Reviews

For those that have studied WWII, and unfortunately, seen real human brains on the ground, this movie is a travesty, a sadistic farce, and a complete waste of time like most of Tarantino's other questionable work. I do admit to liking "Reservoir Dogs" to a point. However, this thing does not even have an original title.

I (unfortunately) received this DVD by mistake and see this project as a new low for Brad Pitt and the other actors taking part in this joke of making jews more barbaric than the Nazis. It perpetuates blame on the common German soldiers while covering up the major part US and UK bankers like Prescott Bush had in funding Hitler, as well as, the now confirmed part that British Intelligence had in bringing Hitler and Mussolini to power beginning immediately at the end of WWI.

WWII was a complex and tragic event, and the real world history deserves better than this self serving, mythological blood feast served up for fools too lazy to look for the truth and try to prevent a recurrence. History can repeat itself when we become manipulated by propaganda, desensitized to inhumane actions, and self righteous.

If you want to look at atrocities, many can argue that Stalin made Hitler and the Nazis look like rank amateurs in the business of murdering innocent people, as well as, the drug crazed gangs of Niger roping off streets with human intestines. Where does it end? We need to be getting the multitude of shadowy intelligence agencies under control and accountability instead of getting a cheap emotional thrill about perpetuating their myths in Hollywood and our capitol cities.

I admit that I am more interested in the documented facts rather than novels when it comes to important periods of history. "Exodus" seemed to be a potentially interesting story that came off as a propaganda flick served up as a docudrama. I would have liked to have seen a more objective story that considers the "golden rule" rather than "the ends justifies the means". The idea of justifying the attitude of pirates (religious or not), has caused problems for most countries throughout the world.

The acting was all right, but the casting did not really seem to be very convincing overall.

The thoughts and decision making process of the people wanting to restore Israel as a Jewish state are interesting to me even though that may not be part of the book. There are always a familiar group of globalists involved in these decisions, and their viewpoint would also have been helpful in understanding a key to the inability to reach peaceful and stable relations in the Mideast. I have no doubt that peace, stability, and a virtual paradise could be created if these "kingpins" would allow it to happen. People are not that different when wanting the best future for their families.

The real tragedy is when movies try to blur fiction and fact to the point resulting in some level of propaganda by creating the illusion of a documentary. The story of Israel, like most countries, is far more complicated than can be presented in this movie and cannot recommend it.

"The Shining" is a movie that I like better and appreciate more over the years since I am not really a horror film or Stephen King fan. On the first viewing the shock value is much higher, like riding on a new roller coaster for the first time. However, even without the shocking gimmicks being a surprise, you still have a great movie.

I am a Stanley Kubrick fan because of his innovation, and his ability to deliver something special and fresh with few or no disappointments. His movies leave you knowing that you have not seen nearly everything interesting there is to see about a place, but enough to satisfy the story. The locations are places I want to experience.

Jack Nicholson, and the rest of the cast are very good. The great location looked realistic even at the studio, and is based on one of my favorite locations, Colorado.

The first time I saw this movie, I was not that excited by the Stephen King style "blood bath", and other horror show gimmicks. Once you see it, the movie becomes more about what caused Jack to flip out, just "cabin fever" or a form of demonic possession that has everyone seeing things.

It is nice to have the story end on something of a positive note, but like the Stephen King stories I have seen there is plenty of pain and carnage along the way.

"The Company" had an entertaining quality that leads you to believe you were getting inside information about the period covered. However, like other CIA/spy plots there is a main character who runs around all over the map, more or less trying to save the day, with a few other interesting characters thrown in.

I wish I had read the book, but the interesting aspect to this plot was that it at least shows the spies as locals willing to sell information for money and/or a new life, not really heroic characters. However, I agree that the best aspect was Michael Keaton's portrayal of James "Jesus" Angleton as a strange person with incredible power and hold of the flow of information. He does not seem to be either worthy or trustworthy enough to hold such control over an out of control agency.

Keaton's performance hints at the quirky and strange person Angleton was and made me wonder how this person could hold his position without much suspicion being place on him for all the moles who could not be found. The others were either too alcoholic or too much in denial to question Angleton and his highly questionable "friendships" in addition to the good chance of being thrown into a mental institution. Angleton's power was in knowing the dirt on everyone, and covering up his own dirt pile. Once it was learned that the mole, Ken Philby, was Angleton's close friend they should have been gone, preferably with prejudice.

