's riddled with holes. The whole thing hinges on O'Hara behaving in ways that only a fool would even consider. Hayworth is stunning but equally idiotic as the femme fatale. However, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders are good fun as the Hayworth's crippled, hot-shot criminal defence lawyer, husband and his giggling, slimy business partner, although their performances hinge on caricature rather than character.
The trial scene is hilarious, but in ways that were probably not entirely intended by Welles. Sloane is defending Welles on a murder charge, but then both Sloane and Hayworth, Sloane's wife, get called as witnesses for the prosecution without notice. The whole thing is farcical, so farcical indeed that Welles's character decides to scarper. Visually the section that follows is one of the most stunning I have seen.
Finally, Welles's Irish accent was awful. There did not appear to be any reason for it. His character could just as easily have been an American for all the difference it made to the plot.
In all, the whole is one of the most laughable film noirs I have ever seen.
The film noir plot is complex. Too complex for Welles, it's riddled with holes. The whole thing hinges on O'Hara behaving in ways that only a fool would even consider. Hayworth is stunning but equally idiotic as the femme fatale. However, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders are good fun as the Hayworth's crippled, hot-shot criminal defence lawyer, husband and his giggling, slimy business partner, although their performances hinge on caricature rather than character.
The trial scene is hilarious, but in ways that were probably not entirely intended by Welles. Sloane is defending Welles on a murder charge, but then both Sloane and Hayworth, Sloane's wife, get called as witnesses for the prosecution without notice. The whole thing is farcical, so farcical indeed that Welles's character decides to scarper. Visually the section that follows is one of the most stunning I have seen.
Finally, Welles's Irish accent was awful. There did not appear to be any reason for it. His character could just as easily have been an American for all the difference it made to the plot.
In all, the whole is one of the most laughable film noirs I have ever seen.
Frailty
(2001)
Well written, well acted, well directed.
14 April 2003
Well written, well acted, well directed.
Matthew McConnaughey plays Fenton Meiks, who tells FBI agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Booth) that his younger brother, Adam was the God's Hand Serial killer. Fenton proceeds to tell an initially sceptical Doyle that Adam has killed himself, and relates the story of their father (Bill Paxton). Dad Meiks was a single parent who one day 22 years previously, told his young sons that he had had a vision that they were supposed to kill demons disguised as humans on God's behalf. He enlists his young sons in the task, Adam willingly, Fenton less so.
What follows is a mixture of horror, suspense and twists. Whether the last twist works is a matter of personal preference. I think some will find it ludicrous, but it worked for me although a bit more ambiguity about the motivations of the characters could have heightened the horror of the whole piece. Paxton, McConnaughey, Booth and Matthew O'Leary (Fenton as a boy) stand out in the cast. Highly enjoyable.
Matthew McConnaughey plays Fenton Meiks, who tells FBI agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Booth) that his younger brother, Adam was the God's Hand Serial killer. Fenton proceeds to tell an initially sceptical Doyle that Adam has killed himself, and relates the story of their father (Bill Paxton). Dad Meiks was a single parent who one day 22 years previously, told his young sons that he had had a vision that they were supposed to kill demons disguised as humans on God's behalf. He enlists his young sons in the task, Adam willingly, Fenton less so.
What follows is a mixture of horror, suspense and twists. Whether the last twist works is a matter of personal preference. I think some will find it ludicrous, but it worked for me although a bit more ambiguity about the motivations of the characters could have heightened the horror of the whole piece. Paxton, McConnaughey, Booth and Matthew O'Leary (Fenton as a boy) stand out in the cast. Highly enjoyable.
Gangs of New York
(2002)
Looks great but ultimately disappointing.
3 March 2003
On the plus side: Daniel Day Lewis is amazing as Bill the Butcher; DiCaprio is better than expected as Amsterdam; Jim Broadbent and Brendan Gleeson are also outstanding. The look of the film is great, and the fight scenes that punctuate the film gruesome and exciting.
