Reviews

This is such a great and timely film. It is very important, in my opinion, to be sure to view the original first. If not, some things may not make sense or at least not be as impactful.

It is a allegorical tale representing the mindless 'cancel culture' we are in today where if you aren't extremely careful, the evil culture warriors will get you. However, in the end evil is always defeated.

Other than a few fairly predictable 'jump-scares', this is a great achievement and superb commentary on our times.

This is a very good film with excellent performances. It is fascinating to see the same dynamics at work today in Hollywood/Media as they were then: same evil and fear and hysteria- only under a different name with different players. Then it was the patriotic American's fight against 'Red Scare' of Communism while today it is the Communist Hollywood's fight against the patriotic American. Not quite as simple as all that but essentially the tables have turned over the course of 70 years.

The best aspect of this film for me was Trumbo's tireless and cunning fight against the 'mob' of the government and most of the Hollywood establishment who would ignore the constitutional right to free speech and free assembly when they believed that the 'threat' became high enough to toss Constitutional liberties out the window (see any similarities today?).

Anyway, this is a powerful message and it comes through very effectively in the film. However, the greatest flaw (and sin) of the film is its negative portrayal of John Wayne. At one point in the film, Trumbo confronts John Wayne (the super patriot) and questions why he hasn't served in the military while many of Trumbo's closest (Communist) friends and business associates did serve in the war. This scene is presented to make John Wayne look like a hypocrite and a coward.

While it is true John Wayne did not 'officially' serve in uniform other than in films, he did try to enlist. He was, rejected for health reasons. He was already too old to enlist also. Yet he was adamant about serving in some capacity regardless and continued to try to get in. He was also under contract with a studio which refused to release him and in the government's estimation, John Wayne was much more valuable to the cause as a morale-booster by making pro-America war films and making public appearances. Furthermore, after much wrangling with the studio AND the government, John Wayne ultimately was able to serve as a covert agent (spy), taking advantage of his ability to go into locations around the world for 'filming' that were off limits to others. These were effectively 'intelligence missions' under the guise of location scouting and film producing. Through his operations on location, in local towns and traveling to and from these areas, he gathered a great deal of information using cameras and conversation with locals to collect details about enemy activity which he routinely supplied to the Department of Defense. Enemy agents knew he was doing this and he was always under the threat of assassination, so much so that he would eventually come to occupy the top spot on the enemy's list of assassination targets. The Communists badly wanted him dead. Just because he did not wear a uniform and fight in the trenches, doesn't mean he didn't fight or that his life was never in peril.

So, John Wayne did more for the war effort (pound for pound) than probably 95% or more of any American at that time- including Trumbo or any of his buddies who served. Yet, in the scene mentioned above, obviously John Wayne couldn't discuss his involvement in the war because it was top secret. Yet that is no good reason to justify including the scene knowing that he couldn't talk about his operations when challenged by Trumbo. The scene simply should not have been in the film. It served no material purpose other than to slander a great American hero... which is so fashionable to do these days even if it exposes the slanderer's ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy.

It is incredibly uncharitable and hypocritical to paint John Wayne in the light that this film does given that it is ostensibly about the dangers of falsely and maliciously slandering and labeling people for the sake of power and political gain, I find it incredibly ironic that the film takes such a strong stance regarding how bad it is to participate in this kind of hysterical and unwarranted character assassination yet the film itself is blatantly guilty of it.

Another conveniently overlooked issue with the film is its benign and overly-simplistic take on communism itself. The 'explanation' of what being a 'Communist' is when Trumbo is questioned by his little girl is understandably simplistic but also wrong. "If you see a fellow student in the lunch room who has no lunch, what do you do?" Trumbo asks his daughter. Of course the good-natured, innocent and loving creature says, "I give him half of my lunch." However, that is not how Communism works in practice even though the theory on its face is one of benevolence and kindness. It assumes first that every one will be benevolent and kind and give up half their lunch to anyone who doesn't have a lunch... even to those who's parents decide not to bother with buying the food and making up the lunches because they know some other kid at school will share theirs. Pretty soon, most of the kids aren't bringing any lunch at all and the few kids who are still bringing their lunches are compelled by their kindness (or duty) to bring much larger lunches so as to be able to feed more and more kids who expect some other kid's parents to feed them.

