kenobi7 Reviews

The Wolverine (2013)

Not as good as other superhero films of the year, but miles better than the first three X-Men films.

[10/10 · 31 August 2013]

The X-Men films have always been kind of hit-or-miss, in my opinion. The first 2 installments are both really good (X2 the best out of the pair), but they seem underwhelming to me in a way, being a fan that watched other superhero films first, ones that were more recent and had more of a fanbase. As any fan knows, X3 failed to impress in almost every respect, only delivering fully action-wise and with a certain after- credits scene. First Class is definitely the best of the bunch, even though it does get fairly juvenile at times with the younger mutants' story lines. Origins was a spin-off film that still didn't reveal anything new about the character, and was a convoluted mess because of it, despite some great action scenes. And they have all done their part to confuse fans with the continuity errors and plot holes. However, even after all this, they are still very well done. They have some of the best casts ever assembled, and boast top-shelf special effects. This particular film is an excellent example of that. Jackman returns to the role that made him famous among American audiences, sharing the screen with a mostly foreign cast that still manages to hold its own. It is an adaptation of the comics' Japan Saga, but holds several surprises due to some worthwhile liberties taken. Logan finds himself in a dark place after the events of X3. He is basically just a wanderer, much like he was before the events of X1. He is asked to return to Japan as part of a favor for a man whose life he saved during World War II. Once he gets there, nothing proves to be as it seems. The country holds many enemies and a few friends for him, and he might just not come out of it alive. I say that with absolute seriousness. Due to a certain critical plot point, Wolverine might just lose what makes him a mutant and not be able to get it back. There is action, suspense, and tragedy aplenty. Jackman gives a terrific performance, finally being able to deliver on what Origins fell far short of doing - really figuring out the Wolverine character, emotionally, mentally, and physically. The only problem I had with the film is that the story required a certain amount of filling stuff in for myself, and some stuff that I had to ask others about afterwards. But other than that, it proved to be a great film, a great superhero movie, and a great performance by Jackman and his foreign co-stars.

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

Wraps up Bourne's story in the best way possible.

[10/10 · 19 June 2013]

Definitely the best of the franchise. Due to the story elements, this film operates on a different level than the first two, but it all works out. Ultimatum finds Bourne still suffering from his wounds that were inflicted at the end of Supremacy, desperate to get out of Moscow. He is determined to put an end to the agency's search for him. Within the agency, we meet Noah Vosen, the new head of the still ongoing search for Bourne. He reports directly to the CIA director, Ezra Kramer. Vosen proves to be nowhere near Bourne's capabilities, so he calls in Pamela Landy, introduced in Supremacy, to help him out. Much like she did with Brian Cox's character Abbott in Supremacy, she begins to grow suspicious of why the agency really wants Bourne and if he might actually be innocent. To further complicate things, there is a reporter in London who has some very interesting information on Bourne's past, but also has a very mysterious source that might be directly involved with the whole thing. And, of course, Bourne has begun having more visions. Like before, they are just brief flashes of scenes from his his past, along with voices and faces he doesn't recognize. In his quest to figure all this out, Bourne travels from Moscow, to Naples, to Madrid, to Tangiers, and finally, to New York City. This is where the final scene from Supremacy comes into play. It is seamlessly integrated into Ultimatum's storyline. Bourne meets up with Nicky Parsons, a former agency employee that is now willing to help him. She sees something in Bourne, much like what Marie saw in him. She begins to realize that he might very well be innocent, and that the agency is trying to eliminate an innocent man. This relationship between them is not at all romantic, but is very important. Bourne sees Nicky as someone that he can just use at first, but later, he realizes that she genuinely wants to help. Therefore, he has to protect her just because she didn't tell on him. Nicky sees Bourne as a highly tortured and emotionally conflicted person. I think that she has also had enough of the agency, and wants to do whatever she can. All throughout the film, we are treated to spectacular chases, fights, and some terrific acting by the entire cast. All of which has become expected from these films, and never gets old. Due to the agency's continued search and the inclusion of the reporter/source subplot, a lot of the film is spent away from Bourne. But this actually works in Bourne/Damon's favor, because literally everything that is happening is always focused on Bourne and what he is doing. Each member of the cast realizes and fully understands their role, and how their character ties in with the script. It is a great film because it ratchets up the intensity and suspense from the first two, without being overbearing or too simplistic.

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

An extremely underrated - and awesome - action thriller.

[9/10 · 10 June 2013]

As we all know, it is not very often that a sequel outdoes its predecessor. The Bourne franchise is not usually mentioned in this type of conversation, but Supremacy is a good example of it. Everything from the story, to the action, to the acting, to the intrigue, is kicked up a notch. The film brings Bourne into the proceedings while he is trying to enjoy an extended period of hiding with Marie from the agencies that are seeking to eliminate him. But, all good things must come to an end. Jason begins having terrible dreams, featuring quick bursts of scenes from his past, which of course he doesn't remember ever occurring. The CIA has found someone new to headline the tracking down of Bourne following Conklin's death in Identity. This is Pamela Landy, who is refreshingly all business, but very practical and rational. She is obviously the one best suited for the job, in that she can match anything Bourne can throw at them. But there is deadly intrigue in Landy's ranks also, in the form of Ward Abbott, Conklin's former boss. Since Conklin's death, he has seemingly thought it was all over because Bourne was dead or no longer a problem. Not so. Someone has framed two murders and the intentional botching of a CIA operation in Berlin on Bourne. He comes out of the shadows on a totally separate mission of vengeance, but before long, is drawn into an ever-so convoluted mission of clearing his name and figuring out how it all connects to his very first mission as an agent. As part of this, new -to-the-franchise director Paul Greengrass puts his own spin on the proceedings. His hyper-quick editing (especially during the action scenes) has been strongly criticized, but as I have mentioned before, I actually enjoy it. The editing gives the audience (and Bourne, presumably) the feeling of not knowing what's going on. Bourne is still suffering from amnesia, so he still doesn't really know where his training stems from. His reactions during such situations are only known to him, and we don't usually figure out what he's doing until it's already done. Bourne is not at all predictable or contrived as a character, which makes him so charismatic and easy to sympathize with. He doesn't truthfully know why or how he does what he does, he just does it. Therefore, during the action scenes, if one considers themselves a true fan, they must jump in and hang on for dear life. All the performances are terrific, with each one of the cast members getting at least one scene where they are allowed to shine. Supremacy is what results when we have seen Identity, and are therefore no longer needing introductions. We (somewhat) know who the characters are and what their involvement is in the story, and are now ready to get down to business. Supremacy is an amazing and ridiculously intense thriller, and I'm here to tell you - don't believe the detractors of the film or franchise until you watch it for yourself.