On the downside: The story was slow and clunking and it's a shame that Weinstein couldn't persuade Scorsese to trim the film more. The exposition is heavy handed. For example we really didn't need to see any of the flashbacks and there are some scenes where DiCaprio, in particular, either in character or in the voice over, feels it necessary to explain bits of the film's history. The screenwriters have obviously researched in depth (or got it out of Astbury's source book) but then kept all the research in the film even when it didn't necessarily move the story along. The symbolism was also heavy handed. That scenes with Priest Vallon's razor. All of that could have been cut. John Reilly's character and accent were poor. Finally, there was no point to Diaz's character and, besides, she was wrong for the part. One suspects that she was foisted on Scorsese to increase box office and because there was a need to have a major female character in the story. I can't help thinking that the material would have been better served by a writer like Nicholas Pileggi and a more episodic approach as in Scorsese's and Pileggi's Goodfellas and Casino.
For what it's worth, the person I went to see it with disagrees totally with all my negative points, and it was interesting enough for me to want to read the book.
On the downside: The story was slow and clunking and it's a shame that Weinstein couldn't persuade Scorsese to trim the film more. The exposition is heavy handed. For example we really didn't need to see any of the flashbacks and there are some scenes where DiCaprio, in particular, either in character or in the voice over, feels it necessary to explain bits of the film's history. The screenwriters have obviously researched in depth (or got it out of Astbury's source book) but then kept all the research in the film even when it didn't necessarily move the story along. The symbolism was also heavy handed. That scenes with Priest Vallon's razor. All of that could have been cut. John Reilly's character and accent were poor. Finally, there was no point to Diaz's character and, besides, she was wrong for the part. One suspects that she was foisted on Scorsese to increase box office and because there was a need to have a major female character in the story. I can't help thinking that the material would have been better served by a writer like Nicholas Pileggi and a more episodic approach as in Scorsese's and Pileggi's Goodfellas and Casino.
For what it's worth, the person I went to see it with disagrees totally with all my negative points, and it was interesting enough for me to want to read the book.
City of God
(2002)
One of the best films I've ever seen
16 January 2003
I saw this at the London Film Festival in November. It made the whole festival for me. The comparisons with Goodfellas and Amores Perros are deserved, although I preferred it to the latter film. The subject matter - the lives of street level gang members over a period of time and the editing and story telling style are similar to Goodfellas. I just can't believe that most of the actors are not professionals.
You must see this film. Hopefully, once it opens in the USA tomorrow, it will have sufficient votes to get into the top 100 films on this site. It deserves to.
You must see this film. Hopefully, once it opens in the USA tomorrow, it will have sufficient votes to get into the top 100 films on this site. It deserves to.
A Is for Acid
(2002 TV Movie)
An excellent and chilling portrayal of the banality of evil
10 September 2002
The film traces the life and deeds of a true life serial killer, John George Haig AKA the Acid Bath Murderer. Whilst in jail for fraud in the thirties he accidentally discovers the effect that acid has on animal bodies. He subsequently "offs" a series of people including a couple a family and three strangers by inviting them to his "workshop". He dissolves the bodies in oil drums full of acid. The film cuts to flashbacks of his upbringing by zealously religious parents, but steers clear of obviously blaming the parents for the son's murderous behaviour.
The film has a similar attention to detail as "10 Rillington Place" and Martin Clunes is excellently creepy as the charming Mr Haig. The contrast is small between Haig's day-to-day behaviour and the actual murders and disposals of the body but fascinating, leading to comparisons with Richard Attenborough's portrayal of Christie in 10 Rillington Place, but this film is more darkly humorous.
The film is written by Taggart creator Glenn Chandler and directed by Harry Bradbeer who directed most of the excellent BBC series "The Cops".
The film has a similar attention to detail as "10 Rillington Place" and Martin Clunes is excellently creepy as the charming Mr Haig. The contrast is small between Haig's day-to-day behaviour and the actual murders and disposals of the body but fascinating, leading to comparisons with Richard Attenborough's portrayal of Christie in 10 Rillington Place, but this film is more darkly humorous.