Although the movie or series does not really go far enough into why nothing was done to change counter intelligence personnel when moles were not uncovered in a very short period of time, it does present the CIA, including Dulles as less than efficient protectors of liberty here in America or anywhere else.

After viewing "The Company", it is less surprising that Robert Hannsen, the FBI Mole, was able to sell prime secrets for years, and even become the counter intelligence agent in charge of looking for himself (a mole). The greatest problem with the CIA and similar intelligence agencies is that eventually the fox gets in charge of guarding the hen house or worse.

Today, we had better learn these lessons of the past, and get members of other countries military & intelligence agencies, dual citizens, out of our government, or we will continue to self-destruct.

"Tucker: The Man and His Dream" is a bitter sweet docudrama that makes you appreciate the wonderful look at an enthusiastic and innovative man, his supportive family & friends, and his embodiment of the dream of American free enterprise. Unfortunately the dream is crushed by a huge machine designed to destroy competition. In some ways the story is something like "Rocky I" building up hopes and even demonstrating worthiness & success, but ultimately overcome by the entrenched establishment.

Innovators like the Jeep designers, Tucker, Jim Hall and his Chaparral Racing cars, Carol Shelby and his Shelby & Ford Cobras inspired me toward mechanical engineering and automotive technology. Along the way you find that the path toward true innovation not as encouraged as one would expect, or we would probably be driving cars on some form of extremely plentiful natural gas today.

The hard lesson demonstrated by this movie is that many of the American dreams are "fairy tales", that there is no true free enterprise, or not for long. Tucker tried valiantly to compete with huge companies who hate competition, who spend billions fighting it with legislation, government agencies and the media.

The Jeep designers had to share production of their design with other manufacturers to get the government contract. Fortunately, Jim Hall's innovations were in race cars where innovation was not as restricted, but he did not really reap the financial rewards he deserved for his innovations that were eventually copied. Mr. Shelby redesigned existing cars, but is less well known for his own cars.

It is bitter reality to find that people with great enthusiasm. innovation, and the ability to complete and test their superior designs are often stopped by a multitude of obstacles instead of encouraged. For Tucker to get his fifty cars built is a tremendous accomplishment under the circumstances, but the fight by him and his family was sure leave them discouraged from any similar effort.

I would like to know more about his death six years after the trial. It seems suspicious to me with all the great ideas his sharp mind came up with.

"Tucker: The Man and His Dream" is a bitter sweet docudrama that makes you appreciate the wonderful look at an enthusiastic and innovative man, his supportive family & friends, and his embodiment of the dream of American free enterprise. Unfortunately the dream is crushed by a huge machine designed to destroy competition. In some ways the story is something like "Rocky I" building up hopes and even demonstrating worthiness & success, but ultimately overcome by the entrenched establishment.

Innovators like the Jeep designers, Tucker, Jim Hall and his Chaparral Racing cars, Carol Shelby and his Shelby & Ford Cobras inspired me toward mechanical engineering and automotive technology. Along the way you find that the path toward true innovation not as encouraged as one would expect, or we would probably be driving cars on some form of extremely plentiful natural gas today.

The hard lesson demonstrated by this movie is that many of the American dreams are "fairy tales", that there is no true free enterprise, or not for long. Tucker tried valiantly to compete with huge companies who hate competition, who spend billions fighting it with legislation, government agencies and the media.

The Jeep designers had to share production of their design with other manufacturers to get the government contract. Fortunately, Jim Hall's innovations were in race cars where innovation was not as restricted, but he did not really reap the financial rewards he deserved for his innovations that were eventually copied. Mr. Shelby redesigned existing cars, but is less well known for his own cars.

It is bitter reality to find that people with great enthusiasm. innovation, and the ability to complete and test their superior designs are often stopped by a multitude of obstacles instead of encouraged. For Tucker to get his fifty cars built is a tremendous accomplishment under the circumstances, but the fight by him and his family was sure leave them discouraged from any similar effort.

I would like to know more about his death six years after the trial. It seems suspicious to me with all the great ideas his sharp mind came up with.