The Bourne Identity (2002)

He's gonna find them and kill them, but he's not Liam Neeson!!

[9/10 · 7 June 2013]

To say that Jason Bourne is comparable to James Bond is something of an understatement and a very underrated claim at the same time. They even have the same initials, by the way. Some might say that it is just being clichéd to compare the two, but in my mind, it truly works. Where Bond is suave and impressionable, Bourne is direct and doesn't really care what people think of him. The film definitely departs from the source material, but not to its discredit. The film manages to transcend the genre by taking the places and names from the books and create its own original story. It follows the baseline of the books, but crafts a world for our main character which is plausible and modern enough to not even appear dated. The performances are all top-notch; as it should be, the persona Damon creates as Bourne is by far the best role in the film. I would say its absolutely one of his best roles - what one would call a tour-De-force performance. However, ample support is supplied from the rest of the cast also. Potente is especially good, and even though Cooper just seems really mad all the time, it really is a testament to his acting abilities if one watches his other movies and understands his immense range. Something that only just recently came to me about these films is the diversity of the cast. There is Bourne, who is a definite loner, even when he's with Marie. He can never get over the changes that his experiences have forced him to make, and he is therefore incredibly tortured by conflicting emotions and thoughts all the time. So no matter who he interacts with, the focus is always on Bourne. He functions in all situations the same, and deals with everybody (except Marie) more or less the same. He is what he is, and you either love him or hate him - no gray area. Then we have those who are tracking and/or trying to kill him, and they have their own separate part of the movie that only sometimes interacts with Bourne. Because of all this, everything is literally on Damon's shoulders to carry the movie, and that is why he is so great. Just like Bourne, Damon has to stand out. If he doesn't, then his role means nothing, and the viewer doesn't care about what happens. This is much like what happens in "Unknown", the fairly recent Liam Neeson vehicle, which has a very similar storyline to the Bourne films. The movie also fits in rather nicely with the other two, and creates a viable trilogy. One might say that they prefer Liman's directing simply due to the fact he doesn't use choppy editing like Greengrass did, but I understand the need for both methods in their element and could not imagine either one to be any different. As with all three of the Bourne films, the action is astonishingly simple once one gets used to it, and anyone is more than welcome to freeze-frame and follow the choreography. Some have said that the way these films compose the action sequences is unnecessarily fast and showy. I disagree. The films' choreography is a symbol for the character of Bourne. The action is literally so fast it's over before you even realize, much like it is from Bourne's side of things. Due to his amnesia, he doesn't understand what he's doing either, per Se. It's a reflex for him to react the way he does. He just does it, without hesitation or remorse, which is exactly why he's so good as an agent. I will say that for me, the franchise's only disadvantage is for anyone who's never seen the films before. When I first watched the films, I didn't really understand it either. It was all too complicated for me at the time. But after watching all three of the Damon films (haven't seen Legacy yet) several times once I got older, I have progressively understood what is going on within each one. Once I understand what's going on, it's a piece of cake to invest myself in the story and characters. But for those who are beginners like I was at one time, the films probably seem horrible. That's when I would say to stick with them for the long haul - watch them all again, if you have to. I love these films, and I would strongly recommend them to anyone. Don't underestimate the awesomeness of Bourne.

Men in Black (1997)

An always surprising and amazing action/adventure sci-fi comedy.

[10/10 · 26 May 2013]

One of the best and most original films to come out of Hollywood in the last 20 years. Director Barry Sonnenfeld takes his unashamedly different approaches to film and comedy into the area of the "comic book movie franchise" genre. The wonderful cast is headed up by the always dependable Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith as Agents K and J, respectively. It is an absolutely delightful film, in every sense of the word. The movie combines drama with humor and action, and does it very well. It is the best film I've seen in the area of achieving these moments of fierce action and real-world occurrences, directly followed up by moments of off-the-wall sci-fi adventure and outrageous dialog/characterizations/body language. 'Men in Black' is more or less three parallel stories running simultaneously, all expertly navigated by Sonnenfeld. We have the background story of the Men in Black agency, being told to us by Agent K and Director Zed (Rip Torn). In a nutshell, the agency has been around for a long time now. It is tasked with monitoring alien activity and protecting Earth's citizens from any harm the aliens might have planned. Smith first shows up as NYPD cop James Edwards, who through a very strange (yet hilarious) set of occurrences, is gradually inducted into the agency and learns the ropes, therefore becoming the newest recruit. And we have the not-so-unfortunate story of a douche bag farmer named Edgar, who is killed but his skin is used as a disguise 'Edgar suit' for an evil alien bug. This bug plans to find an item of great importance to him and to other alien races, so that a certain war between two of these races can continue, and his own race can continue to feed off the casualties - literally. Now, while this may seem like a lot of unnecessary explanation leading to a lot of unnecessary exposition in the film, this is simply not so. The story is explained, very quickly, in just a few scenes. Sometimes, we figure out things as the characters do, other times, we are let in on stuff long before the characters ever are. But the film does not ever lose pace because of these elements, nor does it stop so the audience can catch up with all these goings-on. The film purposefully barrels along at a breakneck speed, and the audience is just expected to dive right in and hold on for dear life. Once this is accomplished, the story is really not that hard to understand. However, if one feels that the story disappoints or just doesn't understand it, then the film is always entertaining just as a great popcorn flick. This would also probably be the case for why small children enjoy these films so much - they may not understand the story particulars, but they like the special effects and the comedic moments. This is all assisted by not only the main cast, but also by several great character actors and actresses, such as Tony Shalhoub and Siobhan Fallon. Whichever way you look at it, 'Men in Black' is a ridiculously entertaining ride of action and all kinds of comedy, and I highly recommend it. Which is not something I can say for 'Men in Black II', unfortunately. Since I haven't seen 'Men in Black III' as of yet, I cannot comment on it in the slightest. I'm hoping it's just as good, or better even, than this first installment.

Iron Man Three (2013)

Unlike IM2, this one does not disappoint. Don't listen to the haters, it's a great movie!

