Change Your Image
wbbartlett
Reviews
Vikings: Valhalla (2022)
Deeply disappointed
Terrible history, poorly acted. There are some great stories in the real history, why change them all and replace it with this nonsense? I know this is not a documentary but the bewildering and unwarranted changes to the plotline are mindbogglingly foolish. Whilst the Vikings series that preceded this was also playing fast and loose with history it possessed for me a far more convincing degree of authenticity. And I am afraid the diversity angle left me cold. This series presented a great opportunity to retell a great series of stories to a new and potentially receptive audience. Sadly it missed the mark by a very wide margin.
Mary Magdalene (2018)
A beautiful and haunting movie
I wasn't sure what to expect as reviews had been mixed. But as I watched i was entranced by it. Strong performances and beautifully shot with a wonderful hypnotic soundtrack. I found it a much deeper movie than the passion of the Christian, closer to the essential Christian message of love and peace.
Into Thin Air: Death on Everest (1997)
Truly dreadful
Jon Krakauer's book has had its share of controversy but overall was a good attempt to tell a harrowing story as it was. This film does not begin to do it justice. Key characters are swapped around, heroes made of those who weren't (no criticism of anyone there, for whom it must all have been awful) and those who performed heroic feats like Anatoli Boukreev have their part much diminished. The tremendous actions of some of the Sherpas there was hugely played down too. The acting was wooden, the whole thing looked as if had been thrown together in a couple of hours.I felt unbelievably angry by the time that I struggled through to the end. What a tragic waste of a compelling if altogether catastrophic story.
Gettysburg (1993)
Curate's egg....
The range of marks here in my view is partly explained by the fact that it is good (in fact, very good...) in parts and pretty dire in some in others. On the one hand some of the battlefield scenes are pretty gripping and hard to take your eyes off, on the other the movie is interspersed with long periods of inaction and melodramatic hogwash. As others have said, the 4 hours could easily have been shrunk to 3 without too much trouble especially if the film hadn't tried to pack so many characters in. That said I have watched some 90 minute movies that felt as if they had lasted twice as long.
As a non-American (though one who has read a bit of the battle's history) can't vouch too much for the historical accuracy though I note a range of views from other reviews here. The hairy beards and handlebar moustaches do look sometimes as if they are straight from an under-budget pantomime production (though to be fair some of the photos of the characters in real-life do too).
To continue the curate's egg theme that's also reflected in the acting. Thought Jeff Daniels was great but Martin Sheen struggles to pass OK. Some of the other performances would be better suited to Little House on the Prairie (no offence meant against that great harmless family entertainment).
Worth a watch and maybe like me you'll end up liking some and thinking 'what the heck was all that about' for other bits.
Noah (2014)
A truly strange film
I am not a bible nut so have no particular issue with the subject matter. The approach though was just zany and I just wondered quite what point the whole 'epic' was trying to make. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the appearance of the ents from Lord of the Rings (perhaps seeking useful employment post-Trilogy?). That might at least be worth one extra mark for originality.
Probably not quite the worst movie I've seen (though I am to be honest struggling to think of a worse one). I am struggling also to think of any redeeming features. Acting to be honest is pretty wooden and uninspiring in most parts. Definitely won't be looking out for the DVD... Make up your own minds but I won't be watching again.
The Vikings (1958)
Very average movie and historically inaccurate
I have no problem with historical epics being inaccurate, after all they are not documentaries. I really like Braveheart, even though its historical nonsense. But don't be fooled by reviews that suggest this film is thoroughly researched and something close to history, because it's not.
Like others I also remember watching this movie when I was young so I thought it would be good to watch it again. It didn't come up to scratch as far as my memory remembered it. The acting was wooden and the background singing laughable - like something out of a Monty Python movie. Maybe try it again in another forty years but for now it will be consigned to the deepest recesses of my mind where hopefully I will forget it.
Zulu (1964)
Great movie
Outstanding movie, though this is not a historically accurate depiction (very few films are) but a gripping evocation of a fiercely-fought battle between a beleaguered British garrison and a large force of Zulus. The overwhelming superiority in numbers of the Zulus was offset by the firepower of the British soldiers and the long reach of their bayonets.
Rorke's Drift was fought on the same day, and within a few miles, of the dramatic defeat of the British at Isandlwana in a war that, in all honesty, did the invading colonial forces little credit. Rorke's Drift was portrayed by some as such a glorious victory in an attempt to take away attention from Isandlwana.
But enough of the history. There is some great acting, fantastic score, amazing camera work and superb landscapes. Little point in making comments about the rights or wrongs of colonialism - everyone in Europe was at it at the time (and don't forget that it was only three years after the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn which was in its own way part of another colonial adventure). Judge it for what it is - a great movie.