47 reviews
In the late 60s, during the Vietnam War, the idealistic soldier Jackie Willow (D.B. Sweeney) arrives at Fort Meyer expecting to go to the Academy and then to the Vietnam War. Jackie is the son of a veteran sergeant and soon he becomes the protégé of the former friends of his father, Sergeant Clell Hazard (James Caan) and Sergeant Major 'Goody' Nelson (James Earl Jones).
Jackie is promoted and gets married with his childhood friend Rachel Feld (Mary Stuart Masterson) and Hazard and Goody convince their superior, Captain Homer Thomas (Dean Stockwell), to recommend Jackie to the Academy. He is promoted to lieutenant and asks to go to the Vietnam, returning to the Arlington National Cemetery.
"Gardens of Stone" is another movie by Francis Coppola (without Ford) about the military life and the prize of the Vietnam War, after one of his masterpieces, "Apocalypse Now". The cinematography is magnificent and the cast is top-notch, and it is so good to see the actors, like James Caan, James Earl Jones and Dean Stockwell still young and actresses, like Anjelica Huston and Mary Stuart Masterson, charming and beautiful. The dramatic story has a theme certainly important for Americans and for fans of movies about military life. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Jardins de Pedra" ("Gardens of Stone")
Jackie is promoted and gets married with his childhood friend Rachel Feld (Mary Stuart Masterson) and Hazard and Goody convince their superior, Captain Homer Thomas (Dean Stockwell), to recommend Jackie to the Academy. He is promoted to lieutenant and asks to go to the Vietnam, returning to the Arlington National Cemetery.
"Gardens of Stone" is another movie by Francis Coppola (without Ford) about the military life and the prize of the Vietnam War, after one of his masterpieces, "Apocalypse Now". The cinematography is magnificent and the cast is top-notch, and it is so good to see the actors, like James Caan, James Earl Jones and Dean Stockwell still young and actresses, like Anjelica Huston and Mary Stuart Masterson, charming and beautiful. The dramatic story has a theme certainly important for Americans and for fans of movies about military life. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Jardins de Pedra" ("Gardens of Stone")
- claudio_carvalho
- May 10, 2013
- Permalink
- jmorrison-2
- Dec 27, 2005
- Permalink
It's the military funeral of Jackie Willow (D.B. Sweeney) as he recounts his journey. It returns to Jackie's first day at Fort Myer which provides soldiers for Arlington National Cemetery and he's gungho to fight in Vietnam. He's the son of a friend of Sgt. Clell Hazard (James Caan) who tries to talk him out of Vietnam. He helps screw-up Wildman (Casey Siemaszko) from platoon Sgt. Flanagan (Laurence Fishburne). Sergeant Major Goody Nelson (James Earl Jones) and wife Betty Rae set up Hazard with anti-war Washington Post reporter Samantha Davis (Anjelica Huston). Pete Deveber (Elias Koteas) is a clerk and Homer Thomas (Dean Stockwell) is the commander. Jackie marries Rachel Feld (Mary Stuart Masterson), the daughter of a colonel.
Francis Ford Coppola revisits Vietnam with something less epic and more traditional. There are great actors. The thing I remember most is the story of the Vietcons fighting helicopters with arrows. This is certainly not as iconic as Apocalypse Now. It doesn't mean that it's not a worthwhile watch. For a war movie, this surprisingly has little war action. That's probably what throws most people off.
Francis Ford Coppola revisits Vietnam with something less epic and more traditional. There are great actors. The thing I remember most is the story of the Vietcons fighting helicopters with arrows. This is certainly not as iconic as Apocalypse Now. It doesn't mean that it's not a worthwhile watch. For a war movie, this surprisingly has little war action. That's probably what throws most people off.