[9/10 · 22 May 2013]

Obviously one of the most anticipated blockbusters of the year. It's always very important for any movie in a franchise to do well after a big movie, such as the event that was "The Avengers". But IM3 totally exceeded the expectations and proved that we fans had nothing to worry about. It combines all the best things from the previous two Iron Man films, with a story and a cast that was still original enough to make for a great movie. Also, the entire Iron Man franchise is very rooted in the ideas of self-destruction and regret. Therefore, if you pay attention to these themes in all three films, then you notice a progressive full-circle kind of thing. The first Iron Man introduced us to the character of Tony Stark and his genius, but there were slight implications of self-destruction in that if he didn't figure out something to do with all of his money and technology, then he would never be able to make up for all the mistakes he made as a weapons supplier/dealer. In IM2, he absolutely has to figure out how to fix his relationships with others and the problem with his arc reactor, or he will most certainly die and regret how he didn't fix them. And now, in Iron Man 3, his obsession with building all these different suits and using them to save the world has finally come back around to bite him in the butt, and he has to figure how to fix it all by himself. This leads to some very welcome flashbacks from Tony's experiences in "The Avengers". The film's big twist is surprising and very well thought out/set up. Others have said that this totally eliminates the entire idea of the villain, but the film makes it clear that the villain still exists within the film, just in an unexpected way. Besides, when anyone feels that the physical villain of the film does not satisfy, they can always rely on that self-destructive factor of Tony himself. That is also a villain, even if it's just in the metaphorical sense. Shane Black's direction makes sure there is a definite balance between action, great emotion/feeling, and some comedy. At times in the film, all of these things will exist in one scene, usually one right after the other. Unsurprisingly, RDJ turns in a terrific job once again. The rest of the cast also does a great job, especially Paltrow and Pearce. IM3 also doesn't disappoint in the general sense of the franchise. While Iron Man was and still is a great movie, Iron Man 2 was all over the place and never did really find a central theme, but there were certain parts of it that were very good and somewhat made up for where it fell short. Now, Iron Man 3 has absolutely wowed the socks off all its appreciative fans, and still is, according to the box office numbers. It featured what we loved from the first Iron Man in spades, while still kicking all of that up a notch with a much stronger central theme. Therefore, it is the best in the series for me.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Abrams knocks it out of the park yet again!!

[10/10 · 17 May 2013]

Definitely the best big budget blockbuster of the year so far. Does not disappoint on any level whatsoever. While the fans may have been impatient for Abrams to get the ball rolling on this sequel ever since the release of the 2009 franchise reboot, practical reasoning makes it obvious that waiting is always better if the product is successful. In this sequel, the same emotions, feelings, and thoughts from the first Star Trek are all explored again, but on a much deeper and more aggressive level. This also goes for everything else in the movie. Much like the first movie, the acting is superb, the action is crazy but terrific, and the unexpected plot points are of course, always welcome. Some have compared this film to 'Iron Man 3', 'Skyfall', and 'The Dark Knight Rises' in its execution. They say that they are all too similar in plot, because they all feature a central male character that is known to regret his feelings and actions from the past. They all feature an enigmatic villain that defeats and/or humiliates the character on their own turf. The main character then has to make a decision whether or not to step outside their comfort zone, all at potential great cost to everyone else. While I agree that these similarities are true and very interesting, they do not discredit any of the mentioned films. Each of these films is fashioned in a different way, and gives the viewer an entirely different feeling. So I, for one, no matter what any detractors of this film may say, highly recommend this film to any Star Trek or sci-fi fan, or any movie fan in general. It is absolutely amazing.

Skyfall (2012)

The best Bond film to date. Period.

[10/10 · 9 March 2013]

Truly dives deep into what makes Bond tick, with yet another great cast. Of course, Bond has the most screen time, followed only by Judi Dench's M. But other than that, the rest of the cast at first seems like they don't get enough screen time. However, this is not the case - their roles may be smaller, but just as significant. The action scenes are really not the highlight. What makes this particular entry standout is the wry humor, gut-wrenching suspense (shrouded in enough mystery to last you for a lifetime), and the clever homages to the older films. The best Bond film of the Craig era, no contest whatsoever. I've never seen any of the others, so I can't compare it to those, but I have no doubt this one could hold its own against whatever the earlier films (before Craig) could bring to the table. A film that succeeds at being impressive...most impressive.

Dr. No (1962)

James Bond makes his first film appearance...ever!

[10/10 · 9 March 2013]

Having never seen any Bond films outside of the newer releases starring Daniel Craig, I figured I should start off my introduction into classic Bond the right way. The film proved to be immensely entertaining. While this was Connery's first time as Bond, he plays the role so well that you would never know it otherwise. He captures Bond's personality perfectly. Craig plays the character in a more aggressive way, but both he and Connery play up the suave, gentler (and much more humorous) side of Bond to a great extent as well. The action, production design, costumes, and props are all excellent. Connery was cracking me up the entire movie with his one-liners and his cockiness. Just like Craig does in the role, he may act like he truly cares, but he's usually stringing whoever it is along as a means to an end. And that's what is so great about the character - you truly do not know what he is going to do next. I would have preferred it if the villainous Dr. No would have appeared earlier in the movie so he could establish more of a presence, but that really was the only drawback for me. Everything else considering, it was an absolutely stellar film, and a great Bond film (especially since it was the first). I may be rather late to the game of seeing the Bond films with Connery, but I'm definitely down with watching the other films in the future.

Snitch (I) (2013)

Finally...Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has come back to snap necks and take names!!

[10/10 · 9 March 2013]

Definitely the Rock's best film to date. And I don't say this just because his past movies have never received much acclaim (critical or popular), or even because he's my all-time favorite wrestler. I have never seen any of his solo movies, but I can tell from watching him in "Fast Five" that he is usually on-screen to show off his muscles and general persona of awesomeness. However, with Snitch, he is given the chance to play a character that is actually deep and emotional, much like the script. Sure, the movie has plenty of action. Of course the script is full of cops, drug cartels, and chase scenes. But this is not one of those stupid Redbox 'thrillers' starring someone who is way past their prime and just needs to retire. The Rock is at the top of his game here. He wowed me with his emotional intensity, as well as being able to hold his own alongside such phenomenal talent as Jon Bernthal, Susan Sarandon, Barry Pepper, and yes, Benjamin Bratt. But when talent like that is in some of those humdrum thrillers, they usually only have a cameo role because the star is the true attraction. Not so here. Each one of the supporting cast has a fleshed out role. We get to know them and enjoy their character's presence on screen. This allows us to have the privilege of naming Snitch as a good Sarandon vehicle, a very good Pepper vehicle, a pretty good Bratt vehicle, and an absolutely excellent effort from Bernthal. I know that action films and comedies usually get looked over at the Academy Awards, but if my opinion mattered at all during the Oscar season, I would definitely nominate the Rock for Best Actor and Bernthal for Best Supporting Actor. Snitch truly is just that good.