Eventually, the parents of those few kids feeding all the others get tired of paying for other kids' lunches and instead of being appreciative for all those free lunches in the past, they are ridiculed and demonized for "being cruel" for not continuing to "share" their food. Then the principal says he will collect all lunches at the entrance every morning for 'equal' distribution of their contents at lunch time to all students. Whatever the principal manages to collect he distributes maybe 10% of it to the kids at lunch time... just enough to keep them from starving. He keeps the other 90% for himself and his cronie school staff as 'compensation' for their troubles administering the new 'progressive' lunch program. That's how communism works.

This is a good movie with good acting, great action (which doesn't overwhelm the story) and well-developed characters. It tells an obscure story about Bruce Lee that few know about. It also truthfully shows Bruce Lee in his full cockiness and unapologetic quest for fame and fortune in America by selling his most valuable asset- Kung Fu. Bruce Lee was an egomaniac and an opportunist. This film explores this side of the man which is often under-acknowledged or outright rejected by his rabid fan base. Face it, Bruce Lee wouldn't have been Bruce Lee without BRUCE LEE.

The introduction of Jack Man is an interesting character with a great back story. While the writers *likely* took some liberties with his motivations, I found the interaction between the two main characters to be very compelling, engaging and unexpectedly profound.

The haters will hate for whatever reasons. Put aside their shallow, narrowly-defined expectations of what a Bruce Lee movie *should* be, and it is a very enjoyable experience. If you are a drooling worshiper of Bruce Lee, you will likely be somewhat disappointed with his portrayal in this film, although I dare say, it is probably more accurate as to his true character than anything else put on screen about the man.

This is one of my favorite episodes. Donald Pleasence is absolutely terrific.

Also one of the reasons this episode is one of my favorites is its evidence against the global warming/climate change nuts. If Columbo were alive today, he would use this episode to debunk the hoax.

First, this episode was made in 1973. The temperature in LA hits 109 degrees. This is in California where the weather is mild most of the time and rarely gets hotter than other parts of the country. Still it hits 109 which is high, but certainly not unheard of. Nobody is going around saying it is the end of the world because it hits 109 degrees... in mild California.

Second, Pleasance's character asks 'if that was some kind of record' and Columbo explains that it was not. He cites record temperatures in LA that were recorded back in the 1870's 'when they first started keeping records' that hit 117 degrees! How can it be getting hotter when these temperatures were recorded 150 years ago? When was the last time it was 117 degrees in LA?

Third, these temperatures were recorded back before the dubious 'heat index' characterization was invented which places temps today higher than they actually are. You look at today's 'record highs' and most of them will be the 'heat index' high. Not the actual temperature high. Same goes for 'wind chill' but to the other end.

Fourth, these temperatures were recorded in LA, California... where the weather is never as hot as many places in the rest of the country. Presumably, many other places recorded much hotter temperatures from 100 to 150 years ago.

Fifth, these record temperatures were recorded before the 'industrial revolution' and before the age of the automobile and internal combustion engine. Today, we still don't hit these kinds of highs even with all of our cars and factories.

Now, they say it is 'climate change' instead of 'global warming'. Every generation there is a new lie to replace the old, disproved one. It always takes a generation or so for enough time to pass to show the predictions didn't come true... so they make the same predictions again but under a new banner. But don't be fooled. Columbo is on the case.

Not many comedies so effectively demonstrate the differences between free and authoritarian countries in the attitudes of people as Ninotchka.

When people are alowed to be free, they thrive and they have joy in their lives. When people are forced to operate under a strict, machine-like system, their lives become drab, one-dimensional and joyless.

Ninotchka is a wonderful film that reminds us of the joy freedom brings and the sadness tyranny imposes. Although the film is never overly-heavy, it manages to make this message clear through showing the happiness and joy of freedom moreso than the sadness of tyranny.

Ninotchka is timeless and timely as we need to understand exactly what we will be giving up if we continue to let tyrannical forces overtake our country. We must bring back our joy and laughter! We must bring back our freedom!

This is a fun, charming romp. My kids loved it. Not sure why the ratings aren't higher.

This is one of the best sports films ever made in my opinion. It tells the underdog story of the US Olympic team against the Russians in 1980. Anyone who was alive and awake at this time remembers what a stunning upset that was and for the fact that it was against our biggest Cold War adversary at that time. Even if you didn't follow sports or the Olympics, it was impossible not to hear about it.

The film shows the realities of coaching a team. Not much coddling or favoritism going on here. Teams are a Team not a bunch of separate individual personalities which is part of the coaches main strategy: they must learn to work as a team and not a bunch of 'All Stars.'

