scaevola Reviews

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Directed by a cinematographer, not a story teller

[5/10 · 25 May 2013]

I've both read the book and watched the TV miniseries starring Alec Guinness. But the film has to stand on it's own. I don't think it did. I became increasingly disappointed as the film progressed. The ending was an absolute fizzle.

The director spends too much time on long empty pauses, getting from here to there, and sitting quietly in ugly rooms. The film seems to be more about getting good "shots" than telling a cohesive and gripping story. Even the more tense moments devolve into mere 'business.' Yawn. I imagine some people were lost. I know I was in spots. I also imagine some people just didn't care by the end.

Some of the director's more dubious choices pulled me right out of the film. Did we need to keep seeing the chess pieces? Got it the first time. The shot of Control dead in the hospital felt clumsy and disconnected. Why waste all that time with Smiley swimming in muddy water? We get it. Move on. The Christmas party flashbacks interrupted the story with no value added. And the time wasted in buying new glasses so we can tell future from past was clumsy and sophomoric. Cumberbatch played his big scene beautifully, but the device of making him gay was ludicrous. Honestly, a gay partner in this world would NOT be secret.

I'd trade all of that for a bit more character development. I had trouble placing—or caring about—the players throughout. Smiley was especially flat and remote—his sharp intelligence and drive lost in empty silence. The meeting with Connie could have been a poignant reminder of the Circus that was, but here it's just a plot device. No Karla? That scene should have been a mine of material about these two titans, yet we get a flat narrative.

If the effort made in manipulating our visual field was spent on the story, this could have been so much more. Instead, it falls far short of engaging us in a very personalized tale of betrayal and the decades- long manipulation of an entire service.

The Big Red One (1980)

BR1 was excellent. Reconstruction is awesome & different movie.

[10/10 · 18 May 2005]

BR1 has been my top WWII movie for 25 yrs, incl. Private Ryan. Spielberg wishes he could have created something this real, this moving. No smoke and mirrors, just the gritty reality.

The Reconstruction is a different movie. About 3 minutes of original film to 15 of new. It's so obvious, if you know the first movie, that Hollywood forced Sam FUller to trim away most of the grit and pain. BR1 is tough and real, but squeaky-50s-clean compared to the Reconstruction. All the real impact was trimmed away. That must have hurt.

There was a point, about 2 hours in, I thought, "I can't take much more of this." And it hit me that Fuller intended that. Pushed us to that limit, so we would experience a tiny bit of the exhaustion, the overload, the need to just get away from it for a while. Private Ryan never even got close. I can't think of any WWII movie that got close. And I've watched them all.

Band of Brothers is the only work I would put in the same frame as the Reconstructed BR1. If you haven't seen either, buckle up. It's going to be a bumpy night.

Croupier (1998)

Independents sometimes hit the mark.

[8/10 · 30 March 2001]

Even if you hate voiceover (or art films) you will just keep watching this engrossing story within a story. Wasn't it Hemingway who said "Write what you know"? This film is about writing what you know, in this case the complex life of a casino and its habitues, seen from the eyes of a reluctant master croupier cum budding novelist.

The setting is fascinating. The characters are razor sharp. There is actually a PLOT, although you might not care. There is even a Parthian shot ending to make you work for it; but it's a nice touch, not the core.

The central theme is the destructive addiction of gambling and its devastating effects on personal integrity. Yet delving deep is not disturbing, primarily because of the detachment of the protagonist, even as he hits the slippery slope. We are remarkably free to be voyeurs at no risk. And it will stick with you.

This film is dense and compelling, and is yet so spare, so delicately played that its hard to believe it hit mainstream and bloomed.

Just watch it.

8 of 10.

The Replacements (2000)

What a gem!

[8/10 · 14 March 2001]

I could watch this movie over and over. Heck, I did watch this movie over. And I am not a sports fan by any means.

This film has a lot going for it: Gene Hackman is wonderful in a powerful role as the coach. Keanu is so good you are not bored just watching him sit on a park bench. There is some great chemistry between Keanu and Brooke Langton. The supporting cast is excellent, with the cheerleaders stealing a large chunk of the show. And what a sound track!

It's a treat to watch.

Courage Under Fire (1996)

Zzzzzz. I would rather watch a 30-second loop of any part of Casablanca for 160 minutes than sit through this.

[7/10 · 3 January 2001]

I only watched about half of this film--I just couldn't sit through it, no matter how highly recommended. I just don't have the time to waste for a film the director neglected to edit. The only character I found even remotely interesting was Kip, and I was well able to leave his inner life in his own hands.