The Karate Kid (1984)

Underdog + wise old mentor = cinematic genius!!

[10/10 · 9 March 2013]

John G. Avildsen directs yet another underdog "rags-to-riches" kind of story, much like he did with the 'Rocky' films, 'Lean On Me', and '8 Seconds'. This time, the film tells the tale of a New Jersey teenager, Daniel LaRusso, who reluctantly moves with his mother to sunny California. Of course, he is an impatient and impractical smartmouth, but the real Daniel - the Daniel that's actually tolerable, is not far beneath his rough exterior. Due to his new kid status, he is bullied by the Cobra Kai, an overly aggressive group of teenage boys that are obsessed with using their own form of karate on their weaker 'inferiors'. Daniel also takes a liking to Ali, who is of course the former girlfriend of the Cobra Kai's leader. Amidst all this, he befriends the handy man at his apartment building, a Mr. Miyagi. Like everyone else, Daniel at first underestimates Miyagi. Over the course of the film, we learn that Miyagi is really a very wise man who knows a lot about karate - the less aggressive and more genuine kind. The Cobra Kai continues to torture Daniel, and he finally convinces Mr. Miyagi to teach him the ways of the ancient art. But it is not just about getting back at his tormentors - Miyagi teaches him to use karate as a way to discover himself, as well as learning about honor, responsibility, and the like. While I would agree that the film is predictable, and Daniel could get on anyone's nerves, the true magic of the story is Morita's performance as the wise handy-man/karate instructor. Rather than just come swooping in at exactly the right time to save Daniel's sorry butt, we meet him as a handy-man first, and therefore learn about him as a person before putting him into hero situations. His performance makes Daniel tolerable, because without Miyagi, I don't think anybody could stand Daniel. Morita earned an Oscar nomination for the film, and while it was highly deserved, I can't really say whether he should have won because I don't know what his competition for the award was in 1984, without researching it. However, it cannot be denied that he displayed masterful acting talent, and the only element that made the unnecessary and very repetitive sequels watchable.

The Alamo (1960)

An elegant, masterful, sweeping, and incredibly character-driven film.

[10/10 · 31 August 2011]

One of the great disputes about the classic age of Hollywood is over the actor John Wayne. The opinion I hear most often from professional and amateur film critics alike is that he was not a good actor, that all his films feature Wayne just being himself, with absolutely no originality or versatility in his performances. I am of a different opinion. To my mind, Wayne was, and still is, one of the greatest actors ever. Many of his films are definite classics. Like any other actor or actress, his movies range from being bad to good to excellent, with his performances varying as well. However, in all his films, he was the easygoing gentleman that meant what he said and somebody that nobody - in their right mind - would want to cross. Therefore, he was essentially always the same character, but that was a good thing, and his fans loved him for it. In the time since then, many film critics, both amateur and professional, have finally realized that his acting rates right up there with the best efforts of other classic Hollywood actors and actresses, such as Jimmy Stewart, Gregory Peck, Gary Cooper, Katherine Hepburn, Maureen O'Hara, and Ingrid Bergman.

"The Alamo" relates the efforts of less than 200 combatants - some soldiers, some volunteers - to defend an old mission, known as the Alamo, against General Santa Anna and his Mexican forces. Santa Anna believed Texas should remain part of Mexico, while Texas' citizens, and some others, believed that the territory should become a full-fledged state. Davy Crockett (Wayne) and his fellow Tennessians come to Texas with the sole purpose of getting drunk and having fun, but after Crockett assesses the situation, and is further convinced by such people as Colonel Travis (Laurence Harvey) and Jim Bowie (Richard Widmark), he and his Tennessians agree to join the forces at the Alamo. Their situation is doomed from the beginning - partly because of discord among themselves, but mostly because of the severely overwhelming forces of Santa Anna. But there is also the problem of the Alamo forces creating enough time by holding off Santa Anna so that Sam Houston (Richard Boone) can get his own forces in shape to fight Santa Anna also, except with hopefully much better results. While these efforts of Houston's are noble, it also further causes the Alamo forces to be thought of as expendable and merely a distraction. However, this matters not to the valiant Alamo defenders, because they consider it a supreme honor to defend the old mission, especially considering that some of them aren't even Texans or Mexicans. All of this has been retold many times throughout several adaptations, such as the more recent version with Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton. I do respect those films and think they are pretty good, but I've always thought the 1960 version of "The Alamo" is the best, mostly because of Wayne's presence. This particular film is thought of by some critics to be horrible, with others finding it to be pretty good. Well, I am here to tell you that it is a great movie, and one of my all-time favorites. Unfortunately, the film never quite reaches the status of epic, which is what it obviously tries to be. This is only because all of the film's elements do not seamlessly come together, like they should in an epic. As all the film's different characters come together for one common purpose, there is bound to be a clash of wills and determination at some point among them, and that really is the best part about the film - seeing this grand cast react to one another. The conflict between Travis and Bowie is what stands out in particular, with Wayne, as the easygoing everyman Davy Crockett, stuck in the middle. Due to these various relationships between the characters, the film becomes an emotional study of life, freedom, courage, and honor, with the story of the Alamo itself only serving as a setting that further complicates all those emotions. John Wayne starred in and directed "The Alamo". His obvious good taste and dedication to the film is exemplified in its cast, production design, location choices, the massive amount of extras hired, amazing action sequences, and dialogue, which is usually very good. Dimitri Tiomkin's musical score is terrific, containing a few cues that I recognized as similar to his score from "The Guns of Navarone", as well as the beautiful song "The Green Leaves of Summer". Going into the movie - if we know our history - we automatically know the inevitable fate of the Alamo and the characters that defend it in the film. But this is not at all a bad thing, because the characters all have effective backgrounds and are very well acted by the various cast-members. While the events leading up to their actual deaths are suspenseful, engaging, and somewhat graphic at times, they serve as defining moments for their characters. The account of the Alamo is one of great tragedy and loss, but also of great heroism and sacrifice. All these things are perfectly realized in this film, due to the immense effort and dedication put into it by the magnificent actor, John Wayne.