"The Happening" seemed to start off with an interesting and mysterious plot, but falls flat from act 1. Two things bothers me, the first is the $60 million budget, because there have been much better films made for less than $20 million, and second is an underlying theme that unexplained events, such as the bees dying off, are caused by "nature" as an acceptable answer.

In my opinion, the audience needs to have more questions answered in order to buy into the story. In "The Happening" the plot failed to ever provide an explanation for what was really happening. We were told that "nature" could be fighting back by plants giving off some new toxin, but how could plants control the wind? Which plants were producing the toxin and why did it spread? Why did the toxins start one day and stop the next? There were some guesses that the toxins sensed a group of people and attacked based on some size group, but then that idea was contradicted by the old woman getting poisoned while alone.

Without any established limits, it is hard to buy into the idea of "nature" attacking at random, and requiring the wind to blow up at the same time. Is this a paid propaganda project to plant the idea that the problems with use of genetically modified plant seeds, and spraying aluminum compounds into the air is an unexplainable act of "nature", I don't know? Could it be? Yes, it certainly lacks other value.

In the extra materials on the DVD, the director states that he needed a home run at the end, and unfortunately, it was a bunt. The ending added more questions, instead of wrapping things up.

It wasn't the worst movie I have seen, but not up to what I expected either, and basically middle of the road by today's standards. "Tremors" proves you can do a lot more with a much smaller budget, but see "Cloverfield" if you gave this movie a "1".

"Apocalypse Now" is a movie that is both disturbing and entertaining. It is also a movie that is complex enough to grow on you over time. Maybe as you learn more about the history of Vietnam and the corrupt US politics that got us there, and kept us bogged down in what seemed to be the last place on earth we needed to be fighting, the insanity makes more sense.

It first seemed to me like instead of a red or blue pill, everyone in the movie was on a different pill; but they were all on something to cope with their frustrating situations. Even the tiger had an abnormal attitude. No one seemed to take the war seriously except the most insane characters, and they were now being eliminated for going rogue.

I didn't really like the movie at first, but I had a friend who seemed to have an obsession with this movie that I couldn't understand at the time.

Now I see it as a brilliant trip further and further down the river toward the insanity of corrupting absolute power, losing the boundaries set by civilization & the military code of conduct, and becoming an uncontrollable, political liability.

At the beginning, the rogue Colonel looks heroic on paper and possibly salvageable if he will just communicate and start cooperating with his commanders. Along the way you meet people who need reality checks, but still operate within acceptable boundaries based on their stressful conditions. By the end of the eventful trip down the river, everyone knows that the Colonel has become intoxicated by his isolated & admiring tribe of soldiers and natives, and has tried to play god for too long. He has become more a native tribal leader with no respect for life outside his tribe, than an Army Colonel.

He is a rogue operator who gets results, an efficient killer of the enemy; but he has gradually broken away from the chain of command. In a politically motivated military, when winning is not the goal, this is the ultimate crime - sustained independent action.

It makes you wonder how different is Colonel Kurtz from MacArthur or Patton if they were faced with the same enemies?

I watched the "300" on DVD without any real expectations other than thinking it might have a relationship to "Spartacus", hoped to get a little history insight, and that the HBO series "Rome" and the movie "Gladiator" were great.

Unfortunately, this reminded me of going to see "Dune", and not sure what to say about it to my date, who had read the book. I need more of a reality check. The problem is that there is always someone with something badder just around the corner in reality, but that is not much of a story.

Slaughtering people cartoon style by warriors who are far from heroic, just doesn't impress me as entertaining. Who knows what is around the corner for us, without trying to glorify a dog eat dog mentality. It left me feeling that spectators at a gladiator event would love this until they get dragged into the arena themselves.

In "Rome" and "Gladiator" you were able to understand the soul of major characters, what they lived for as well as what they fought for. They were flawed humans and not just machines guided by myth.

My heroes are Pericles who tried to establish and promote the first true democracy until being sabotaged after it worked too well, and the citizen soldiers, hopplites and farmers willing to fight when necessary to hold on to their freedom; not the imperial armies or the mercenaries.

"Tour of Duty" makes my top 10 of combat TV series. I think it presents a more realistic view than the movies presenting one extreme situation, and compares to "Combat" and "Band of Brothers" (WWII era). It may have some faults due to artistic license, but I find more interesting details while viewing the DVDs than I noticed originally.