- SnoopyStyle
- Oct 2, 2016
- Permalink
My oldest son spent 8 years in the Old Guard Delta Company from 1984-1992. He was fortunate to be ask to play the part of the guidon bearer ( the black Delta Company Flag ) in the movie, and also to help instruct the actors in how to dress, stand, march ect. The movie was a masterpiece that covers just how it was for troops state side while the war was raging in Asia . My son said " Coppola did a superb job of following military protocol to make the film as real as possible " The story line is so right on. Coppola has another winner in my books. I thought the movie was very moving, lacking in nothing .
It was tragic that Coppola's son was killed in a boating accident while out with Ryan Oneal's son during the making of this excellent movie.
As you can tell I'm not a professional writer, but I just had to say something about how good this film is
It was tragic that Coppola's son was killed in a boating accident while out with Ryan Oneal's son during the making of this excellent movie.
As you can tell I'm not a professional writer, but I just had to say something about how good this film is
- Redbaron-14
- Sep 11, 1999
- Permalink
An excellent film. The subject matter is not one that I thought would hold my attention....but I was wrong. The characters in this movie will involve you in their lives, so be prepared to stay awhile. The writing is first-rate. But I was most impressed with the directorial abilities of Coppola....and here's the reason why: he reined in the actors so that they gave marvelous, realistic performances (James Caan and Dean Stockwell are not always the most subtle of performers - but here, they are perfect). There is one exception - Coppola allows Angelica Huston to shine, and brings her out to full advantage (what is the opposite of 'reining in?'). For all the actors to turn in such great portrayals says something about the director, I think.
- mark.waltz
- Apr 28, 2023
- Permalink
I wanted to like this film and some parts of it, I did. However, over all I found the movie a major disappointment. The film was filled with stereotype characters; the dedicated lifer who needs to train "his boys" so they can survive the war in Viet-Nam: the soldier with two left hands who ends up winning the medal of honor: the journalist who is a hippie jack-ass: and the hero who is hated by his father-in-law, yet marries his daughter, but gets killed in Viet-Nam. As is typical in almost every Hollywood movie about the military, 99% of it is pure bull. James Caan was his typical angry, hot headed, over emotional character that he played in most of his movies. After awhile, his yelling gives you a headache. I am sorry, but Gardens of Stone is a badly acted and greatly disappointing movie.
- angelsunchained
- Jul 1, 2015
- Permalink
In the late 60s, a cynical Korean vet (James Caan) would rather be training soldiers for Vietnam in Georgia, but instead he's stuck at Arlington National Cemetery playing what he calls "toy soldier" with his colleagues (James Earl Jones, etc.). When an old buddy's gung-ho son shows up (D. B. Sweeney), he settles for trying to keep him from becoming another statistic in The 'Nam. Anjelica Huston plays his potential girlfriend and Mary Stuart Masterson the greenhorn's girl.
Directed by Francis Ford Coppola based on the 1983 novel, "Gardens of Stone" (1987) is a worthy companion piece to all those Vietnam War flicks of the 70s-90s as it chronicles what was happening on the home front. It's a war drama, but not a war action film, yet not a dull, lifeless drama (more on this in a moment).
Caan and Jones have good chemistry as old Army buds and Sweeney works well as the "new kid" (he looks like a young Ben Affleck when he broke out ten years later). Meanwhile Mary Stuart Masterson was never more beautiful.
In ways the movie's reminiscent of Eastwood's "Heartbreak Ridge" (1986) with its spunkiness and a smidgen of comedy (which I wasn't anticipating), although don't expect the cartoonish character of Cpl. Stitch Jones (Mario Van Peebles). In other words, the proceedings aren't all dour. Yet there are heavy, moving parts given the topic. Coppola contrasts the beginning scene and ending scene. They're the same sequence, but it holds more weight the second time around for reasons you'll discover.
I was entertained, amused and moved. It's a necessary piece of the puzzle in understanding the era of the Vietnam War. While it's not on the level of greatness of Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" (1979) or "Forrest Gump" (1994), it's still a solid Coppola movie with a little sloppiness here and there. For instance, the war games episode could've been done more coherently and entertainingly, as was done in "The Dirty Dozen" (1967). But time means money in cinema and they had a deadline.