Also Recommended: "STAGECOACH" (1939), "THE SEARCHERS" (1956), "RIO BRAVO" (1959), "TRUE GRIT" (1969), "THE SHOOTIST" (1976)

THIS REVIEW IS DEDICATED TO ANYONE, LIVING OR DEAD, INVOLVED WITH THE MAKING OF "THE ALAMO" (1960).

Lonesome Dove (1989)

This grand and epic Western is still just as awesome!

[10/10 · 8 March 2011]

The Western genre is one of the oldest movie genres in Hollywood. It started out with the silent films, the Tom Mix movies, all through the great John Wayne films, the Jimmy Stewart-Anthony Mann masterpieces, up until the time when the Western almost ceased to be a genre, because most of the movie-going audiences had moved on to other Hollywood fare. But it was the success of such movies as "Pale Rider" and "Silverado" in the 80s that really brought the Western back to American theaters. Now perhaps that success has not exactly spilled over to today's movies, but the Western is still a revered genre and an art-form. It was those same feelings and that genuine likability for the Western genre that caused "Lonesome Dove" to become such a hit. Also because of the fact that there are countless reviews from critics and fans that had never particularly liked Westerns in general, but they were the same ones that absolutely loved "Lonesome Dove".

The story starts off with two retired Texas Rangers, Augustus McCrae and Woodrow F. Call, who are also long-time best friends. McCrae (Robert Duvall) is a rascal through-and-through, but not without the emotion needed to appreciate the good things about life. Call (Tommy Lee Jones) is a much more buttoned-up and reserved character, serving as the perfect foil for Duvall's McCrae. Call and McCrae run The Hat Creek Cattle Company, in the basically deserted town of Lonesome Dove, Texas. However, this company does not get much business at all, allowing McCrae to have more than enough time to be lazy and loaf around, which sets the stage for some hilarious scenes with Duvall and Jones. An old friend and fellow Ranger of theirs, Jake Spoon (Robert Urich) shows up, with plenty of wonderful things to say about that faraway place known as Montana. McCrae is content to stay in Lonesome Dove, but Jake's words ignite something in Call's mind, and before long, he can think of nothing else but starting a cattle ranch in Montana. McCrae thinks Call is purely out of his mind to want to start another long adventure, especially considering that the world seemingly no longer accepts them as they are. But Call manages to convince McCrae to come along, and thus begins the epic journey.

"Lonesome Dove" is a classic on so many levels. Like most classic films, the miniseries seems to know that it is an epic - that it is destined to become something great. This aspect is shown most significantly with the cast. All the cast members, from the ones with large speaking roles to the ones with only a few lines, seem to instantly understand the profound depth and raw emotion of the story, and therefore channel that into their own performances. Literally every scene is beautiful, purely character-driven, emotionally intense, dramatically real; even the opening credits evoke that peculiar feeling that the viewer is in for a heck of an experience. Since "Lonesome Dove" is an absolute character piece, every actor or actress must be well-chosen and their performance must be acted to the best of that person's ability. There are, of course, the aforementioned Duvall, Jones, and Urich, all of whom having talent that is nothing short of fantastic. But also worth mentioning are the likewise majestic performances of the remaining cast. Each character has something of importance and depth to bring to every scene in which they appear - Rick Schroder as the fatherless and confused Newt, Danny Glover as the steadfast scout Deets, Diane Lane as the gorgeous bad-girl-with-a-heart-of-gold, Frederic Forrest as the evil half-breed Blue Duck, Chris Cooper as the inexperienced but compassionate July Johnson - the list goes on and on. This criteria is the same for all the story lines, as well. Each of the story lines is effective, and they all tie-in together excellently, with not one of them being left out. There has been some debate over whether the secondary storyline, with July Johnson searching for his ever-fleeing wife, is really necessary. As a matter of fact, it is more than necessary - it is essential. July's story contributes to the main plot, but these story intersections are never obvious or contrived.

The story, to put it simply, very easily and firmly captures the feel of the Old West, both as it was in its prime and in its passing-on. That really is one of the main themes of the story - as time passes on, things and people become different and grow old; change is inevitable in this view of the West. All of the characters, in their own way, realize that they must change with the times and situations surrounding them, and that if they don't, they might as well just stop living, because there truly is no other way. This point is very clearly presented with the terrific ending montage. As Woodrow remembers all that has happened during their long journey - with Poledouris' gripping score played over the scenes - the heart-wrenching and terrific emotion can bring anyone to tears. The miniseries does contain some unnecessary sexual implications and bad language, but aside from those elements, "Lonesome Dove" is one of the few productions on film that I definitely consider to be undeniably perfect in every way.

Daniel Boone (1964–1970)

Great adventure and excitement on the frontier!

[9/10 · 17 March 2010]

One of the most memorable television series ever has not lost any of its charm over the years. That series is "DANIEL BOONE". It ran from September 24, 1964 until it was cancelled on September 10, 1970 for a total of six seasons and 165 episodes. Fess Parker starred as Daniel Boone, (which could be considered a recreation of his role as Davy Crockett) explorer, adventurer, and all-around family man. The beautiful Patricia Blair was Daniel's wife Rebecca, Ed Ames was the civilized, Oxford educated Cherokee named Mingo, Albert Salmi was Yadkin (first season only), Daniel's loyal sidekick, Veronica Cartwright was Daniel's young daughter Jemima, Darby Hinton was Israel Boone, and Dal McKennon was the hilarious Cincinnatus. The show was set in and around the small settlement of Boonesborough, Kentucky, and was basically about Boone's always exciting adventures. "DANIEL BOONE" always sported high production values in its casting, action pieces, stunts, special effects, and sets. But I guess that's not too surprising, since the producer was Aaron Rosenberg, who was also the producer for such great movies as "WINCHESTER '73". Both elements of the show - its action pieces and stunts, and its more family friendly values, are complimentary to each other. Without the action and stunts (particular examples would be in "CAIN'S BIRTHDAY" and "MY BROTHER'S KEEPER", two of the best episodes), the show would be boring and lifeless, but without the human element (such as one of the criminals wanting to be a teacher in "THE DEVIL'S FOUR"), the show would have no meaning to the families that have loved the show for the past forty-odd years. The show featured many guest stars in its first season alone, such as Brock Peters, Pat Hingle, Michael Rennie, Leslie Nielsen, Kelly Thordsen, Peter Whitney, and Walter Pidgeon. So join Daniel Boone as he battles hostile Indians, evil British, dishonest settlers and many other disreputable inhabitants of the land in and around Boonesborough. An absolutely great television show which is definitely one of the best.