"Tour of Duty" tries to present hard questions, from a soldier on the ground's point of view and his understanding of the situation. It shows the ruthlessness of the VC enemy fighting for homeland, and the uniformed NVA enemy. Sometimes the two fought with each other adding to the complex problem of identifying the enemy.

The real politics of the US government in Washington, DC and Vietnam is another story that begins at the end of WWII when huge shipments of arms not needed for invading Japan were sent to Vietnam from Okinawa, Japan. The books of Col. Fletcher Prouty are a better source for that. However, a villager in "Tour of Duty" curiously has a WWII era M1 Garand rifle and know how to use it. My question is were does he find the ammo, since I believe this fires the less common 30.06 round?

I like this series for the good acting and Terrance Knox as the Sergeant that holds things together, and looks after his men. It doesn't answer everything about Vietnam, but provides a better understanding of the what it was like there. The show features a realistic variety of soldiers of all backgrounds, and presented the problems of Americans trying to deal with survival under poor conditions, their sense of duty, their growing doubts, and wanting to believe that the end results would be worth the high cost.

The series is still surprisingly good.

I happened to see " Boeing, Boeing" on the TCM cable channel, and enjoyed seeing Tony Curtis and Jerry Lewis in this farce. They reminded me of a slightly more modern version of the comical "Road to ..." series of movies with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby.

Although not quite as polished as Hope & Crosby, Curtis & Lewis performed better than I expected together, and all the actors performed well. The story idea of a bachelor trying to juggle relationships and schedules with three flight attendants staying in one Paris apartment was interesting even if flawed at times.

Fans of Hope & Crosby movies, or Tony Curtis & Jack Lemon should like this pairing of Curtis & Lewis working together to keep the three flight attendants, all engaged to Curtis, from discovering each other. As the scheme falls apart due to flight schedule changes and early arrivals, it is enjoyable to find out how long the girls can be kept unaware that they are sharing the same fiancé and apartment.

I do agree with another reviewer that the movie retains a stage play quality, but that is not a significant drawback to the story.

I already knew "W" was a propaganda piece, especially coming out while George W. was still in office and untouchable, but I was curious enough to see it after hearing a misguided review from someone I respect. It proved to be the waste of over 2 hours, just as I expected from the trailer.

Anyone claiming that Stone is a "master story teller" is insane, with this garbage having no ending. It just, mercifully, stops.

The only good thing you can really say is there are a handful of decent actors in the movie who should be ashamed for participating in this farce. At least Christian Bale had enough integrity to bale out of the project.

This is completely a fraud and a propaganda piece trying to whitewash George W. Bush as a simple minded, well meaning, frat boy/drugstore cowboy who suddenly found religion and stumbled into the Presidency of the United States. Supposedly, he was in charge and mislead by even more simple minded advisors. Nothing is further from the truth. George W. Bush is nothing more than a puppet, and many misleading scenes misrepresent the Bush family relationships to the CIA and Bill Clinton.

If the movie had any relationship to the truth, it could not have been made while W. was in office, and it would provide the evidence that there has never been a more criminal, unconstitutional Presidential administration with more political skeletons (including NAZI financier, Prescott Bush) in the family closet, a President with more connections to the CIA/Skull & Bones/Bohemian Club organizations, or a President that lies at every opportunity. The problems with Bush as an innocent rube are unlimited, and I hope someone will produce something resembling the truth one day after he leaves office, is indicted and prosecuted.

Bottom 10 worst excuse for a movie I ever hope to see.

I had forgotten why I had this DVD in my rental queue, and expected to see another plot with a hidden floor in an office building or condo. It was interesting to find that it was a new view on levels of reality.

I thought the acting was very good, the early time period custom cars and hotel night club were interesting to me, the story kept you guessing until the end, and did not depend completely on computer graphics or freakish aliens.

I didn't think it was perfect, because of some confusion generated at some points. My areas of disappointment were the "cheats" such as the computer bringing a character back to its original reality level just as some dramatic event was taking place leaving another version of that person in place, and the end where one simulated character ends up in the "orginal" reality level.

The movie does not have the "Hollywood", big budget feel of the "Matrix" series or "Collateral Damage", but is an excellent example of more classical sci-fi that I am glad to see instead of just more demonic alien creatures.