I've heard people complain about how this or that wasn't technically accurate or realistic, but filmmakers aren't interested in being 100% true-to-life. If they were, no one would go see their flicks. Let me put it this way, movies are real-life with the boring parts taken out, as well as exaggerations thrown in. Take "Platoon" (1986), for example. Do ya really think everything that took place in that movie happened to ONE platoon in real life? Of course not. Oliver Stone simply took many different highlights of the 'Nam experience and condensed them into one 2-hour tale of a single platoon.
The notable cast also includes the likes of Dean Stockwell, Sam Bottoms, Larry Fishburne, Dick Anthony Williams and Elias Koteas. Bottoms and Fishburne of course worked previously with Coppola on "Apocalypse Now."
Before shooting commenced, Francis' 23 year-old son, Gian-Carlo Coppola, was tragically killed in a speedboat accident in May, 1986. The reckless driver of the boat was Griffin O'Neal (Ryan's son), who was slated to play the role given to Elias Koteas.
The film runs 1 hour, 51 minutes, and was shot at Fort Myer & Arlington National Cemetery and nearby Washington DC.
GRADE: B.
Directed by Francis Ford Coppola based on the 1983 novel, "Gardens of Stone" (1987) is a worthy companion piece to all those Vietnam War flicks of the 70s-90s as it chronicles what was happening on the home front. It's a war drama, but not a war action film, yet not a dull, lifeless drama (more on this in a moment).
Caan and Jones have good chemistry as old Army buds and Sweeney works well as the "new kid" (he looks like a young Ben Affleck when he broke out ten years later). Meanwhile Mary Stuart Masterson was never more beautiful.
In ways the movie's reminiscent of Eastwood's "Heartbreak Ridge" (1986) with its spunkiness and a smidgen of comedy (which I wasn't anticipating), although don't expect the cartoonish character of Cpl. Stitch Jones (Mario Van Peebles). In other words, the proceedings aren't all dour. Yet there are heavy, moving parts given the topic. Coppola contrasts the beginning scene and ending scene. They're the same sequence, but it holds more weight the second time around for reasons you'll discover.
I was entertained, amused and moved. It's a necessary piece of the puzzle in understanding the era of the Vietnam War. While it's not on the level of greatness of Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" (1979) or "Forrest Gump" (1994), it's still a solid Coppola movie with a little sloppiness here and there. For instance, the war games episode could've been done more coherently and entertainingly, as was done in "The Dirty Dozen" (1967). But time means money in cinema and they had a deadline.
I've heard people complain about how this or that wasn't technically accurate or realistic, but filmmakers aren't interested in being 100% true-to-life. If they were, no one would go see their flicks. Let me put it this way, movies are real-life with the boring parts taken out, as well as exaggerations thrown in. Take "Platoon" (1986), for example. Do ya really think everything that took place in that movie happened to ONE platoon in real life? Of course not. Oliver Stone simply took many different highlights of the 'Nam experience and condensed them into one 2-hour tale of a single platoon.
The notable cast also includes the likes of Dean Stockwell, Sam Bottoms, Larry Fishburne, Dick Anthony Williams and Elias Koteas. Bottoms and Fishburne of course worked previously with Coppola on "Apocalypse Now."
Before shooting commenced, Francis' 23 year-old son, Gian-Carlo Coppola, was tragically killed in a speedboat accident in May, 1986. The reckless driver of the boat was Griffin O'Neal (Ryan's son), who was slated to play the role given to Elias Koteas.
The film runs 1 hour, 51 minutes, and was shot at Fort Myer & Arlington National Cemetery and nearby Washington DC.
GRADE: B.
