Reviews

I remember seeing this as an unsophisticated 8-year-old "spectacular-movie" fan. This was the time of "The Ten Commandments" which I saw twice, getting each of my mother's (separated) parents to take me to see it. (They both fell asleep BTW.) I loved it, cried over Paris' death, pined over Helen. I'm sure I saw it again, in the intervening years but this time I watched it with different eyes, different expectations, different experiences. I stillStillSTILL love it. The production was truly impressive: you could get a lot on the screen when making a film in Italy in the 1950's. The initial attack on the Walls of Troy was amazing: with hundreds of extras all choreographed perfectly (no CGI, but real people doing real movements.) I loved the sets, particularly the doors, some of which were MASSIVE; loved the shape of the Trojan shields. Truly wonderful costuming, set design, and use of the wide screen (BTW "The Ten C's" was NOT wide-screen). As a movie experience it was great. Of course the dialog was often stilted and unconvincing, and the acting was (also) often stiff. But the joys of such a spectacular visual treat are many.

Now to the accuracy of the film to its historical and literary roots: I just finished a really wonderful book "The war That Killed Achilles" by Caroline Alexander. It is a fairly detailed examination of the main points of "The Iliad" (I waited until I finished before watching the movie) and the idea that the Greeks were NOT THE GOOD GUYS is actually the basis for the saga. The WERE after loot: it's mentioned many times in "The Iliad". Achilles hatred for Menelaus and Agamemnon (my first cat I named Agamemnon) was accurate. The return of Achilles to the war was because of the death of Patroklos was there, though the movie ignored the almost-certain physical relationship between them. Achilles was the hero, though often petulant. And surprisingly, Priam was a very admirable character, courageously petitioning Achilles for the return of Hector's body. So I'm glad I recorded this, glad I read the book, glad I waited until finishing the book to watch this. It enriched the experience for me. Even more I'm STILL impressed. Don't fall for the negative reviews, they are. . . . . Well. . . . . Petulant!!

This episode really sums up my feelings toward this series. The first season was truly enjoyable. The quirky towns-folk were endearing and quite believable, and Hamish's rationality was a strong anchor. The stories were not silly or patronizing, just amusing light drama. However the quality of the writing and the story lines deteriorated, though the actors maintained their competence. The third season was hit-or-miss: the singing competition episode brought tear to my eyes, though the repetitive shinty was just a filler. However the last two episodes were absolute drivelDrivelDRIVEL The acting was terrible, the whole concept was nonsense. As a person who is 3/8ths Scotsman, I expected more. I watched all the episodes though it had become va chore. Was I glad that this was the last one? Well, absolutelyAbsolutelyABSOLUTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I enjoyed this, despite my reluctance to watch anything with Kiefer Sutherland in it. I have loathed him since the unbelievably overOverOVER-rated show "24" where if gradations of screaming were the sole criterion for judging an acting performance he would win an EGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! However, here he was better than okay, though no Bogart: I actually choaked up at the end of his courtroom scene, muchMuchMUCH to my surprise!

It compares well with the original movie (1988) of the court-martial alone if not the 1954 film. The acting was pretty good: the presiding officer was excellent, as was the prosecuting attorney. The Maryk role, as well as the Keefer role are under written and not sympathetic.

Now a sidetrack to the reviews. I really am astonished by the mindlessness of some of them. For the person who said it was too stagy, well IT WAS A PLAY. This person wanted more action to understand the end. But more action was unnecessary to get the end. And for the m*r*n who complained that there was a black character in charge and a woman (OMG, a woman in a position of responsibility) actually had noNoNO idea it was updated. I think we all know who he voted for in 2020, or would of if he were old enough.

This movie is just awfulAwfulAWFUL. I watched it because I watch every film on TCM's Noir Alley. I always start with the hope that I'm going to be rewarded with a gem, and sometimes I do see an excellent film, usually one I didn't expect to be. On the other hand, sometimes I watch and I am disappointed. This piece of tripe goes beyond disappointment. Jack Palance is passable, but no Bogart. And who ever thought Shelley Winters could act? She does the same thing in everyEveryEVERY film of her I've seen: a whiney, angsty stupidity that really gets on the nerves. The other actors were fair to "phone-it-in". It was fun to see Nick Adams, and Dennis Hopper, but they bring only mild relief to the over-all terribleness of the whole enterprise. The best actor by far was the dog. The script was poor and predictable, the directing pedestrian, the scenery nice (BTW did the have to airlift out the guy who SHOT HIM IN THE BACK like the helicoptered him in? And two of my favorite aspects of 50's films doing contemporary stories is seeing great cars and actors who also appeared in Perry Mason. This film had only minor pleasures in those areas. I'd have given it a 1 but for the dog.

True noir? Just because it's in black-and-white and is contemporary to the second half of the 1940's doesn't make it a noir. A noir film has a conniving, duplicitous woman taking advantage of a man weakened by his unhealthy attraction to her. And this weakness almost always brings him to do things he would, in all probability, never do. Here the man is the duplicitous one, though marrying someone to give a child a mother figure is not really a bad thing, is it? She would have some say in the treatment of little Phillip, and I doubt that she would let the starving continue. The absolute contempt for what we recognize as holistic medicine is quite revealing. I remember that chiropractors were reviled by the main-stream medical profession. In the mid-50's. Chiropractors were considered unethical and dangerous. I do recall actual films of the horror stories of people whose health (and LIVES) were destroyed by failure to go to a "regular doctor". That is an early example of the societal cost of the almost over-weaning adulation of the medical profession in the USA.