Patriotism is a strong point but not overwhelming. Coach says at one point, "The name on the front on your jersey is way more important than the name on the back" at a time when he was trying to emphasize that being a part of the USA Olympic Hockey Team was more important that any one player alone. Many Olympic athletes today should learn that lesson instead of acting like they are the most important humans on Earth and that the USA doesn't matter- even though the USA trained them and provided for them to compete at that level.

The action is great and the actors can really skate. I recommend this film to anyone. This is one of the best Disney films to ever come out... before they started putting out so much PC garbage.

"The Old Man And The Sea" is one of Hemingway's greatest achievements (won Pulitzer AND Nobel prize for literature). Spencer Tracy was one of the greatest actors ever. The combination of Tracy and Hemingway is magic.

This is also perhaps the best cinematic adaptation of any of Hemingway's books (or any book for that matter). With the ample (and word-for-word from the book) narration, it sometimes feel like the book is being read to you with the images on the screen serving as elaborate pictures in the book. The pacing is great. The sets and props are authentic to the book and the sometimes-heartbreaking emotions are translated effectively through the narration, acting and imagery.

As with any film made from a popular book, I would always recommend reading the book first because so much more comes to life through already having the characters and images and subtleties in your mind. The movie is so true to the book and it is enhanced greatly by Tracy's performance as well as the simple but effective sets and visuals.

Much of the authentic representation of the book is due to the fact that Hemingway himself had full control of the script and direct consulting influence on the set. In fact, the shots of the live fish Tracy battles to reel in are cut from footage taken during deep sea fishing trips made by Hemingway himself specifically to be used in the film. That live fish you see in the movie is actually a fish Hemingway is reeling in. Also, Hemingway's own fishing boat was used as a camera platform to capture much of the shots of Tracy out at sea.

If you haven't read the book, the film is still very enjoyable. But the experience is MUCH more magnified if you have read the book, which is one of Hemingway's shortest novels.

While 'Mr. Deeds' is based on the story that influenced Jimmy Stewart's 'Mr. Deeds Goes to Town', it does not compare to that classic but it is still a fun, heart-warming film about doing what's right and being true to yourself. If people get a reminder of that message from this film, it is well worth viewing and the primary reason for my rating.

However, as with SOOOO many Adam Sandler movies (and other SNL birthings), it is often held down by moments of pointlessness, potty-humor, cringey bits and jokes that just fall flat. Furthermore, the moments where sparks of genius and cleverness seem just about to light a roaring fire of delight, seem to fizzle out way too soon. The film has heart, a good story and interesting characters. I just wish the writers (or whomever) could lay off with the tasteless humor and spend more time developing those few truly funny and unique bits (like John Tuturro's disappearing/reappearing act- that was good stuff).

Midway is a very good film. Not great, but very good.

It sports a top notch cast, incredible special effects, lots of action and a good healthy dose of much needed patriotic zeal. While many films of late have done all but excluded love of country or God from their scripts, Midway (thankfully) does not shy away from showing pride in country and furthermore, it does not shy away from absolutely demonizing the evil Japanese Empire of the times.

All the actors are great but I found Dennis Quaid's performance of Admiral Halsey to be especially engaging. Every moment he is on screen, I felt the weight of his situation and responsibility.

I do have a few knocks however; First, the dialog is very simplistic and written primarily for exposition (telling facts about the situation in a flat and unnatural way in order to provide important information to the viewer that could have been done better in the hands of superior writers). At nearly every encounter of one or more characters, they speak about what's happening and why in very simple and black-and-white terms, describing situations, motives, facts, results, occurrences and inevitable outcomes that few would see so clearly (if at all) in the moment and much of which could only be understood and solidified many years after the war when proper study and analysis could be completed. But everybody seems to know everything (why they didn't see those Jap planes coming then is a mystery). It looks like a movie but it feels much like a documentary at times with the actors telling you what happened, is happening and will happen. Not much is left for the viewer to speculate or discover for himself by "putting the pieces together."

Related to this is the lack of character development. Most of the characters are there to deliver this historical information... as enthusiastically as they can... but it does come off dis-ingenuous and condescending to the audience.

One of the things about the film that I really did appreciate was the fact that this is a story about the men who fought at Pearl Harbor and Midway. Lots of films like to drag in wives and girlfriends in an attempt to give them as much import and screen-time as the men who did the fighting and dying. I'm not saying the ladies weren't important or that they didn't suffer too, but having the film relatively free of lovey-dovey moments and tearful departures and reunions (mostly for the sake of pandering to a female audience) was very welcome and refreshing.