This film was about as riveting as a feature of my last grocery shopping trip, in slow motion.

True Lies (1994)

What a hoot! This might be Arnie's best, even though Jamie Lee almost steals the show.

[8/10 · 3 January 2001]

I had forgotten how funny this film is. From the very start it begins to laugh at itself and the entire genre, with great audacity. Every single scene is worth watching and I am still giggling about many of them. (Well, ok, the camera angle on the scene with terrorist-as-missile is a teensy bit overdone.)

I delayed renting it again because I remembered the Jamie-Lee-as-prostitute scene was difficult to sit through--her predicament is just so embarrassing. But this time I discovered it is probably my favorite scene. She is just a scream (and surprisingly erotic), while her underplayed klutziness throughout is hysterical, right down to the tango at the end. Especially in contrast to her husband's ridiculously effortless physical skills and unruffled cool. The only time he loses it, and hilariously so, is with Bill Paxton. (And I love that she gets her own back for Arnie's sleazy trick. A woman who packs a punch.)

Even the excellent special effects are pure humor. They are just huge enough to be ridiculous, and yet never seem overblown--and this with a nuclear explosion and a Harrier on an urban rampage. This film is a work of genius. How an action/espionage/romance spoof could deliver such outrageous tongue-in-cheek and yet never feel like corn, slap or déjà vu is a mystery to me.

I give this 8/10 for being relentlessly entertaining, at a very high level. And the acting is top notch all around.

The Usual Suspects (1995)

Excellent production, but relies WAY too much on the surprise ending--which may not even be a surprise.

[6/10 · 2 January 2001]

This film is basically a dark, sophisticated 'caper' thriller with the added twist that the main characters are rapidly awakened to the fact that they are being ruthlessly manipulated behind the scenes. The deeper they go, the more intense the experience. While none of these guys are admirable (in fact they are all clearly trash), you can't help but feel for them. They are just so in over their heads. And the puppeteer bad guy is a nightmare.

Unfortunately I guessed its 'big secret' almost as soon as I knew there was one, and am justly disappointed. It was nice to keep getting confirmation as it went along, but I would like to have experienced the final surprise. (And I am *sure* I'm not singular in guessing the ending.)

This film really relies too much on the 'wow effect' to make its major impression (read other comments for confirmation)--always a clue that a work of art is leaning *hard* on a crutch. Take away the surprise ending, and what do you have? In this case a stylish and well-produced film with a gaping hole. For example, compare it to LA Confidential. Even if you had guessed LAs secret before they let it out, it wouldn't spoil a thing--because that film didn't rely on a plot twist for its primary punch. It had a whole basket full of assets.

I'd give this movie a 7 if its secret had been better (and more creatively) guarded. As it stands, I give it a 6 for the excellence of the entire production and that fact that I was fairly well entertained. But I won't be watching it again, whereas LA Confidential will always be on my list.

********ABSOLUTE SPOILER *************** Agatha Christie first introduced this gimmick in 1926 with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Beyond that, the whole gig follows the classic mystery formula right down the line: Once we realize it's a whodunit (its clearly gotta be somebody we met, otherwise no punch), the obvious choice is the 'least likely one.' And there he is, perfectly disguised to fool you into not even looking his way--a good indication you should look his way. Another giveaway is that we have one guy telling the story and everything we see is from his eyes. Makes you wonder: 1) Why did only this guy survive? 2) Who says we are seeing the truth, except him? And the big one: 3) I'm supposed to believe a *con* artist? Not.

Broken Arrow (1996)

Very entertaining, no-brainer actioner. Well worth the rental.

[4/10 · 1 January 2001]

Let's not even think about comparing this to a drama/suspense film like Face/Off. It's not. It's a straight action movie with some great pre-Matrix effects, decent acting (esp. Travolta) and continual movement. Much like Speed, there is just no time for a sophisticated plot or in-depth characterization. (The two protagonists don't even know each other's names until the last scene.) If you don't go into this movie with highbrow expectations, you will be quite entertained. Sometimes we all need a night off.

In case you need a reference point: I watched Art of War and Shaft (2000) on the same day and liked Broken Arrow a *lot* better. It has no pretensions, so you won't feel disappointed. And the violence is much more integral to the plot.

Thorn in my paw: Christian Slater was miscast. He does well enough in each scene, considering the limited demands made on him, but on the whole Travolta simply overpowers him. And you tend to notice it.