The film is written by Taggart creator Glenn Chandler and directed by Harry Bradbeer who directed most of the excellent BBC series "The Cops".
Follows the strengths and flaws of the book
7 January 2002
As a sad fan of fantasy fiction, but someone who thought the book of "The Lord of the Rings" was overrated, this film came pretty much up to expectations. It has much the same strengths (beautiful scenery and detail) as well as a couple of its own (great special effects, fight scenes, performances from Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee). It also has the same big flaw, the plot. It took me a couple of times to get past the first book as the plot meanders. Unfortunately the film is the same, and after a while, as someone lese has pointed out, it just turns into a "Dungeons and Dragons" game with a number of scenarios which the heroes have to fight or puzzle their way out of.
Still worth seeing as, like the book, the plot is only part of the point. The setting, scenery and special effects are superb and there are truly some moments of terror especially near the beginning. The second film, like the second book, will hopefully be better. It's certainly not the best film of all time.
7 out of 10
Still worth seeing as, like the book, the plot is only part of the point. The setting, scenery and special effects are superb and there are truly some moments of terror especially near the beginning. The second film, like the second book, will hopefully be better. It's certainly not the best film of all time.
7 out of 10
The Man Who Wasn't There
(2001)
Excellent film noir homage
29 October 2001
This black and white 40s noir homage to James M Cain, relates the story of a barber (Thornton) who blackmails his wife's lover (McDormand as the wife and Gandolfini as the lover) to buy into a partnership (with Polito) to start a dry cleaners (his ambitions simply have no limit!). The remainder of the film charts the consequences of that action. A subplot also has him trying to encourage his friend's schoolgirl daughter to success as a musician, so that he can manage her.
Like Cain's novels the film is about ordinary people doing extraordinary things and usually losing. Whilst it has similarities with Fargo in terms of subject matter, and Miller's Crossing in terms of setting, dialogue and style, it has important differences. Despite the thrillerish plot, it deliberately avoids moving quickly or suspensefully. Instead it concentrates on the slow and stupid thoughts and movements of the main character and thus moves more slowly than you would expect from the premise, into an ever-downward spiral. The subplot, though largely superfluous to the main plot, does accentuate the loser streak in Thornton and manages a quick homage-with-a-twist to Lolita at the same time.
The highlights are the photography, the acting (especially from Thornton, Gandolfini and Tony Shalhoub - as a shyster defence lawyer)and, on the whole, the plot. However, great though this film is, it's not as good as my personal Coen brother favourites, "Fargo" and "Miller's Crossing". One of the problems was the slow pace, although I appreciate that this was intentional and I was in a cinema without air conditioning on a hot night. Also the pace is explained with a good joke at the end of the film. More problematic are the plot holes surrounding the trial scenes towards the end of the film that slightly spoil the ending.
In all, however, an excellent film (and better than either "O brother where art thou" or "Big Lebowski").
Like Cain's novels the film is about ordinary people doing extraordinary things and usually losing. Whilst it has similarities with Fargo in terms of subject matter, and Miller's Crossing in terms of setting, dialogue and style, it has important differences. Despite the thrillerish plot, it deliberately avoids moving quickly or suspensefully. Instead it concentrates on the slow and stupid thoughts and movements of the main character and thus moves more slowly than you would expect from the premise, into an ever-downward spiral. The subplot, though largely superfluous to the main plot, does accentuate the loser streak in Thornton and manages a quick homage-with-a-twist to Lolita at the same time.
The highlights are the photography, the acting (especially from Thornton, Gandolfini and Tony Shalhoub - as a shyster defence lawyer)and, on the whole, the plot. However, great though this film is, it's not as good as my personal Coen brother favourites, "Fargo" and "Miller's Crossing". One of the problems was the slow pace, although I appreciate that this was intentional and I was in a cinema without air conditioning on a hot night. Also the pace is explained with a good joke at the end of the film. More problematic are the plot holes surrounding the trial scenes towards the end of the film that slightly spoil the ending.