All in all, I thought Midway was a very good film, primarily from the standpoint of historical accuracy and focus on the actual battles and circumstances of the conflict. I do wish they'd spent a little more on character development. Several titans of the big screen such as Dennis Quaid, Woody Harrelson and Aron Ekhart feel wasted with their often dry dialog and limited screen time.

Some things just don't change.

Over 80 years ago, people who had visions of going to Washington and making a POSITIVE difference to the country got unfairly destroyed by the corrupt, special-interest political machine. Only now it is much worse.

Great education on how the system works too but without feeling like an education AND a great story about fighting for your beliefs and never giving up even when it would be easier to just quit.

'Superman: The Movie' was the first full-length, big-screen production of a superhero character, graduating him from decades of being accessible only via comic books, cartoons and low-budget TV serials. This film, and its extraordinary box-office success (all around the world), proved the concept of superhero movies. Multiple sequels of Superman followed and blazed the trail for other mega-success superhero franchises such as Batman and Spiderman.

40-plus years have passed since the film's release but for me, it still is one (if not the) best superhero film ever made. The story is great. The characters are great. The dialog is great. It has heart, soul, charm, warmth, wit, humor, chivalry, decency, style, class, humility, honor and romance. It is a joy to watch and it gives the viewer a good feeling and hope in humanity.

The more recent film, 'Man of Steel', is a fine film. But in comparison, the heart and soul of the Superman character, what makes him so great, is too often obscured or upstaged by non-stop, budget-busting CGI action and effects. The 'star' of the film is the CGI and not Superman (or anyone else). The characters all lack depth and genuine emotional response. The atmosphere is drab, dreary and bleak. The actors are all operating in a sterile world of blue/green screens which produces an emotionally-detached vibe through the whole film as they do their best to interact with world around them that isn't really there. However, in this 1978 film, the humanity literally flies off the screen. Sure, the effects are dated by today's standards but state-of-the-art CGI cannot replace or even compete with great acting and a great story... it can only enhance it but only up to a point.

'Superman: The Movie' is still the best. It is uplifting and colorful. It is everything Superman should be.

Acting- Great.

World Building- Great.

Special Effects/CGI- Great.

Cinematography- Great.

So what's missing? I never really connected with the story or the characters. I suppose, with many films like Oblivion that are taken from a graphic novel, one really should be familiar with the novel to really be able to appreciate the film.

I kept feeling like things were going to start making sense at any time but they never really did... Not even at the end when it became 'somewhat' clear what the real situation was. I felt like it lacked connection and investment with the viewer. Oblivion is a beautiful film and technologically very impressive but pretty wrapping paper does not a fine gift make. Still, I think it needs a second viewing and some more in-depth knowledge of the source material. But that is on me and it doesn't make the film weaker per se, it only means it is THAT type of film... it depends a little more on outside info to really connect with the viewer.

It also, at times feels more like a video game than a movie AND there are some pretty preposterous logic flaws (like the inability for command control to force a return of a scout ship via autopilot that has been taken for unauthorized explorations... and a relatively simple means to defeat scout drones by popping open an access cover and stealing their energy source a la the Lost in Space Robot's power pack... I mean, seems like these issues should not have passed initial quality/security audits).

Anyway, the premise is interesting and intriguing IF it takes until the very end to discover what it is. The fight scenes are fine but nothing we really haven't seen before.. a bit cliched for the most part.

Oblivion is slick and impressive in a lot of ways but it demands more from the audience than it actually provides them to make a strong connection work. I had a 'what did I just watch' feeling immediately after viewing. But I also found myself thinking about it a great deal afterwards as well... so there's maybe more to the film than I'm giving credit.

Watch this film, or the play it is based on, and it will show why the separation of church and state is so important.

The performances are top-notch and the pacing is perfect. However, the most valuable aspect of this film is to show how if the political powers that be can insert themselves into the organizational structure of the church (specifically at the top above the Pope), then the state has 'effective' control over the church and they can bend the Church (including God's laws) to the will of the state.

'Effective' control is not 'legitimate' control however and the king uses his political force and influence (including the threat of lopping off heads) to 'sway' religious opposition to agree with him and go against what God and the Bible (and therefore the Church) have set down. This is the pentacle of human hubris and tyranny. All moral and spiritual law and guidance is trampled and becomes subservient to the will of one man. Dark times and death follow for many years.