Extra points: Samantha Mathis has a strong role requiring decisive action and physical courage, and she plays it well.

I gave it a 7/10 because it does well what it sets out to do and I enjoyed every minute

The Princess Bride (1987)

A very rich and charming film. If you haven't seen it yet, definitely rent it now.

[9/10 · 1 January 2001]

I can't believe I waited this long to see this. I guess I expected 'the usual.' Well that is exactly what you won't get, even in the context of "Once upon a time.."

The tone is so sincere and gentle that even the farcical aspects never really overwhelm the whole. It never sinks to low humor or schmaltz. (Westley's unruffled optimism has a great deal to do with this.) Even the visual and physical humor is subtle and delightful because each instance is not belabored (e.g., our first view of the large medium and small circus performers, The Dread Pirate Roberts as Zorro, the lighting-speed rope climb, Vizzini's demise, the suction cups, the bellows, Westley as baggage). And nothing is frenzied, even when there is ‘less than half an hour before the princess weds' or the violins play madly.

The script is fantastic. Every character gets a few great lines, and every aspect of the film is treated with humor--nothing and no one escapes, yet there is no hard edge, no sting. Supremely quotable.

The casting is inspired and the characters are interesting (except perhaps Buttercup, because she plays the only straight role--but she is very beautiful). Westley, Inigo, Fezzik, and Vizzini are truly memorable. The hero has a delightful cynicism. The swordsman is also sensitive; the giant is also reflective. The Sicilian is a brilliant political conspirator and not the player seeking vengeance. The evil count maintains an interest in empirical observation while torturing Westley. The evil prince reveals himself slowly and doesn't sneer or gloat to excess.

My only criticism of the characters is Billy Crystal's portrayal of Miracle Max. Why bother with the heavy makeup if he just plays Billy Crystal? His part was hilarious, but brought me right out of the movie. I wish he'd stretched a little here--his range is so wide when he tries.

The unexpected touch of reality inserts itself often into this fairy tale: 'Get used to being disappointed', Australian poisons and land wars in Asia, 'Life isn't fair', 'Life is pain… Anyone who says differently is selling something,' ‘I'm swamped,' the 'shortage of perfect breasts in this world,' and the conspiracies to incite war between two nations named after monetary denominations.

There is a variety of underlying morals to the story, presented without preaching: the lasting ties of true love, the sacrifices made for friendship, the importance of family, that things worth having are not easy to obtain, don't ever give up because you never know what could happen.

This rare and endearing film seems to appeal to everyone, even 7 year old buys who hate kissing. I feel sad for those who did not fall in love with this movie--they seem doomed to lives of bah humbugism. But there's always hope...

Shaft (2000)

A ‘guy movie' stretched past the max. Just who is the psychopathic killer here?

[3/10 · 31 December 2000]

Shaft is portrayed as a testosterone-blown, bull-in-a-china-shop killer who got stuck in the 70s somewhere. I vote we leave him there.

His actions *are* aimed at justice for the underdog in some way, but this is a great example of the hunter becoming the monster he hunts. It's pretty hard for me to see this guy as anybody's hero. Well, maybe a very confused, very angry adolescent….

The Art of War (2000)

Mediocre until nearly the end. Last half hour a total waste of time.

[4/10 · 31 December 2000]

This is one of those movies you just ride along with for the entertainment value. Unfortunately the last half hour devolves, literally, into a real groaner.

It begins with a predictable plot (you'll not only make the bad guys within 10 minutes, but you'll experience déjà vu throughout--yes, you *have* seen this before) and continues with lackluster performances and direction.

And what's with this "Faster than a speeding bullet, leaps tall buildings in a single bound…" business? The Superman gig made sense in The Matrix. Here it's just silly. And exactly why does Matiko take off all her clothes (including her dopey glasses) to drop a bug, yet *keep* her handbag?

Throughout the final battle scene I found myself repeatedly groaning aloud. So were the combatants, and perhaps for the same reason. Couldn't have been physical pain, since Snipes already dug a scalpel an inch into his shoulder with nary a flicker--didn't even stop chatting. Clearly it wasn't effort either. But the final corridor scene simply has to be seen to be believed-a lifeless, blue clone of Matrix. I felt cheated when they faced each other (prone on the floor of course) and forgot to say "You're out." "You are too."

