Inspired by True Events

Utter bilge, and a travesty to all involved in the capture of the enigma machine.

The DIRECTORS CUT is very good, and I wish this had been the cinema release. The theatrical cut on;y deserves 2 stars, because it is a clumsy film, poorly edited. The longer version is a much more rounded expereince, and gives a good introduction to the Crusade period (though despite the protestations of the writer it is not wholly accurate in the events it depictts).

I'm afraid this is boring, and makes only a glancing blow at history.

One of my all time favourites, this is a movie that has not only influenced a lot of people to take an interest in Cambodia, but has been used in parts of the world as a teaching aid to illustrate the aftermath of civil war.

Although I've given it 5 stars here, it does have one fault that still grates on me (one that is quite well known now, I guess): The ever-controversial song at the end. I agree with the producer, David Puttnam, that the film needs something at the end to lift the audience from the weight of the events, and the song (which was #1 around the world at the time of Pran's escape) may have played well amongst preview audiences, but its message is wholly inappropriate. Leaving that aside, the film's understated manner gives one of the greatest visualisations of a dictatorial regime from our recent history. And, even though it's now more than 20 years since I saw this in a theatre, the film still reduces me to tears whenever I see it. Sam Waterson's portrayal of Schanberg is incredible, and the film gains merit for not flinching from showing him in quite a poor light. But how many of us would have emerged cleanly from that situation? That Schanberg was more concerned that the truth be told than that he was seen as a hero (which he certainly wasn't) is a credit to him, because I have to admit, I sympathise a lot with Al Rockoff who believes that a fair amount of responsibility rests on Schanberg's shoulders.

Many people now know that the person playing Dith Pran was a Cambodian refugee who also endured a similar experiences under the Khmer Rouge, and it must have been painful for him to revisit his experiences.

This is a moving story that never descends into hopelessness, and I'd love to see the original edit of this with the footage of the Vietnamese involvement and Schanberg's breakdown. Ah well, maybe sometime it'll happen.

Unforgettable opening sequence. It always amazed me that a simple biopic about 2 runners could be so riveting. There's a fair bit of historical inaccuracy in it in the name of drama and politics, but the film certainly carrys you along. Who can forget, "They will run and not grow weary. They will ride with wings of eagles." after seeing this film? [Isaiah 40]. It is notable that not only does the US version lack the cricket scene at the beginning of the film, it also adds an introduction to Cambridge absent in the other version, though it's a Cambridge that frankly scares the pants off me it is so full of mutants (post war injuries and all that).

Clint Eastwood is certainly developing a style for himself in social drama. Admirable attempt to expound the propaganda machine of war.

Despite the opening statement, this film's only factual content are the policies of Amin.

I followed the news of the Rwandan crisis closely as it unfolded, and knowing about this event, I still found this film harrowing to watch. It's not a bloody film, but the events that occurred in the country are hard to see put in front of your eyes again. Very sad.

Despite the opening claim of 'the film's factual content, the Western characters in this film are fictitious - and while I appreciate the roles they play here, I have questions about the precise suitability of the nature of the characters chosen, in light of a number of allegations made at the time. As a result, to some extent the film ends up feeling like the audience is rubbernecking an accident.

The 1987 version (not listed) is better.

Now this is interesting. During the 1960s the South Korean government trained up a bunch of elite soldiers to make an assassination attempt against the North Korean president, before disbanding the regiment, and (apparently) trying to remove its members. Now while the film is certainly a fictionalised account, it's still quite a revelation. This is not exactly a cheery movie, though according to surviving veterans the film underplays the harshness of the training in the camp.

It's a film that's worth watching to learn a little about 1960s Korea, but its not one to put on to entertain. The directing and acting is solid, but as a movie I'd say it's no classic.

I once saw a side-by-side comparison of a scene in this movie being compared to some FBI footage of the real gangsters portrayed in it. The dialogue was word-for-word the same except that in the movie version a whole lot of F-words had been added, so that the gangsters would sound truly barbaric, or something. Doing that was totally pointless, and it irritated me no end - especially considering how frequently the word is used in this film. It teaches a population that to sound hard, or to be intimidating one has to use profanity, which is simply not true.

Having said this, Goodfellas is, for me, the pinnacle of the gangster film genre. It was released quite a while ago now, so no doubt almost everyone reading this has already seen the film. The film wins over The Godfather in that it is based on a true story, and more importantly, in that there is no sympathetic portrayal of criminals here - it is just a brilliant portrayal of mistrust and paranoia within the family, along with it's terrifying brutality. The actors in this wring some of the best performances of their careers (I doubt anyone will forget Joe Pesci's performance in a hurry!), the script is tight, and it's edited to tee. Bloody and frightening... go and see it!

It has to be said that I love a good mole hunt. This is a solid example, and one based on the Russian spy Robert Hanssen. While a few dramatic elements have been added there is very little action in it and the investigation largely unfolds simply and quietly. I'm a big fan of understatement, so I liked it, and overall I would say this is a nice piece of work that was sadly outshone in the box office by other higher impact films released around the same time.

Wonderful depiction of the events of Christmas 1914, when soldiers from different sides of a conflict shared communion together.

This joyous film, spoken in English, French and German, keeps fairly close to the events of the time (my only quibble really being the character of the Scottish chaplain, but that aside, the film, is truly life-affirming). At the same time it reminds us of the danger of dehumanising (and deindividualising) the enemy - or, indeed, as happened in this instance, of seeing him as an individual.

The story goes that Ridley Scott was attached to this after the initial project collapsed due to an inflationary budget. It may not have the impact of Goodfellas - a film which also tells a gangster's biopic, but its a good piece of work, though I would say it is solid rather than inspired film-making. Largely it is a by-the-book exposition of Frank Lucas's drug empire, and it is true that "you know how it's going to end" (to echo the words of one guy who walked out of the screening). Still, like Fincher did in Zodiac, Scott captures the 70s well on screen, and it has
all the usual Scott cinematographic traits: scenes lighted through smoke, on screen titles used to establish details. The performances too are fine enough, and it the story has some interesting revelations in it.

Like Jackie Chan's Drunken Master series, and many other martial arts films, these Jet Li vehicles are centred around the life of Wong Fei Hung.

While I freely admit I'm vague on the details of Fei Hung's life, I have a sneaking suspicion the film makers have included just the teeniest amount of poetic licence here. Not that that's a problem. I mean, if you are watching these kind of films for historic insight you need serious help. Simply as entertainment, personally I thought Drunken Master II was more on the money, though.

Funnier than the original.

It's impossible to rate this film by giving any comparison to any modern film, be it a documentary like this, or not. And on any direct comparison to one of its more familiar contemporary films (Birth of a Nation and The Tramp arrived shortly before this was released) it would seen a poor second.

There is a preponderance of wild-life in South, so much so that the film seems more of a nature documentary rudely interrupted by the human element than the story of entrapment and escape from the polar ice. Partly this is due to Shackleton ordering (out of necessity) the abandonment and destruction of the greater part of the film-stock. For all the shots of wildlife (mostlly shot after the event) we see nothing of the shooting of the sled dogs, or the hunting of seals and penguins that they survived on. Nor are there scenes of blizzards or footage of the journey across the icy sea to Elephant Island, or South Georgia. We do not see the temporary homes on Elephant Island of upturned boats, or the methods by which they obtained drinking water (filling cups with ice that would melt as they slept). All of these things would have added greatly to the human drama.

Yet, it remains as it is an important document, and watching it, one must sit in awe at the thought that this is contemporary footage, however sparce, of Shackleton's ill-fated voyage.