THIS REVIEW IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF ANYONE, LIVING OR DEAD, INVOLVED WITH THE MAKING OF "DANIEL BOONE".

Destry Rides Again (1939)

Hilarious Western Comedy!

[10/10 · 17 March 2010]

Marlene Dietrich and James Stewart make a great combination in "DESTRY RIDES AGAIN". This movie was directed by none other than George Marshall (who would remake it in 1954 starring Audie Murphy), was suggested by the novel "Destry Rides Again" by Max Brand, and co-starred Brian Donlevy, Mischa Auer, Charles Winninger, and Una Merkel. The basic story is quite simple, actually. The brawling town of Bottleneck is run with an iron fist by Donlevy, and one night, the town sheriff Keogh is "mysteriously" killed, and a new sheriff Washington Dimsdale (Winninger) previously the town drunk, is appointed for the job. But he feels that by himself, he will not be enough, so he summons Tom Destry, Jr. (Stewart) to come and help him out. What eventually happens in the end I would not dream of telling, but I feel that much more of the film is devoted to the development of character and comedy between the cast members than there is time devoted to the main story itself. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. If the movie was too plot-laden, it would have no life, personality, or originality to it at all. In fact, there is a sprinkling of the story here and there, but it does in no way bog us down. Consider the scene where Jack Tyndall (Jack Carson) threatens Destry by telling him that he will take the law into his own hands if he has to. Destry fires right back at him by saying that he will not, and then he proceeds to tell one of his entertaining stories about the cement worker friend who was once an opry singer but is now the cornerstone of the post office in St. Louis, Missouri because he fell into the cement. "He should have stuck to his trade. You better stick to yours." George Marshall was one of the great directors who could do plot and character at the same time. He shows how people do not trust Destry to regain the town, but in the same scene, shows Destry's fondness for telling stories and Tyndall's general mule-headed nature. Other classic scenes are the great catfight between Merkel and Dietrich, the gunfight towards the end, and the last scene where the credits roll while that great music is playing. The last scene is also one of my favorites from the whole film as Destry says "Speaking of marriage...". Janice Tyndall, who obviously liked him throughout the whole film, replies with "Yes, Tom?". By the eagerness in her facial expression and her voice, she apparently thought he was going to propose. But instead, he takes us all by surprise by saying "I had a friend once..." (notice that smile on Stewart's face!). What a great film. One of the best!

Also Recommended: "MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON" (1939), "MADE FOR EACH OTHER" (1939), "IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE" (1946), "WINCHESTER '73" (1950), HARVEY (1950)

THIS REVIEW IS DEDICATED TO ANYONE, LIVING OR DEAD, INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF "DESTRY RIDES AGAIN".

Superman: The Animated Series (1996–2000)

A series that is still truly SUPER!

[10/10 · 8 January 2010]

This series was, and still is amazing. The most surprising thing about this show is its own inventive and original take on the Superman mythos. I think that even the most die-hard comic book fan who has never seen this show would be astounded about the detail the show goes into. Of particular interest and excitement is the introduction of Mr. Mxyzptlk in "MXYZPIXILATED" (released on DVD in Volume 2), Darkseid in "TOOLS OF THE TRADE" (Volume 1) and the Joker (usually a Batman villain) to the series in "WORLD'S FINEST" (Volume 2). This series still, even though it has long since been cancelled off the air (except for syndication), proves to be a great homage to the Superman universe, and to comic books in general. It is an excellent example of outstanding ideas, insight, animation, action, a bit of romance, and suspense.

THIS REVIEW IS DEDICATED TO ANYONE, LIVING OR DEAD, INVOLVED IN THE PAST, PRESENT, OR FUTURE "SUPERMAN" UNIVERSE.

Spider-Man (2002)

The AMAZING Spider-Man!

[9/10 · 8 January 2010]

Recently, superhero films have been an extremely effective genre in Hollywood. It is undeniable that superhero films are the movies that endure the most hype these days. If made correctly, these kind of movies offer plenty of action, thrills, and character, while also being impressively designed and using some of the best special effects teams around. Bryan Singer's "X-MEN" was the movie that introduced the superhero film to the 21st century. It raised the bar so high, the audiences were astounded and it seemed like no other movie, superhero or otherwise, could surpass it. That bar has definitely been raised to new levels many times since then with films such as the spectacular "THE DARK KNIGHT" and, to a lesser extent, "IRON MAN". However, "SPIDER-MAN" is nothing to sneeze at either. High school nerd Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) lives with his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson). His next door neighbor happens to be the beautiful Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), whom Peter has loved since "before he even liked girls". Peter is also best friends with Harry Osborn (James Franco), whose dad is Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe). Norman is overly ambitious with his company, Oscorp (which supplies weapons and special equipment to the military), and wants to give Harry everything that he never had in his younger days. One life-changing day, Peter's class goes on a field trip to Columbia University's Science Department. During the tour, Peter is bitten on the hand by a genetically enhanced "super-spider" that escaped from an exhibit. That night, Norman is testing one of his company's performance enhancers on himself. The experiment goes horribly wrong, and Norman becomes the incredibly strong yet viciously insane Green Goblin. Meanwhile, Peter has undergone a night of dizziness and a stomach ache due to the spider bite. In the morning, he finds that he also has gained heightened strength, agility, can spin webs from his wrists, climb walls, and a certain "spider-sense" to warn him of danger. Mary Jane and Peter become much closer friends, despite the fact that she is now dating Harry. She also thinks she loves Spider-Man after he saves her life twice. Goblin is suspicious of Spider-Man's true identity. He also feels threatened by Parker, but has not yet made the connection between the two. They finally square off in a fantastic showdown that is also one of the best scenes in the entire movie. But, at the end of the day, "SPIDER-MAN" still has its faults. For example, what is Goblin's plan? We understand his revenge against the Quest Aerospace officials and the Oscorp board members, but what else is there? He has a personal vendetta against Spider-Man, but why? Just to write it off as him being insane is not sufficient. Up next is the cinematography during the scenes of Spider-Man swinging through the city. They play and look like a video game, with the camera seeming to be too distant and too close at the same time. The feeling of all the tension, fear, and confusion of his new powers is actually not felt at all; he acts more like a kid in a candy shop. Instead of keeping the camera a reasonable distance from him so we can see how he uses his surroundings to display his amazing powers, the camera is tight on him, right over his shoulder most of the time. Strangely, the cinematography for the action scenes is quite good. The only scene of this kind that works in this film is the ending, which was filmed with the Spyder-Cam. It was a very effective technique that was used for all the swinging and fighting scenes in "SPIDER-MAN 2", and I would assume it was used in #3 as well, but I haven't seen that one yet. As a matter of fact, everything in #2 is improved over #1. The acting, action pieces, dialogue, and especially the villain. Nevertheless, everything in this film still comes together reasonably well, with only a few drawbacks.