In all, however, an excellent film (and better than either "O brother where art thou" or "Big Lebowski").
Man in a Suitcase
(1967–1968)
The most under-rated series of the sixties
21 August 2001
Man in a suitcase follows the exploits of an American in London and Europe after her get kicked out of the CIA. I first came across this show on a day time TV run years ago and watched it expecting something cheesy. I was very pleasantly proved wrong and having been trying to buy or tape as many episodes as I could get my hand on ever since.
Although produced by Lew Grade's ITC company, it shares little in common with stablemates such as "Champions", "DangerMan" or even "The Prisoner". What made it different was the quality of the plots, the acting (especially Richard Bradford's)and the way it managed to combine elements of glamour and gritty realism...oh, and the title music (although all ITC shows had good title music and sequences).
An excellent series.
Although produced by Lew Grade's ITC company, it shares little in common with stablemates such as "Champions", "DangerMan" or even "The Prisoner". What made it different was the quality of the plots, the acting (especially Richard Bradford's)and the way it managed to combine elements of glamour and gritty realism...oh, and the title music (although all ITC shows had good title music and sequences).
An excellent series.
Brown's Requiem
(1998)
Excellent, underrated, modern noir
26 April 2001
I am amazed that, given the reviews of the film (all apart from two rate the film highly), how this film managed to score so poorly. Indeed, I think it's a huge shame that it didn't get a better cinema release in this country. I only saw it on video.
I thought it was excellent thriller in the noir tradition. There are three standout elements. First, the plot and feel of the film. These are faithful to James Ellroy's book, more so than in the case of LA Confidential. I was amazed how much of the detailed plot was included (and believe me Ellroy plots are detailed!) Secondly, Cynthia Millar's haunting piano score was probably largely responsible for my second viewing of the film. Thirdly, Michael Rooker's performance. I had only ever remembered him as the villain in Sea of Love, a part he played well but not outstandingly. Here, though, his hangdog expression served him excellently. He is a modern Robert Mitchum, born to play noir leads. Actually he's better, Mitchum was too smooth.
Highly recommended. Go see it and give it more deserving marks on the board than it has at the moment. I haven't mentioned Jason Freedland's contribution, but I hope to see more from this talented director, given his superb first attempt.
I thought it was excellent thriller in the noir tradition. There are three standout elements. First, the plot and feel of the film. These are faithful to James Ellroy's book, more so than in the case of LA Confidential. I was amazed how much of the detailed plot was included (and believe me Ellroy plots are detailed!) Secondly, Cynthia Millar's haunting piano score was probably largely responsible for my second viewing of the film. Thirdly, Michael Rooker's performance. I had only ever remembered him as the villain in Sea of Love, a part he played well but not outstandingly. Here, though, his hangdog expression served him excellently. He is a modern Robert Mitchum, born to play noir leads. Actually he's better, Mitchum was too smooth.
Highly recommended. Go see it and give it more deserving marks on the board than it has at the moment. I haven't mentioned Jason Freedland's contribution, but I hope to see more from this talented director, given his superb first attempt.
Billy Elliot
(2000)
Good film, but overhyped
9 April 2001
Billy Elliot is a touching, funny story with great acting from Jamie Bell (Billy), Gary Lewis (Billy's dad) and Stuart Wells (Billy's friend who is just discovering his sexuality). Julie Walters as Billy's chainsmoking, swearing, ballet teacher is good too, but she is starting to get stereotyped in this type of role. Jamie Bell's dancing was excellent.
That said I don't think it was deserving of all the attention it got. It was a little formulaic and predictable. Ken Loach did this type of thing much better(and funnier)with "Kes".
That said I don't think it was deserving of all the attention it got. It was a little formulaic and predictable. Ken Loach did this type of thing much better(and funnier)with "Kes".
Rules of Engagement
(2000)
cliched characterisation, terrible plot, and distasteful propaganda
26 March 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Spoiler warning: This review gives away the plot (not that this is a great loss!)
This may have been a return to box office success for William Friedkin, but it wasn't a return to form.