"The Man Who Wasn't There" was almost an interesting film noir style production, but the ending still left me disappointed.

The acting by Billy Bob Thornton and the other realistic characters makes the movie interesting & quirky, the cinematography was also excellent, and it brings back memories of real 1940-50s characters. Thornton's character seems to hold a mysterious strength to remain optimistic about his future even when his past holds no evidence of increased success around the next corner.

I really liked "Fargo" and have to compare this Coen Brothers production to what I think was a very entertaining movie through to the end. I also kept wishing the movie was in color (similar to the Aviator) even if very muted, and feel the significant extra effort could have been worthwhile & innovative.

Although I can appreciate experimenting with script ideas, I was disappointed with the ending of this story just as with "No Country for Old Men", because I enjoyed the rest of both movies. I would like to see a return to a more traditional (Fargo style) endings, because I can't see this flat, pointless ending style ever living up to the rest of the story. Even the "Fargo" ending was a stretch with a pregnant "Margie" approaching a secluded house alone with potentially two cold blooded killers inside, and armed with only a .38, but it was within the realm of possibility and somehow put the killers in their place as common criminals, while "Margie" just did her job.

Film noir usually ends with some form of justice, even if the "hero" is not better off than where he started. Thornton's character was neither very heroic or very guilty, just a regular bored guy who tried to gain some justice for himself in a convoluted way, but never deserved the death penalty he was dealt.

In this case, I want to root for the movie, but I do not get any satisfaction from finding that, in the end, any sense of justice is denied, ignored, or completely fouled up. The ending seems truncated in a strange place, that feels very wrong and flat to me, instead of adding a convincing "life is never fair" element that I think was the goal. For most of the viewers, the facts that "life is not fair" and boring much of the time, is not news, and what we are trying to escape thinking about for a couple of hours.

"JFK" is Oliver Stone at his best.

It is one of the few docudramas I could watch again and again, and find something new and interesting. It covers a single tragedy effecting the United States that is only surpassed by the events on 9/11/2001. I am surprised when this movie is compared to "Nixon", because this movie is far and away superior to Mr. Stone's "Nixon" in every area.

I was only a fifth grader when this event took place, but became more interested as I learned about the lack of integrity in government and the media in reporting history, as well as, the plans JFK had to reform the corruption in the "intelligence" agencies, while restoring integrity to the United States in many areas. I may not agree with JFK's view of the United Nations, but find I do agree or at least understand his decision making based on what was known at the time, and believe his decisions were made in the best interest of the citizens as opposed to the crony capitalists who replaced him, and created our current morally and financially bankrupt state run by banks and global elitists.

Unfortunately, studying the JFK assassination beyond this movie leads you down an unending "rabbit hole" of new evidence that confirms a conspiracy, but never provides a clear picture of everything that happened regarding the actual assassination details. There are numerous possibilities for sniper sites, exotic technical details, and unexplained significant details. This makes focusing on the only trial of the assassination conspirators pure genius.

The story's focus is on Jim Garrison, New Orleans District Attorney, and his legitimate concern and investigation of the assassination conspirators who had recently resided in New Orleans. It also shows that he completely underestimated the power and resources of those opposing his investigation.

He first believes that the Warren Commission and FBI will do an adequate job of investigating the assassination, but finds that the results were either a cover-up or completely incompetent. He begins his investigation three years late due to his trust in the federal agencies based on his experience as a former FBI agent and military officer. He also tries to maintain a low profile until the investigation is completed, and does not question Jack Ruby (Rubinstein) before Ruby takes his information to the grave.

It is a story of a heroic effort to find and face the truth, and to prosecute the guilty while being undermined at every step by the media and federal government. Once Mr. Garrison questions Clay Shaw and finds that he is also "Clay Bertrand", both elimination of witnesses and a multi-media campaign kick off to derail his investigation and case against Clay Shaw (the only local conspirator left alive).