Also Recommended: "SUPERMAN" (1978), "X-MEN" (2000), "X2" (2003), "SPIDER-MAN 2" (2004), "BATMAN BEGINS" (2005)

THIS REVIEW IS DEDICATED TO ANYONE, LIVING OR DEAD, INVOLVED WITH THE MAKING OF "SPIDER-MAN".

Cahill U.S. Marshal (1973)

Weak script, good action and performances.

[7/10 · 18 August 2009]

"CAHILL - UNITED STATES MARSHAL" is one of those movies that is somewhat frustrating. It succeeds on a few levels, but fails on so many others that makes it nowhere near one of the best films of John Wayne. The script is a horror to behold (such a pity too, because the writer for this was also the writer for "BIG JAKE", one of the Duke's better outings), the action is near perfect, the performances are great. The main plot is of U.S. Marshal J.D. Cahill (John Wayne) trying to get his sons out of a gang of outlaws alive. His oldest son Daniel (Gary Grimes) being in an outlaw gang is believable, because he is very rebellious. But not his youngest son Billy Joe (Clay O'Brien). Billy Joe is basically a good kid who loves his pa. The audience assumes that Billy Joe threw in with the outlaws because he followed his brother, but the film never shows or says that. Not to mention that the sight of little O'Brien holding that shotgun that is bigger than he is not at all convincing. However, films that have the "unbelievability factor" are usually appealing to me. But those films know they are unbelievable and just move along with an amazing pace - that's why they are so enjoyable. Not this movie. It is unbelievable, but it never decides if it knows that or not. It just seems to stay in the same gear the whole time and as a result, is bogged down in mediocrity the entire film. There is no bad acting, just bad acting choices. The film casts several veterans of movies and television, such as Jackie Coogan, Harry Carey Jr., Marie Windsor, Royal Dano, Denver Pyle, and Paul Fix, but the script unfortunately only gives them unimportant roles. Their acting is not at all bad, but the characters are unnecessary. It looks like the director cast these roles based on their talent, not on their significance to the script. On the positive side, the other actors are great in their roles, like George Kennedy as Fraser. Also, the action scenes are almost perfect, and the script seems to pick up the slightest bit in the last half hour. Overall, a fair movie, but if it was not for The Duke, it would have been a complete disaster.

Also Recommmended: "STAGECOACH" (1939), "RIO GRANDE" (1950), "TRUE GRIT" (1969), "CHISUM" (1970), "THE SHOOTIST" (1976)

THIS REVIEW IS DEDICATED TO ANYONE, LIVING OR DEAD, INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF "CAHILL - UNITED STATES MARSHAL".

Captain Blood (1935)

A great pirate movie, and Flynn's first starring role.

[9/10 · 18 August 2009]

"CAPTAIN BLOOD" is one of the great American classics, and an incredible swashbuckler. It was the movie that made Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland be finally recognized in Hollywood, the first time they paired together in a film, and the first time they acted together under the direction of Michael Curtiz. The story is of Dr. Peter Blood as he treats a man wounded in one of many British civil wars, and is subsequently convicted of treason against the King. Peter is sentenced to working as a slave by the side of many other convicted "criminals" in Jamaica, under the cruel authority of Colonel Bishop (Lionel Atwill). Meanwhile, Blood is romancing the beautiful Arabella Bishop (De Havilland), the Colonel's niece. He is eventually able to escape along with his friends. Blood then vows to the sail the Caribbean as a pirate - Captain Blood. His adventures are many - peaking with that great sword fight against the French pirate Levassuer (Basil Rathbone), and ending with an exciting sea battle as he returns to Port Royal to settle some old scores. The romance between De Havilland and Flynn is the first of many romances in their first of eight pictures together. The cast also includes such other excellent acting talents as J. Carrol Naish, Guy Kibbee, Ross Alexander, and Donald Meek, not to mention that the fencing is so good it would be a sin not to consider it a huge part of the movie. A great movie, one of both Flynn and De Havilland's definite best.

Also Recommended: "THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER" (1937), "THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD" (1938), "CASABLANCA" (1942), "FORT APACHE" (1948), "RIO GRANDE" (1950)

THIS REVIEW IS DEDICATED TO ANYONE, LIVING OR DEAD, INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF "CAPTAIN BLOOD".

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

A classic story transferred from page to screen!

[10/10 · 19 June 2009]

"THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE" is a glorious example of exceptional production design, excellent cinematography, wonderful special effects and CGI-created characters, incredible fight choreography, swordplay, stunts, great music, dazzling costumes, fantastic characterizations, and, most important of all, the film (for the most part) stays close to the book written by C.S. Lewis. The film is set during World War II. It is the epic story of the four Pevensie children - Peter (William Moseley), Susan (Anna Popplewell), Edmund (Skandar Keynes), and Lucy (Georgie Henley). They enter the land of Narnia through a mysterious wardrobe. There they do battle with the evil White Witch (Tilda Swinton), become friends with a faun named Mr. Tumnus (James McAvoy), and have dinner with Mr. and Mrs. Beaver (Ray Winstone and Dawn French). To the fans of the books, such as my own humble self, the movie will leave you in complete awe and amazement. To the ones who have not yet read the books, it may confuse you, but it will soon transfix you to the seat. All the acting is magnificent, especially with Georgie Henley, James McAvoy, Tilda Swinton, and the voice talent of Liam Neeson. Each of their characters resonate with such power and personality that it is impossible for you not to be amazed. Henley plays Lucy with a great sense of innocence and courage, having the best performance in the entire film. To me, having read all the books, Lucy is the central character. In my opinion, she is really the only character the audience can totally identify with throughout the series. Director Andrew Adamson seems to notice this, and being one of the script-writers, he uses the other characters, dialogue, and situations to be mainly formed around her role in the film. Maybe that is why Henley is perfect for the part. Let's hope everything stays this way (with her character at least) through the remaining films. McAvoy portrays Mr. Tumnus as a true patriot, fighting for his Narnia. He is ordered to turn in Lucy to the Witch, but Lucy is probably his only friend, and he has high hopes for a peaceful and just Narnia. His character's feelings and beliefs are just a few examples of those of every Narnian exhibited in the film. McAvoy's performance is amazing in its brilliance. Tilda Swinton is magnificently evil, a trait that can only be found in the White Witch, like something chiseled out of ice (pun intended). Her performance is simply perfect. Neeson's voice as Aslan fills the theater with booming presence and deep resonance, yet its own calm and quiet assurance. I never knew that just a voice from such an accomplished actor could inhabit a CGI-created character so well, not to mention the superior animation of the character itself. However, the entire cast is sensational. Keynes, Popplewell, Moseley, Winstone, French, and others are almost as incredible as the film's best performances. The kids are not confused or disoriented about what they must do, they just do it because they know it's inevitable. The Witch just oozes with so much evil that even the words I am using in this review cannot describe it. Another cast member that I must mention specifically is Jim Broadbent as Professor Digory Kirke. He is the only character on this side of the wardrobe (besides the kids) that has truly great acting talent. I see the Professor as their Earthly guidance, while Aslan is the perfect counterpart as their Narnian guidance. Both of the characters are the symbol of strength for the children - what binds them together and keeps them true to each other. It is really Peter and Susan's discussion with Professor Kirke that shows them that you do not have to do anything but believe. Listen for Rupert Everett in a small but heroic role as the Fox, watch for James Cosmo as Father Christmas. One last comment on the acting - I am always floored by how well the mannerisms, dialogue, and characters of the four main cast members matches up with their older counterparts. Also surprising is how fantastic the acting talents of the actors and actresses that played the older versions of the children are, even though they do not have much screen time. Definitely one of the greatest sequences in the film is the battle between the Narnians and the forces of the Witch. I adore the action sequences, especially the ones in this final confrontation. And, if you believe in the allegories between the Chronicles of Narnia and the Holy Word of God (like myself), the scene where Aslan is one-on-one with the Witch will have particular meaning for you. A wonderful film.

Also Recommended: STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999), LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (2001), LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS (2002), LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003), PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL (2003)

THIS REVIEW IS DEDICATED TO ANYONE, LIVING OR DEAD, INVOLVED IN THE PAST, PRESENT, OR FUTURE "CHRONICLES OF NARNIA" UNIVERSE.

The Longest Day (1962)

The definitive war film of cinematic and historic genius.

[10/10 · 18 June 2009]

"THE LONGEST DAY", based on a book by Cornelius Ryan, tells us of the events of and surrounding D-Day, the World War II invasion executed on June 6, 1944. We see almost everything from the perspectives of both the Allied and Axis forces. It is a brilliantly made, extremely well-acted, and above all, a genuinely felt war epic. Just about every actor that ever worked in Hollywood during the "golden age" is here to lend their excellent acting abilities- John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Richard Beymer, Robert Ryan, Edmond O'Brien, Henry Fonda, Red Buttons, Stuart Whitman, Roddy McDowall, Robert Wagner, Curt Jurgens, Sean Connery, and so many others. But even more worthy of top billing is the invasion itself. The actors and actresses, great as they are, are far outshined by the scope and grand scale of the invasion, which, in turn, gives the film immeasurable quality. The entire film is perfect. Every part of it is a complement to everything else: the acting, the black-and-white cinematography, the music (by Maurice Jarre and theme music by Paul Anka), the wonder, the awe, the irony-absolutely nothing is out of place. I believe the only reason that movies, television, documentaries, and anything else to do with the art of film should or ever needs to exist is to make us believe in the subject matter. It's not about the paycheck, the latest romantic scandal, or to show off. The purpose is to make us believe, recognize the character's attributes (or lack thereof) within ourselves, and for the cast and crew to do their best. Not every movie has succeeded, but many have, and it's a pity that many of today's films do not. Even though World War II did occur, as well as D-Day, Pearl Harbor, and all the rest, the audiences of war films could never believe for themselves that those things did happen if the movies were not believable. Fortunately, this film is very believable and realistic, and the stock footage from the actual invasion is a great asset. As a matter of fact, "THE LONGEST DAY" is probably one of the best films ever made (on the subject of war or otherwise). It defies the use of unnecessary gore in "SAVING PRIVATE RYAN", and even uses all the elements from many other films - such as the "get-in-blow-it-up-get-out" theme from "THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI" and "THE GUNS OF NAVARONE" (both great films). The unrest and comraderie among superiors and subordinates, the escapism, the adventure, the horror, the frustration - all have been used before, and not just in war films. Not to mention that this film also succeeds as both a "buddy film", and, of course, a "guy movie". But it is this movie that, even though it was one of the last of the greatest war movies, sets the tone for all the others. As a final note, "THE LONGEST DAY" also has some of the best scenes ever captured on film. A lot of the old clichés are used, and some new ones as well. Kenneth More's entire performance, the two guys with the pigeons, John Wayne exhibiting his tough guy persona, etc. The sporadic wry humor, the great action pieces, the use of actual footage from the invasion, is all used very well. To list some of my favorite scenes from this movie would take forever and a day, but my top favorites are as follows: John Wayne's first scene when he suddenly turns around and you're thinking, "Holy Smokes! It's the Duke!" (let me assure you that those are my exact feelings every time), the introduction of "Rupert" (and when he is introduced to the German officers), the use of codes, the boats unloading the troops onto the beach, the guy on bagpipes, the "hold until relieved", all the character pieces, and so much more. A tried-and-true, dignified, immensely entertaining, miraculous, illustrious slice of history.

Also Recommended: "STAGECOACH" (1939), "JESSE JAMES" (1939), "D.O.A." (1950), "THE NAKED SPUR" (1954), "JOHNNY TREMAIN" (1957)

THIS REVIEW IS DEDICATED TO ANYONE, LIVING OR DEAD, INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF "THE LONGEST DAY", AND TO ANYONE WHO IS CURRENTLY OR EVER HAS FOUGHT IN A WAR.