The last half hour also bores us with a series of pointless and confusing flashbacks and Matiko idiotically stumbling around the UN building for a *long* time. And let's not forget the labored, gratuitous gore and soft porn throughout.

This movie is just box office fodder and not even tasty at that. I give this movie a 5 for the first three quarters and a 1 for the last=4.

Dune (1984)

An abortion of a movie. Read the book instead.

[1/10 · 29 December 2000]

This is just another example of David Lynch satisfying his own infantile need for the grotesque. Dune is one of the finest science fiction novels of all time, in every sense, and has very little to do with this film. Even if you have NOT read the book, I feel sure this movie will disgust you.

At every revolting moment in the film, realize you are watching another example of Mr. Lynch's perverted imagination, not the author's. Watch the TV miniseries (2000) instead. This is garbage, and puerile garbage at that. Yuck.

Gladiator (2000)

Common Historical Misconceptions Clarified: (just the facts, ma'am)

[3/10 · 27 December 2000]

ESSENTIAL TO THE PLOT and you might want to know:

Commodus did indeed fight gladiators in the arena. Sort of a fixation thing. Needless to say, he arranged to win -- yes, *every* time. Insane emperors were dicey. *Stupid* emperors simply did not go the distance.

Roman citizens were *never* enslaved within the empire (this includes Spain), no matter what they did. Never. They were executed in Rome (for major treason) or banished (for anything less). Stray slavers did *not* just pick up tired or wounded folks left on the road. Any Roman citizen would 1) have on a ring of citizenship to proclaim his inviolability or 2) be given every courtesy once declared. Citizenship was precious and worth many lives -- you did *not* mess with Citizens of Rome. This was *not* a democracy. Maximus would *never* have been enslaved on such a ridiculous pretense. Sheesh.

Make no mistake: The ARMY was the *real* power in Rome. --They had the swords-- *Not* the unarmed populace (this is laughable). *Not* the solitary emperor. Proof? The entire Roman Empire was auctioned to the highest bidder by the Praetorian Guard (the only armed troops within the city) 1 year after Commodus and his shortlived successor were murdered. Beyond the guard, the greatest threat was a successful general with a vast and loyal following in the legions. And the army outnumbered the Praetorians. By a LOT. So just imagine Maximus getting hauled away for execution within sight of his vast, victorious and worshipping army. WITH Commodus in the camp. Ridiculous. 'Might' wins every time. Commodus would never have been so idiotic as to have even approached his camp. His father, yes. He did actually attend this battle. He was secure. But Commodus? Ridiculous.

Roman generals were quite politically sophisticated. This was part of the job as the upper eschelon of Roman power. NO Roman general would have so annoyed an 'emperor elect' as Maximus did when he refused to shake hands with Commodus. No Roman general could have been so politically inept. No Roman general would have expected this rebellious gesture to be ignored. And where are the Preatorians (right here near the emperor!) and where are the army (10 feet away)? This is not only a tactical, but a strategic event. Think here! It's what generals do best. Give EVERY successful Roman general credit for his survival instincts. ANYone (even a slave) at this juncture would have done the required thing (shake hands) and then MET HIS ARMY to engineer a coup. He needed his (vast, victorious, worshiping) army to acquire power. No Roman general (no human being!) would have been so dense as to make a damning futile gesture when his power base was only 10 feet away celebrating a major victory, just waiting for him to make his move. Sheesh.

EXTRANEOUS TO THE PLOT, but you might want to know (the credits clearly state this movie is fiction):

You were hoodwinked if you thought that battle scene was realistic. The Roman army was primarily effective because of its supremely structured and disciplined front *line*. Barbarians fought as a mob and were often defeated even if outnumbered several to one--simply because they could not break that line. The chaotic beginning battle scene is straight out of the Middle Ages and has *nothing* to do with Rome. You saw a classic 'free-for-all' (or 'melee') out of the age of knights. Fun, but not Rome. Romans would have held their line and moved foward as an intact, solid unit, thrusting ecnomically upward with their short swords (never meant for this wasteful barbarian 'swinging' business) as they went.

Romans fought only to secure Rome and make some denarii. Glory was *not* part of the program. Forget that. Remember: Barbarians overran Rome in the end--they never stopped being a threat, esp. the Germans. AND Romans became *very* venal once conquest began. GREEDY and SCARED. That about does it. Skip that glory bull. They sure did.

Regarding Maximus fighting hand-to-hand in the beginning battle. Julius Caesar occasionally fought so when his troops needed some fortitude (granted as infantry, not horsed). We remember this because it was unusual. Perhaps Maximus was unusual also. (?)