Jim Garrison received little cooperation from the feds, but was able to obtain a near original version of the Zapruder film from Time-Life, and present a case that exposed a conspiracy, even if he could not convict Clay Shaw. Shaw was dead by 1974. One point that was not covered was why the Texas Attorney General or Dallas District Attorney had not done a better job of investigating the assassinations of JFK and Oswald. It is now known that Shaw was a OSI and CIA operative and that the Zapruder film has been altered within a few days of being purchased by Time-Life, a CIA contractor. It is also interesting to note that there is no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald even touched any rifle on Nov. 22, 1963, so explaining how he was even suspected for the assassination and who provided the police a description are still a mysteries.

Although the movie does not cover all the reasons that President Kennedy was gunned down, it does present most related to his clash with the CIA and the military industrial complex. It also presents a clearer picture of what actually is known about what happened at Dealey Plaza in Dallas including the crowd reaction toward the fence on the "grassy knoll", and the complete removal of all the usual and expected protection by the Secret Service and the undercover military units that would have reduced the chance of assassination by rifle shot to near zero.

The fact that the movie resulted in more records being released and declassified is a tribute to the impact of this "must see" project. The DVD extras are also valuable presentations.

I liked "Fargo", liked this title, and am very familiar with west Texas. I also liked the the beginning, middle, and the acting and directing was excellent to a point. The point was the Act 3 ending.

I have to agree with the reviewers who are disappointed with this movie, and awards given to movies with poor endings. I went back and had to review the last scenes to see if I missed something on the DVD, but unfortunately I hadn't missed anything significant in this movie. There was no real ending, no reasoning that tied the story together except a string of murder and gore. Almost any writer could create a multitude of better endings, but that didn't happen.

Basically, if you can imagine "Fargo" (with or without snow) with Tommy Lee Jones playing a male version of "Margie" who is ready to retire, and retires at the end of the movie after driving right by the kidnappers' "safe house" on Moose Lake, never seeing the "burnt ember Cierra", you have a very similar plot. How satisfying is that?

It is disappointing that people can crank out stories with poor, confusing, truncated endings and pretend they are something great. It is far too great a "cheat", and I have to agree that politics seems to drive a lot of awards for poor writing, because it seems to be common now.

If you remember the 80/20 rule, where the last 20% of a project takes 80% of the effort, there is a lot of effort missing on this one.

Rendition was well directed, and I was glad to see the subject of torture along with the violations of the US Constitution, international law, the "Golden Rule", and plain common sense be covered by in this movie.

I did not think the ending was well executed, due to trying to weave an excessive number of story lines into a surprise ending. The number of story lines seems to dilute the points made by each other, and left me a little confused and disappointed at how unrealistic the ending was after all the effort to provide realism throughout the rest of the movie.

Somewhat like a one hour "Perry Mason" episode, everything has to fall into place when time runs out. The killer usually "spills his or her guts" once Perry makes his accusations, and any loose ends are tied up at a meeting in Perry's office or a restaurant with someone asking the appropriate questions and Perry explaining the answers.

I still had those questions at the end:

1) How does the "whistleblower" know he will get help from the Washington Post, and not find himself treated like a "terrorist"? It is an obsolete assumption that going to the newspapers for help will work, since the CIA and Operation Mockingbird have been exposed, and most of the media is bought and paid for by the CIA. In any case, the crusaders for truth in the media are few and far between, while the CIA propaganda experts and operators are now illegally planted throughout the US.

Even at the end of "Three Days of the Condor" (1970s?), Redford is asked if he thinks going to the NY Times will do him any good. Does anyone believe that things are better now?

2) What happens to the CIA analyst? Does he think he can just walk away from the CIA, or continue life as if nothing happened?

3) What happens with the Egytian and his family? Does he think they can continue working in America as an alien, as if nothing happened?

4) How many people will be able to get any help from a US Senator for their case? There were too many exceptional coincidences that allowed Reese Witherspoon's character to reach, pressure, and gain information from the right people.

I see this movie as having the "fairy tale" ending that going to the newspapers will expose all the problems, and everyone will live happily ever after. This loses focus on the point that "Rendition" with torture is illegal, unconstitutional, not supported by most Americans, not proved effective in providing intelligence, and not something an American would want to face from other countries. We should be handling "terrorism" as any other crime instead of creating a new category of crime that establishes petty tyrants who completely undermine the value of the Constitution and "due process" as an effective guide. The real crime is that our "representatives" refuse to listen to us, and continue to insulate themselves from the Constitution and the will of the citizens, while the media supports this "government knows best" attitude.