This is why 'The Separation of Church and State' is a principle our founding fathers in the USA were so determined to establish after experiencing this brand of tyranny in the country the fled. Contrary to what many of today's haters of religion would have you believe, it does NOT mean the absence of prayer or the bible or The Ten Commandments from public schools or government buildings or functions. It means that the state has no authority over the church and will not establish a formal 'state church' nor will government employees run the Church. It is precisely to prevent a tyrannical government from gaining influence over the Church in order to use it to impose its will. Furthermore, in contrast, it limits the authority of the Church to control and direct the government so as to affect its will because both can and often are corrupt where great power and high stakes are concerned.

So next time somebody complains to you about a public high school football team praying before a game, tell them to take their tyrannical tendencies and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. They have no idea what they are crying about.

I remember when previews of The Martian Chronicles were being teased on TV for the upcoming mini-series. I was very excited because after Star Wars, I was keen on anything 'spacey' and the previews seemed to highlight all the action and laser beams (which were not in the book BTW), etc. I was only about 12 at the time and when the actual series began, I was really disappointed... mainly, as I now realize, I was too young to get it AND I hadn't read the book.

Now that I'm much older and have recently read the book (multiple times), I recently revisited The Martian Chronicles and have a much different opinion of the series if a bit mixed.

The series tries to be two things at once: a faithful production of the book AND a simplified, cohesive stringing together of several very different short stories which leads to some jarring and unexpected (and unnecessary) plot alterations that take fans of the book by surprise.

At times (most times in fact), long stretches of dialog are rendered verbatim from the book and scenes take place just as they do in the book. While in some limited cases, other aspects are totally made up for the benefit of a TV audience who probably never read the book. All in all, if one has read the book, I think they will be pleasantly surprised by the literal adaptation of much of the novel. While at the same time, they may be disappointed by some of the deviations from the novel which seem to come out of no where and for no good reason.

My biggest gripe about the series is the complete rewrite of the story of Walter Griff and Genevieve Selsor. There was no good reason to change this story so drastically from the book other than perhaps they didn't want to offend overweight people. But it completely loses its original power and meaning by making such a change. Besides, given the fact that only a few of the stories from the book were incorporated into the series, they could have selected another story and told it faithfully instead of butchering one that they included. Ray Bradbury was adamant about his material not being altered or censored (at least not by him anyway) and he is not the writer of the screenplay of this production which seems odd given that he was very active and still working during that time. I wonder what he thought about the changes and why he did not have creative control. Also there are several odd instances where the characters' names are totally different from those of the book. Maybe some legal reasons for this but it comes off as confusing and disingenuous to those familiar with the book.

All said, I think anyone who is a fan of the book will probably enjoy, or at least find interesting, this production. The budget is low and at times feels like not much more than a community theater production. But the real strength in the series is the mostly very faithful adaptation of the book. I'd say the first two parts are by far the best with the third containing most of the weaker material.

Also, I would encourage anyone who is thinking about watching this series to read the book first if they haven't already. The book contains much more than just what this series covers and I think they will get much more out of the series.

This is the best performance by Gary Oldman. Best likeness of Churchill. Very accurate telling of the times and circumstances.

That being said, Churchill himself was a consummate bad-axx in almost every way but the film portrays the great man too often as a drunk, mean, confused, scared and timid old man. It almost implies that Churchill 'fell' into the PM position through luck and bumbled his way to success. It also implies that he was overly-dependent on the females in his immediate circle (his wife and secretary), without whom, he'd be practically helpless which was not the case.

On the contrary, Churchill was brilliant, driven, focused, opportunistic (in a positive way), defiant, ruthless, self-reliant, cunning and kind. Truth is, he'd been actively preparing, maneuvering and angling for the PM-ship for decades- making conscious and calculated decisions all through his career with this end objective always in mind as his number 1 priority. He had dedicated his life to studying world affairs and politics even when he held no meaningful political office or military position. He wrote millions of words contained in many, many volumes of his thoughts, observations, speeches and historical accounts. Another point that people are often incorrect about is that Churchill himself was not born into a 'rich' family of the aristocracy. They were very poor and he had to work to make the money necessary to buy his own uniform and horse when he joined the cavalry. It was only when his books and other writing contributions began to make money did he ever actually HAVE any money. He did well later in life with his income from his writings and speeches but he was never GIVEN anything and inherited nothing from his parents (father unknown). Some people seem to think he was born into the PM-ship through unearned privileged, but this couldn't be further from the truth. He may have been 'born FOR the PM-ship', but he definitely wasn't 'born INTO it.'