The Republic was so long and so deeply dead that it is *comedy* to suggest that Maximus (or even Jupiter) could bring it back. Senators had been merely pawns since Octavian. It could not have been brought back 200 years earlier, either. It was also *not* a democracy--not by a long shot. This is pure Hollywood playing to your emotions. Slavery was so part of the infra-structure that the revolt of Spartacus (in Julius Caesar's time) ended with 6,000 slaves crucifed every 1,000 feet on the major road out of Rome (the Appian Way). Not exactly democratic. Think about it. You going south for a vacation this summer? Nice view.

Romans did not kneel to pray. They stood and covered their heads with their toga. And their idols were *not* tiny little figures of their immediate family. The idea would be shocking to a Roman.

Marcus Auraelius named Commodus as his heir when his son was 5. Commodus reigned for 12 years. Indeed, he was *not* a nice person.

Skip the stirrups. They arrive much later.

Above? just the high points. Read others in this list for more.

Mission to Mars (2000)

Better than about half the sci-fi out there. That's it.

[6/10 · 11 December 2000]

I tend to appreciate sci-fi that is heavily based on hard-core science (surprise--its called fantasy without this) with complex human interactions in a creative environment (that's the point of the whole genre, imagination). This movie has none of these.

Why is it so hard for Hollywood to do good sci-fi? I guess for the same reason that it's so hard to write it, plus another level. (There is a LOT of garbage out there, in case you haven't noticed.) We have some decent examples though of the sub-genres: Alien* for horror, X-Files for supernatural, and Galaxy Quest for humor, Blade Runner for angst (hail Philip K.), Star Wars for special effects, Terminator for time paradox, Starship Troopers as farce, and ET for kids. Heck, we didn't even get Dune in a viewable form. Matrix is the only sci-fi flick I can think of that just stands on its creative imagination without feeling it also needs to make us laugh, cry, scream or ohh and ahh.

Is this it? We can't even do a visit to Mars? I despair.

Gladiator (2000)

Hollywood entertains the masses and makes a LOT of dollars.

[3/10 · 10 December 2000]

Judging from the box office, entertaining the mob with gore still works as well now as then. So well that most folks disregard the ludicrous storyline, lame characterization and historical inaccuracies.

I give this movie a 6 for excellent manipulation of the crowd, exciting (if overdone) fight scenes and for making a tremendous spectacle of itself. And I bet it will win an Oscar because it does so well what Hollywood values most - As a previous reviewer states `you could almost smell the blood.'

-SPOILERS-

LUDICROUS STORYLINE/LAME CHARACTERIZATION: Great Roman General takes a *very* sudden fall, somehow becomes a slave, then a depressed gladiator, then hugely entertains the Roman rabble (and us) with his blatant defiance of the Emperor.

Oh any Emperor would just sit right down for that, especially one psychologically resembling Caligula. This particular Emperor doesn't off this insolent guy supposedly because the mob rules Rome and they like him. Well, the mob is notoriously fickle, as well as easily led. I'm sure any creative Emperor could work something out. (Check out the storyline of this movie if you don't believe me.) Besides, it's the army that rules Rome. As Pompey so succinctly explained, they have swords.

First off, Marcus Aurelius (reputedly a wise and canny philosopher) decides his amoral (read insane) son will just say "Oh, ok dad. Guess I won't be Emperor ‘cause you say so. No problem you like Maximus better." NO one could be that naive, even in the movies.

Then a great Roman general becomes a slave. Here's how: He intentionally ticks off the new Emperor, escapes from the Emperor's minions through his eXcellent fighting, then stumbles around wounded and in a daze for a *really* long time, somehow crossing half a continent without shelter, food, water, sleep or a change of scenery, and eventually reaches home (Spain). Or something. `If you go home wounded you will become a slave?' Guess he didn't have any friends or neighbors in the area.

Then, once Maximus reaches the pinnacle of his gladiator career, some Senators and the army want to support him in a coup. Wouldn't this coup have been a *lot* more realistic back there on the Germanic battlefield, *before* the slavery bit? But Maximus missed his chance. Instead, he childishly gestured defiance to the new de facto, *patricidal* Emperor without even consulting his power brokers, the army, who happened to be on site celebrating a major victory. Could any great Roman general be this politically inept or have such underdeveloped survival instincts? Besides, it would have saved him a long walk and a lot of grief.