Being a former drill instructor , I can testify to the fine portrayal of the lead character by Mr. Caan . The entire film is an excellent depiction of the dedicated military man , without the usual condemnation of the military in general , so often found in films made since the Viet Nam conflict . The acting , in general , is superb , making the characters believable and the story touching . It is certainly one of Mr. Caan's finest roles and he is accompanied by a terrific cast who contribute magnificently to the overall effectiveness of the story telling . I have seen this film a number of times and will continue to do so on a periodic basis , because of the subject matter and the acting in it. It is highly recommended !!!
- DoubleTee41
- Jul 25, 2007
- Permalink
It's strange how Hollywood still feels the constant need to pursue its glorification of the military when every other nation's film industry has pretty much moved on from the war film genre. Of course, America is a nation that has been engaged in more conflicts than most other nations in the past half-century and, while that isn't intended as a criticism, it does perhaps provide the key to America's seemingly endless fascination with the arena of war in all its guises.
Coppola's return to the theme of the Vietnam war is as different from its predecessor as any two films with the same backdrop can be. The story of Gardens of Stone takes place in America, amongst the soldiers detailed to bury the bodies that are shipped back to Arlington National Cemetery from the scene of the conflict with monotonous and terrifying regularity. It is a relatively meditative and introspective study, weakened by a thinly drawn pivotal character (Jackie Willow, played by D. B. Sweeney) who is incredibly one-dimensional for a film that is attempting to offer an insight into the mentality of the soldier away from the battlefield at a time of war. James Caan, in his first movie role for five years, makes good use of a much stronger role as Sgt. Clell Hazard, the experienced soldier frustrated by the impotence of his position, who believes he should be fighting in the field or at least training youngsters on how to stay alive out there instead of burying them when they come back. Both he and James Earl Jones in another good part, display a healthily jaundiced view of the war. Angelica Huston also has an important (if slightly ineffectual) role as the individual caught in the middle who opposes the war but understands Hazard's reasons for wanting to fight. Jordan Cronenweth's camera-work is worthy of praise here, softening Huston's angular features and making it possible for her to convincingly play a gentler and softer character than she normally does. All other characters are strictly genre stereotypes.
Unfortunately, any good work by the principle members of the cast is spoiled by a weak and unconvincing storyline that fails to involve the viewer the 'tragic' ending is particularly unmoving, although it may have a greater impact on American audiences whose families were more closely involved with the conflict. At a time when Vietnam films were all the rage, Coppola is to be applauded for choosing a different but no less relevant perspective, but any message he may have wished to deliver is hopelessly weakened by a mediocre script and uninvolving storyline.
Coppola's return to the theme of the Vietnam war is as different from its predecessor as any two films with the same backdrop can be. The story of Gardens of Stone takes place in America, amongst the soldiers detailed to bury the bodies that are shipped back to Arlington National Cemetery from the scene of the conflict with monotonous and terrifying regularity. It is a relatively meditative and introspective study, weakened by a thinly drawn pivotal character (Jackie Willow, played by D. B. Sweeney) who is incredibly one-dimensional for a film that is attempting to offer an insight into the mentality of the soldier away from the battlefield at a time of war. James Caan, in his first movie role for five years, makes good use of a much stronger role as Sgt. Clell Hazard, the experienced soldier frustrated by the impotence of his position, who believes he should be fighting in the field or at least training youngsters on how to stay alive out there instead of burying them when they come back. Both he and James Earl Jones in another good part, display a healthily jaundiced view of the war. Angelica Huston also has an important (if slightly ineffectual) role as the individual caught in the middle who opposes the war but understands Hazard's reasons for wanting to fight. Jordan Cronenweth's camera-work is worthy of praise here, softening Huston's angular features and making it possible for her to convincingly play a gentler and softer character than she normally does. All other characters are strictly genre stereotypes.
Unfortunately, any good work by the principle members of the cast is spoiled by a weak and unconvincing storyline that fails to involve the viewer the 'tragic' ending is particularly unmoving, although it may have a greater impact on American audiences whose families were more closely involved with the conflict. At a time when Vietnam films were all the rage, Coppola is to be applauded for choosing a different but no less relevant perspective, but any message he may have wished to deliver is hopelessly weakened by a mediocre script and uninvolving storyline.