Also, Churchill was a very active and vigorous man, even in his old age beyond WWII. The film does not portray this vigor and energy accurately. Rather, he comes off in many scenes as a defeated, dejected and tired old fool. It is true that Churchill had a roller-coaster ride of a career and he did at times suffer from depression but he never let it beat him down. While the mannerisms and general historical facts about the times are superbly on display in the film, Churchill's towering force of personality and moral clarity is sadly not given anywhere near full justice here. For an excellent bio of the great man, I recommend 'Churchill' by Paul Johnson. It much more accurately depicts Churchill's true personality and character. One of the best things about this film is that by viewing it, some people may be inspired to learn more about this towering figure of history. There is plenty of great 'first-hand' material written by Churchill himself that would make life-time of reading and study.

While getting the basic wire-frame of history right in most cases, the embellishments and 'filling-ins' of creative license where no facts are available are pure speculation at best and out-right character assassination at worst.

We see many of the greatest men of early America demonized at every turn. No matter what they did it was wrong. Even in cases where the facts support what we would today consider bad behavior, there is no account for context, social norms or the desperation of the times 200 years ago. It is easy to moralize today what people 'should have done' 200 years ago. I wonder in 200 years from now, who among us will be safe from those future moralizers with their vastly different views of the world and humanity while none of us will be alive to explain or defend ourselves.

For example, Andrew Jackson, one of the greatest men who ever lived, practically single-handedly saved America from a second attempt by the British to destroy the budding new nation of the US and take it for themselves (does anyone think the Indians would have fared better under a British controlled North America?). Yet, 80% of the focus on Jackson is everything he did wrong and how mean he was. No denying he was a tough SOB but that's what it took to survive back then. Every moment the character of Andrew Jackson is on the screen, he is made to appear so menacing. All that he lacks are devils horn's protruding from his forehead.

The documentary also pretty much glosses over the fact that the original colonies only made up a small portion on the east coast of continent claimed by the newly formed United States. 90% of the rest of the continent was claimed by Britain, France and Spain but there is no mention of their 'atrocities' against the native tribes (who by the way were constantly and perpetually at war with each other for centuries until the 'foreigners' arrived. No mention of their 'atrocities' against each other.). The entire land area of modern-day Canada was claimed and held by the British (where apparently there were no Indians to get in their way... lol).

The documentary is a gross misrepresentation and over-simplification of the facts and the context of the time and events. It minimizes and re characterizes any positive qualities of these great men (when they aren't outright omitted) while focusing on, exaggerating, embellishing and even creating out of thin air whatever negative qualities we may see through the lens of 200 years of hindsight.

In 200 years from now, will people be as vicious, unforgiving and brutal to those of us who are merely doing what we think is best according to our current laws and social norms? What will they think about what we do daily that they may find criminal and abhorrent? Like industrialized abortion?

It is easy to throw stones at people who are long dead. It is easy to say you wouldn't have done the same thing as you sit in the comfort of you warm home surfing the internet and watching Netflix. But if it weren't for those great men, you may not even be enjoying those luxuries or even have the legal right to stand on your moral soap box and blame the past for all of your apparent woes and outrages.

Ok. So this appears to have been a VERY low budget production of a GREAT book. Even with the poor production (bad editing, directing, dubbing, etc.), it still begins to draw the viewer in after the first 30 minutes or so. After that, the story becomes so interesting and engaging, that the flaws don't matter as much. We just have to know what's going on and what's going to happen next!

Chuck Conner is one of my childhood heroes as The Rifleman. It's really hard to see him in anything else. It doesn't help that he hasn't done much else nearly as great as The Rifleman. His performance here as a ruthless ship captain is pretty convincing but I can't help but believe that if it had been a better director with a better production, he really could have delivered a much stronger performance. As it is though, the film is better (In my opinion) than the rating here on IMDB suggests. One just has to look past the detracting production value and let the story do the driving.

It may have been even more enjoyable had I read the book but alas... Maybe if I find it in the bargain bin of my local used book store, I'll pick it up.

Over all not a bad film by any means, especially if you can grant it some forgiveness in the technical realm.