Leaving aside the issue of taste or politics, the film is a cliched courtroom drama. In terms of character and acting, it features the usual defending attorney who doesn't appear to be up to the job (Tommy Lee Jones in a part much better played by Dustin Hoffman in Sleepers or Paul Newman in the Verdict) acting for a difficult but "principled" defendant (Samuel Jackson in part better played by...err...Samuel Jackson in "Time to kill"). Guy Pearce plays the supposedly brilliant, but ruthless and officious, prosecutor in a manner similar to his portrayal in LA Confidential, but without the balancing aspects of insight or ability to learn from mistakes that made his protagonist in the latter film such a compelling character. There is also the ruthless, calculating politician (Bruce Greenwood), the cowardly, slimy politician (Ben Kingsley) and the military hero father who is disappointed in his son (Phillip Baker Hall as, you guessed it, Jones's dad).
The plot points are also badly handled by the writer, director and editor of the film. It was insulting to the intelligence to have to see the Vietnam incidents and the National Security Adviser's burning of the video tape (that must have stunk his Office out!)It would have been better for these points to come out during the cross examination in the court scenes or, in the case of the video tape, during Jones's investigation in Yemen. Similarly Jackson's view of the crowd at the Yemen demonstration would have been better left out so that the viewer, like the jury, has to decide whether to believe him.
Both in terms of plot and taste it would have been better to make Jackson's character and his actions more ambiguous. Supposing we had never seen the demonstration in Yemen from Jackson's point of view. We would have been left with a verdict that left the film more ambiguously challenging and less of a right wing flag waving propaganda exercise (not helped by the crass salute that Jackson receives from his Vietnam counterpart at the end of the film).
However, as the film stands, it is cliched, simplistic, and somewhat offensive.
Finally, what's the point of having written epilogues in a film like this? This is only worthwhile if either, you let viewers know what happened after the story finished in the case of a real life story, or as a joke. On second thoughts, it was pretty funny.
This may have been a return to box office success for William Friedkin, but it wasn't a return to form.
Leaving aside the issue of taste or politics, the film is a cliched courtroom drama. In terms of character and acting, it features the usual defending attorney who doesn't appear to be up to the job (Tommy Lee Jones in a part much better played by Dustin Hoffman in Sleepers or Paul Newman in the Verdict) acting for a difficult but "principled" defendant (Samuel Jackson in part better played by...err...Samuel Jackson in "Time to kill"). Guy Pearce plays the supposedly brilliant, but ruthless and officious, prosecutor in a manner similar to his portrayal in LA Confidential, but without the balancing aspects of insight or ability to learn from mistakes that made his protagonist in the latter film such a compelling character. There is also the ruthless, calculating politician (Bruce Greenwood), the cowardly, slimy politician (Ben Kingsley) and the military hero father who is disappointed in his son (Phillip Baker Hall as, you guessed it, Jones's dad).
The plot points are also badly handled by the writer, director and editor of the film. It was insulting to the intelligence to have to see the Vietnam incidents and the National Security Adviser's burning of the video tape (that must have stunk his Office out!)It would have been better for these points to come out during the cross examination in the court scenes or, in the case of the video tape, during Jones's investigation in Yemen. Similarly Jackson's view of the crowd at the Yemen demonstration would have been better left out so that the viewer, like the jury, has to decide whether to believe him.
Both in terms of plot and taste it would have been better to make Jackson's character and his actions more ambiguous. Supposing we had never seen the demonstration in Yemen from Jackson's point of view. We would have been left with a verdict that left the film more ambiguously challenging and less of a right wing flag waving propaganda exercise (not helped by the crass salute that Jackson receives from his Vietnam counterpart at the end of the film).
However, as the film stands, it is cliched, simplistic, and somewhat offensive.
Finally, what's the point of having written epilogues in a film like this? This is only worthwhile if either, you let viewers know what happened after the story finished in the case of a real life story, or as a joke. On second thoughts, it was pretty funny.
Tell Your Friends