Reviews

This is a very bad western mainly because it is historically inaccurate. It looks as if it were shot on a back lot in California instead of where Jack Slade lived and died, Idaho, Colorado Territories, and Montana. It fictionalizes everything that is known about this mysterious 'bad man,' 'good man.' The script is horrible; there is very little direction, and lousy acting. Dorothy Malone is completely wasted as his wife. Mark Steven never seems to know how to portray this mysterious Jack Slade. In real life, Jack Slade was a very good stage line superintendent. He was feared by his local townsmen for his hard drinking. When drunk he would start fights and cause other problems in Virginia City, Montana. To insure that he could never terrorize them again, vigilantes lynched Jack Slade after he ignored their warning to leave town immediately. This is a horrible movie. I can not recommend anyone to watch this movie other than to see how Hollywood butches history at will, even to this day.

I recommend that people avoid this movie like the plague. This movie is so unrealistic it is laughable, which is a shame. A for instance is Edward James Olmos and his son in Vietnam. The time portrayed is all wrong; all dependents (who were in Vietnam) had already been sent home when the war intensified in the middle 60's and none was permitted there. My cousin was going to have his family with him in 1964, but was unable because that was when the the ban on dependents was begun. The realism of the war shown falls far short of what the war was in Vietnam. It looks as though the producers of this movie believed they could make a Vietnam war movie with little to no research, and it shows. The jungles of Mexico look more realistic than the forests of California. You can go on and on with the problems of this bad movie. This movie is an insult to all Vietnam vets. If you want to see a realistic Vietnam war movie I would recommend Oliver Stone's 'Platoon' or 'The Siege of Fire Base Gloria.' Avoid 'The Wall.' Semper Fi

This movie is horrendous; it does not resemble the classic movie by Robert Wise in anyway. It is noisy and stupid. People believe they can remake a classic and make it better with noise, blood, and or sex better. They are wrong! Too often the remake is horrible; seldom it is better. The script was horrible, the CGI was worse, the acting was abysmal. Robert Wise made a classic science fiction movie that was intelligent; they should have left it alone. I do not recommend this, I recommend the original classic science fiction movie directed by Robert Wise that starred Michael Rennie and Patricia Neal. This movie is far far better than the remake. Semper Fi

To put it bluntly, there is no error in the officer and enlisted uniforms as depicted in the movie. Enlisted Marines do not have a 'blood red stripe' down their dress blue trouser legs; only NCOs, SNCOs, and officers have 'blood red stripes' down their trouser legs in memory of all the blood lost in the taking of Chapaultepec Castle during the Mexican War. General officers have a 2 inch 'blood red stripe;' company grade and field grade officers have a 1.5 inch 'blood red stripe;' and non-commissioned officers and staff non-commissioned officers have a 1.125 inch 'blood red stripe' down their dress blue trouser legs. The hanging dress blues is a staff sergeant uniform and probably is there as a model for recruits to see. It definitely does not belong to the lieutenant, or sergeant at the desk in front of the lieutenant. The lieutenant's dress blues uniform is darker, almost black, than a NCO or SNCO uniform per regulation. I served in the USMC 1968 to 1972 and was released as a sergeant. I wore dress blues on active duty as that was the uniform of the day. Again, there is no mistake in dress blues except your call in judgment of who wears dress blues in USMC which is completely wrong. Semper Fi

William Bradford Huie was a terrific writer and this fact based movie of his book is also terrific. Though Huie believed that Eddie Slovik should not have been shot, I disagree. War is hell and no man should shirk his duty when called upon to do his duty as many were willing to do; he was unwilling to do his duty when called upon. He was a coward, a very selfish man, and his criminal record shows this and demonstrates his unwillingness to conform to society and be productive. He was willing for others to do his duty while he wanted to live his life as he wanted. If everyone was allowed to do what he wanted to do we may very well have lost WW II--what a horrible thought! Martin Sheen gives his best performance of his career in this movie; too bad that it had to be so unsympathetic a role. Slovik received what he deserved; too bad others think not.

'Shooter' starts fairly well, and then takes a precipitous downward spiral that never recovers. "Point of Impact" is an excellent action novel that is the first of a series of Robert Lee Swagger novels. A Viet Nam sniper who barely survived his war demons, he lives alone in Arkansas with his dog. He is consulted on an assassination attempt, when implicated in that assassination attempt, he hunts for the killers to clear his name. This is where it deviates from the book and descends into a comic book Bruce Willis type action film that loses all credibility. The terrific end of the novel is missing in this movie. To the detriment of the screen writer, he butchered the novel--he did not improve on the novel at all. My girl friend enjoyed the movie; I found the movie very unsatisfying, so much, I have to give it a failing grade, 'F.' Even Mark's beard looked pretty awful. Read the novel; do not see this movie, it was awful.