In any event, the "bad guy" never threatened the main character and treated her with respect and a kind of aloof affection. You have to question her motivations in marrying someone she knew for such a short time. In fact, their meeting to his death was about ten days. The acting was good, the transformation of negative characters to good ones was pretty well done. I enjoyed the movie. And the banister on that grand staircase was gorgeous. I wonder if that was created for the film. If so, kudos to the set designer. I do have another nit to pick. When I read these reviews, I see that no one uses hyphens. Sentences have words that make no sense without connecting the meaning with hyphens. I guess they don't teach grammar any more, and texting dumbs down people even more. Just a rant from an old man who mourns for the loss of such a simple sign of real literacy.

You enjoy a film full of unintended laughs. This one has so many that they are legion (yes pun intended). Let's start with the main cast. Rhonda was absolutely terrible, there can be no other description of her performance. She has the range of, well, no range at all. William Lundigan has all the sex appeal of mashed potatoes, without the gravy. And Gaymond Burr, must have dreaded those kissing scenes. Actually there was an undercurrent between WL and GB near the end, but perhaps I'm viewing it with after-knowledge. And they had a middle-aged actor playing Octavius who was only about 20 at the time. The choreography was absolutely breath-takingly awful. I laughed until I almost cried: especially Julie Newmayer's {sic} golden performance. And the man in the bear suit was also pretty unconvincing.

The sets, of course, were co-opted from another film, and were quite beautiful. There was a scene where WL is fighting a pre-Cochise Michael Ansara where they were in steps and the was was painted pale lavender and unblemished, but later, for no reason, the wall is scraped and chipped with many white spots. MA was actually in a Perry Mason: do you think they has several good laughs remembering? Rhonda's costumes were quite nice: thanks Jean Louis. To those giving it such low ratings, lighten-up it was truly entertaining. My rating is of course way to high if I'm being serious, but I stick with it.

This is an astoundingly terrible movie. The acting is awful, especiallyEspeciallyESPECIALLY by Claudette: entirely unbelievable and overOverOVER-the-top. The rest of the cast was Okay, and I got to see a few actors who appeared in Perry Mason (the fake justice-of-the-peace, the lawyer) (all RKO films of the late 40's, early 50's have actors who were in PM's); and of course seeing Vivian Vance as somebody other than Ethel was a treat.

One more thing: the reflection of "monsoon" in the water would be "wonsoon"; it would be upside down, not reversed spelling. If you want a good laugh at how not to write a script, this is for you. I see this is going to be on TCM's Noir Alley in September. If I waited until then it would be another in a long line of seriously over-rated films shown in that series.

I have watched many "Independent Lens" films over two decades, but I have never been so moved by one, as I am by this. As a lover of classical music, I imagined that this would be an uplifting story of music raising the spirit of young Venezuelans; and it seemed to be doing just that. But the introductory narration hinted otherwise. What was the real point of the film was the deterioration of the country's economy and social order as the governmental mistakes piled up, and how it affected the lives of the three young people featured. It is hard to imagine, here in the USA, what real systemic poverty looks like, but this is clear and demoralizing. That these huge masses of people live in such poverty, and survive without showing unquenchable bitterness, is a tribute to their spirit and moral courage. No one who watches this can come away from it with anything but respect and admiration. The tiny problems of my life, things that I moan about, are nothing compared to what many millions face and survive every day.

I happened to turn to this by chance, and began to watch at the baby (full- frontal nudity!!!!) spitting scene. As a child of the 1950's I was always enamored of epics, but this one I had never seen. I watched for a few minutes, mightily impressed by the incredible beauty of the visuals. That film stock was something else with gorgeous colors, giving an almost palpable density to the feel of the movie. They don't use film stock like that any more. The sets were really great: the doors of the temple HAD TO BE at least 40 feet tall. Gina's costumes were fabulous, and the climactic battle scene was amazing, though it was obvious that those were dummies rushing over that precipice. That had to be even more obvious on a huge screen, but people were MUCH less concerned with things like that then. I worried about he horses: was any care taken of them in the Spain of the loathsome Franco?

However, I found myself making mocking commentary on the story, with all of the pseudo-reverential and ridiculous religious mumbo-jumbo (and Y*hw*h even spoke at the end).

So to sum up, quite ravishing to see, but quite giggle-producing to a rationalist.

I expected an ultimately uplifting story about the sport that I love. This is not that. It is a revelation of the pain and the terrible trials of these three young men, who left Cuba full of hope that their talent would serve them well. But the obstacles that they faced were over-whelming and none of them achieved their goal. One of them had to run the gauntlet of getting from Costa Rica to the US, with constant mental and financial strains. He was taken advantage of repeatedly. But so were the other two, one of whom disappeared by the end. The biggest advantage-taker was their supposed ticket to the "Bigs", a real slime-ball. Why he ever agreed to be filmed is mind-boggling, because he as revealed as a predator of these dependent, lonely and frightened young men. I started crying about half-way through, and did not stop crying even after the film ended. I recommend this, but only if you are willing to be saddened.