- JoeytheBrit
- Sep 17, 2005
- Permalink
- mercuryix2003
- Mar 17, 2011
- Permalink
This is a great movie and it makes a very interesting pairing with Apocalypse Now to achieve Coppola's complete take on the Vietnam war. While Apocalypse Now was a surrealistic view of the front lines and insanity of war, Gardens of Stone is pulls no punches with a realistic portrayal of the home front, which presented its own type of warfare during Vietnam. As the other reviewers said, the acting is top notch throughout. Caan and Jones are perfect, but I disagree with the comments about Masterson and Huston. Theirs are key supporting roles and critical to the success of the movie. Huston is especially good in her scenes with Caan to bring the story full circle. This is an overlooked gem and highly recommended.
- dfmurphy-1
- Jan 12, 2006
- Permalink
The man who gave us cinematic masterpieces such as The Godfather Pts 1 and 2, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now is dead and buried in this film about soldiers assigned to burial detail.
The story is a very compelling and unique one and it's such a shame it wasn't told better. It is about army infantry soldiers who are assigned to the Honor Gard burial detail back in the States during the Vietnam war. It is fundamentally about their moral conflict and guilt about having to bury the dead from a war that many of them at once do not agree with but at the same time feel guilty that they aren't there with their brothers in the fight. While they serve an important role to their country and to the families of the fallen, many are nevertheless frustrated that as highly-trained infantry soldiers, safe burial detail in the States is what they got assigned instead of being sent to fight. There is so much fertile ground here for the makings of a superb movie and all ingredients would seem to be there, yet despite the great story and credentials of all involved, it comes off forced, flat, schizophrenic and entirely unbelievable at times.
Having served in the army infantry myself, I found the fraternizing relationship between the highest-rank characters and the lowest as completely unrealistic... especially in a highly disciplined infantry outfit. I love James Earl Jones, but as the commanding NCO of the outfit, I found him unbelievable and a bit insulting for the film to suggest that a 60 lb overweight, old dude who's uniform fits like the skin of the Goodyear blimp is fit to run and inspect one of the most highly disciplined units in the military. Then there was the inappropriate usage of unit arm patches... things that may only stand out to those who have served, but it demonstrates the lack of care and attention to detail.
The film constantly feels "cheap" like something made for TV. The dialog is simplistic, suggesting the screenplay was rushed and escaped any meaningful quality control. At times, voice dubbing was so far off the mark, it felt like a foreign film.
Gardens of Stone does have a few powerful and poignant moments though they almost feel out of place given the rest of this embarrassing mess. Considering the enviable cast, powerful (potentially) story and Coppola serving as both director and producer, it is hard to imagine this film could be so... meh, but it is. Such a shame given the unique and important perspective on war and those who serve.. not necessarily the front-line troops.
Given all these apparent failings, I rate Gardens of Stone a 6 mostly because it tells an important story from a unique perspective... even if badly. Around the same time of its release, there were also other Vietnam films such as Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and Hamburger Hill. Maybe Coppola felt like he had to get his in too in order to take advantage of the interest and rushed it. I dunno but I sure wish it had been done better. The soldiers deserved a better telling of their story.
The story is a very compelling and unique one and it's such a shame it wasn't told better. It is about army infantry soldiers who are assigned to the Honor Gard burial detail back in the States during the Vietnam war. It is fundamentally about their moral conflict and guilt about having to bury the dead from a war that many of them at once do not agree with but at the same time feel guilty that they aren't there with their brothers in the fight. While they serve an important role to their country and to the families of the fallen, many are nevertheless frustrated that as highly-trained infantry soldiers, safe burial detail in the States is what they got assigned instead of being sent to fight. There is so much fertile ground here for the makings of a superb movie and all ingredients would seem to be there, yet despite the great story and credentials of all involved, it comes off forced, flat, schizophrenic and entirely unbelievable at times.