Great play done fairly well by all involved but after seeing the Spencer Tracy version not long before seeing this version, it lacks the character and energy of the Tracy version.

Still a great story about taking beliefs to extremes and not being open minded in the face of new facts. Back then, the religious right was not very tolerant. Today it has flipped and now it is the liberal left that 'knows everything' and refuses to listen to reason.

The pendulum swings. I just hope it doesn't swing too far in either direction so that it breaks the clock.

Most people who have managed to rise above the 'Nanny State' mentality and think for themselves have long since been aware of the reality of how the demoncratic party has brainwashed and kept minorities under its thumb for generations. By creating a self-righteous but delusional sense of victim-hood, jealousy and hate, the left has successfully kept minorities 'enslaved' by shackling their minds with lies and handouts instead of freeing them to think and do for themselves. 'Keep them angry and ignorant while at the same time making false promises and we will keep them voting Democrat for centuries to come.'

Keep them ignorant by forcing them into horrible schools which don't actually teach them to read or think for themselves. Keep them ignorant and they will believe any lie you tell them if you can make it 'feel' true.

Keep them angry by continuously reminding them that someone else is to blame for their problems.

Keep claiming that YOU are the only hope they have for change but never actually deliver meaningful change (keeps things going ad infinitum).

Target and destroy anyone who tries to lead you out of this vicious and evil slavery of the mind because if they do, the whole diabolical and insidious charade is over and the lie is exposed for what it is.

In this age of information, the truth is getting out there more and more. However, the Left is getting more and more desperate to protect their lie. This is why we see so much lying and insanity from the Left in the communist-controlled media. They are desperate like fish in a pond that is drying up, flopping about in vain, achieving nothing but drawing attention to their desperation as their comfort zone evaporates a little more every day under the cleansing warmth of the bright, elucidating sun.

As the black culture continues to awaken from the lie, the Left is desperate to 'replace' their 'runaways' with a new base that they can control- the illegal immigrant. With little practical knowledge of America and willing to do whatever they are told so they aren't deported, the Left has a new breed of slave voters. Why are Democrats so enthusiastic about allowing unfettered illegal immigration as well as not prosecuting or deporting illegal immigrants who break America's laws? Votes, plain and simple. 'We'll protect you and give you free stuff if you vote for us.' It is the same lie and mental slavery foisted on the black community for generations. If they can't legally enslave you with whips and chains, they do it legally with fear, lies and toxic psychology.

Wake up Black America! Break your chains and leave the plantation of Leftist mind control.

There are few 'war' films that get nearly everything perfect and manage to encompass so many perspectives so powerfully. This is one of them and it is one of the best historical accounts of a moment of the Vietnam War.

The combat scenes in the film are incredibly realistic. It shows the real chaos, confusion, desolation, isolation, hope and despair of close combat. Unlike most 'war' films, the vast majority of screen-time is dedicated to the actual battle. Every minute of the action is realistic, dense, frenetic, perfectly edited and enthralling. No other film before or since achieves this level of intensity, realism and horror of combat and for such a sustained amount of screen-time. I'd guess that over 70% of the film time is dedicated to the battle and combat which is the absolute best aspect of the movie.

The movie also effectively dramatizes the 'chess-under-pressure' decision-making from both the American and North Vietnam generals. Furthermore, we are not provided a one-dimensional, sneaky and faceless 'enemy' hiding in the bush and shooting from the tree-lines. The North Vietnamese army is respectfully depicted as a worthy, dedicated, intelligent and cunning fighting force.

The story of the wives back home is very effective and moving as well, at least once the 'telegrams' start coming in. Also, the little CGI that is used is very well done and unnoticeable... it doesn't stand out as CGI or detract in anyway.

Of course, Mel Gibson and Sam Eliot were great. Greg Kinear is excellent too. Madeline Stow is fine but what's going on with those lips?

The only aspect of the film that I wasn't crazy about was a few moments of moral grandstanding that seemed forced and unnecessary. A little too much 'spelling-it-out' for the audience instead of just letting us see for ourselves- which is so much more effective. Some of the 'character development' scenes felt obligatory and formulaic so that the audience would connect more when they died later. Many of the scenes that were not part of battle just felt like material added on for contrast to the fighting. Nothing bad but not as inspired or done nearly as well as any of the scenes on the actual battlefield. The Battle is the real star and story of this film. All else feels a little superfluous and formulaic in contrast to the fighting but gratefully, there is not much 'all else'.