We also have the ruthless slave master Proximo (kudos Oliver Reed, RIP) who sells the goose who layed the golden egg because he develops higher ideals. He just suddenly loses interest in profit because he *likes* this guy? I have a sneaking suspicion that people who habitually and mercilessly exploit others do not suddenly become kind hearted, even for someone who reminds them of themself at that age.

Last and best, a sniveling, cowardly Emperor intentionally stages a final public battle in which he takes on the world's greatest, undefeated gladiator single handedly. (Ok, so the gladiator isn't 100 percent here.) Now it is an historical fact that Commodus fought some tough gladiators in the arena. Weird but true. But would *this* character have done so? I just can't believe it, no matter how much of a tantrum he had because everybody liked Maximus best.

HISTORICAL INACCURACIES: It says this is fiction in the credits. Still...

I don't care how decayed the Roman military system was at the end of the Pax Romana, I imagine they could hold a line in battle better than *that*.

As for fighting battles purely for the ‘Glory of Rome,' even King Arthur wasn't so fatuous. How about to protect Rome from the barbarian hordes (clearly a continuing threat) and for *financial gain*?

And various Senators (to say nothing of Marcus Aurelius!) want to reestablish the Republic? They hadn't had any real power since Augustus. It was just a ceremonial post that could bring in some bucks if you played your cards right. And reestablishing the Republic is laughable. They were all a little too busy trying to stay alive to worry about reactionary revolutions. Besides the army would never have cut off their own power base voluntarily. And they had the swords.

Hey, but lots of shots of Russell Crowe sans shirt though!

Pitch Black (2000)

In the wrong place at the wrong time...If you like sci-fi, you might as well see this.

[6/10 · 10 December 2000]

It isn't a stinker and has some interesting features. The plot isn't totally derivative and the characterization and human interactions are fairly complex. The acting is decent, the low budget is not a problem, and the dialog....well, it sure doesn't zing, but I don't remember groaning aloud at any point like I did in Mission to Mars. The creatures are not badly conceived and have some cool special effects in their perception of light.

Unfortunately, there are some stupid moves on the part of almost every character except Riddick (Vin Diesel steals the show), who is the consummate survivor. He maintains your interest throughout -- you are never quite sure if he has redeeming qualities, besides some reflective stuff on his eyeballs, physical courage, strength etc. Not that he is in any danger of breaking out in a spot of bon homie.

A boon: The ending is actually not predictable. Try guessing if any of them survive, and if so, which. Well, its clear some of them are just not gonna make it, but after that, try guessing.

Low points you can pass over: What lousy luck arriving at just exactly this point in the 22 year cycle. Why doesn't somebody figure out how long the eclipse will last? How did these dark-adapted creatures evolve on a planet with decades of intense sunlight. How is it that barely fluorescent worms work as a deterrent? Are the energy units indestructible that they can be bashed on the ground for several miles?

I gave it a 6 of 10 and didn't feel like I wasted the rental fee.

X-Men (2000)

Great fun, great sci-fi. Who panned this, anyway?

[8/10 · 29 November 2000]

I had zero expectations until I read the highbrow reviews (careful chooser! AND seen every sci-fi flick since beginning of time). Decided, what the hey, read the comics or not, maybe worth watching? Holy cow. Forget Superman. Freeze Batman. This is just a dang good flick. Action, suspense, emotional development far exceeded anything I've seen in a long time. Way creative,too (ok, so u read the comics--yeah yeah). C'mon, do you think Patrick Stewart chooses lowlife media here? Get a grip. And yet Hugh Jackman as Wolverine absolutely steals the show -- a tough thing with Stewart in the cast. Just watch it and hold onto your hat. What a blast! (over 45 female reviewer)

The Big Red One (1980)

The psychology of survival in WWII.

[10/10 · 26 November 2000]

This is still my favorite WWII movie, including Private Ryan. The real attraction of this film is the ongoing psychological development of the four main characters as they move deeper into the war and into themselves. The title refers to the long-suffering 1st Infantry, which served successively in the fronts of N. Africa, Sicily, Italy and Normandy. Their Sgt. (Lee Marvin) becomes attached, from the distance of his position, to these endearing '4 Horsemen' as their unit becomes, in the end, only nameless replacements and themselves. While the D-Day scenes are not a sensationally effective as in Private Ryan, the emotional impact of knowing the players is much more psychologically interesting. While there is lots of action, this is a movie about the psychology of war, the brotherhood of survival, and life on the very edge of chaos.