Having served in the army infantry myself, I found the fraternizing relationship between the highest-rank characters and the lowest as completely unrealistic... especially in a highly disciplined infantry outfit. I love James Earl Jones, but as the commanding NCO of the outfit, I found him unbelievable and a bit insulting for the film to suggest that a 60 lb overweight, old dude who's uniform fits like the skin of the Goodyear blimp is fit to run and inspect one of the most highly disciplined units in the military. Then there was the inappropriate usage of unit arm patches... things that may only stand out to those who have served, but it demonstrates the lack of care and attention to detail.
The film constantly feels "cheap" like something made for TV. The dialog is simplistic, suggesting the screenplay was rushed and escaped any meaningful quality control. At times, voice dubbing was so far off the mark, it felt like a foreign film.
Gardens of Stone does have a few powerful and poignant moments though they almost feel out of place given the rest of this embarrassing mess. Considering the enviable cast, powerful (potentially) story and Coppola serving as both director and producer, it is hard to imagine this film could be so... meh, but it is. Such a shame given the unique and important perspective on war and those who serve.. not necessarily the front-line troops.
Given all these apparent failings, I rate Gardens of Stone a 6 mostly because it tells an important story from a unique perspective... even if badly. Around the same time of its release, there were also other Vietnam films such as Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and Hamburger Hill. Maybe Coppola felt like he had to get his in too in order to take advantage of the interest and rushed it. I dunno but I sure wish it had been done better. The soldiers deserved a better telling of their story.
- MovieGuyFunTime
- Apr 9, 2021
- Permalink
It started off well...a stellar cast in a film that examined the side of the army not off in the wilds of Vietnam, and the battles their close friends and families go through. Then it got preachy and devolved into a melodramatic and predictable schlock-fest that made me grit my teeth and try to convince myself that I'm not really American (my birth certificate still says Bloomington, IA so obviously it's not working...)
The ending was the biggest problem. Aside from the fact that the opening scene basically told me exactly what was going to happen (and not in a mysterious or interesting way. More of a blunt and pointless way), the ending was WAY too long and sob-filled. (Continuity check: in the beginning a bagpiper plays at the funeral, in the end suddenly the piper is a bugler playing Taps. How cheezy is *that*???) Also, the editing was shoddy, especially the war clips which were overly detached and didn't at all give a sense of the war as anything more than a news clip. The personal and emotional side of it is lost, and that's the side that's supposed to be explored. So caught up in the glory and demoralization, the film loses the family aspect (example: Mary Stuart Masterson plays a cardboard and generic character. She should have a *much* larger role in the film, as the suffering army wife/child but instead is involved purely in the gut-wrench scenes and little else. Angelica Huston's character hints at the conflict between pride for one's country and disgust at the uselessness of it all. Her love for Hazard vs her hatred for what he represents is never really played out properly and she ends up coming off as cheezy and melodramatic).
Also, the I wish I was Charlie Sheen in Platoon act that D.B. Sweeney was aiming for just didn't work. He was often too abrasive and half the time he sounded as if he was reading his lines from cue cards. He shouted lines consistently and his elocution and poise were awkward. And those letters were horrid, they didn't have the effect that the Platoon letters (Taylor to Grandma) had as the effect was lost. Just words with no sense of where they were coming from. This whole movie felt much too detached...in the same way that Apocalypse Now was detached, but in this film there was nothing to back it up...unlike Apocalypse Now, this film isn't *supposed* to be detached. Perhaps detached from the *war* but not from the *soldiers*.
James Caan and James Earl Jones saved this film from utter disrepair. The only characters that really had *oomph* to them. They were the only characters that had character (Jones especially). And save for the couple of scenes that were utterly pointless (like the maneuvers scene) the scenes with them in them were the ones that stole the show. They made this film a hell of a lot better than it deserves to be (kind of like what Charles Dutton did to Alien 3...or what Morgan Freeman did for Kiss the Girls...) And James Earl Jones is especially good, because, as always, he plays a character that is *very* different from what would be expected from him. He's truly one of the few diverse character actors around ('To the guys like us...Damn few left!!')
Look for an unfortunately small role by Laurence Fishburne (reminiscent of Apocalypse Now...) and a *very* young Elias Koteas, and even *younger* Casey Siemazsko.
Overall: The potential was there, but, as always, Coppola is a very up and down director, and this is not one of his better efforts. Enjoy Jones and Caan, though, they're worth watching if nothing else. Just try not to yawn too loudly through the mandatory proud American army propaganda sob-scenes...5/10.
The ending was the biggest problem. Aside from the fact that the opening scene basically told me exactly what was going to happen (and not in a mysterious or interesting way. More of a blunt and pointless way), the ending was WAY too long and sob-filled. (Continuity check: in the beginning a bagpiper plays at the funeral, in the end suddenly the piper is a bugler playing Taps. How cheezy is *that*???) Also, the editing was shoddy, especially the war clips which were overly detached and didn't at all give a sense of the war as anything more than a news clip. The personal and emotional side of it is lost, and that's the side that's supposed to be explored. So caught up in the glory and demoralization, the film loses the family aspect (example: Mary Stuart Masterson plays a cardboard and generic character. She should have a *much* larger role in the film, as the suffering army wife/child but instead is involved purely in the gut-wrench scenes and little else. Angelica Huston's character hints at the conflict between pride for one's country and disgust at the uselessness of it all. Her love for Hazard vs her hatred for what he represents is never really played out properly and she ends up coming off as cheezy and melodramatic).
Also, the I wish I was Charlie Sheen in Platoon act that D.B. Sweeney was aiming for just didn't work. He was often too abrasive and half the time he sounded as if he was reading his lines from cue cards. He shouted lines consistently and his elocution and poise were awkward. And those letters were horrid, they didn't have the effect that the Platoon letters (Taylor to Grandma) had as the effect was lost. Just words with no sense of where they were coming from. This whole movie felt much too detached...in the same way that Apocalypse Now was detached, but in this film there was nothing to back it up...unlike Apocalypse Now, this film isn't *supposed* to be detached. Perhaps detached from the *war* but not from the *soldiers*.
James Caan and James Earl Jones saved this film from utter disrepair. The only characters that really had *oomph* to them. They were the only characters that had character (Jones especially). And save for the couple of scenes that were utterly pointless (like the maneuvers scene) the scenes with them in them were the ones that stole the show. They made this film a hell of a lot better than it deserves to be (kind of like what Charles Dutton did to Alien 3...or what Morgan Freeman did for Kiss the Girls...) And James Earl Jones is especially good, because, as always, he plays a character that is *very* different from what would be expected from him. He's truly one of the few diverse character actors around ('To the guys like us...Damn few left!!')
Look for an unfortunately small role by Laurence Fishburne (reminiscent of Apocalypse Now...) and a *very* young Elias Koteas, and even *younger* Casey Siemazsko.
Overall: The potential was there, but, as always, Coppola is a very up and down director, and this is not one of his better efforts. Enjoy Jones and Caan, though, they're worth watching if nothing else. Just try not to yawn too loudly through the mandatory proud American army propaganda sob-scenes...5/10.
- kergillian
- May 27, 2001
- Permalink
- grendelkhan
- Apr 13, 2003
- Permalink
The proposal of Coppola was show this anti war picture under two different chains of thinking, the first one around US Army perspective where the soldiers must to defend own country in any menace situation that's means whatever will be such menace they'll get ready to fight wherever the place, in other hand as James Caan's character such thing are unacceptable starting of point of view that the Army should be maintened to defent against foreign's powers which put the USA under attack only, then the main subject about these two kind of understanding are in clash, Caan has another convincing acting like always, he doesn't stays alone acctually he has been accompanied by James Earl Jones, Dean Stockwell and Anjelica Huston, in time D. B. Sweeney too!!!
Resume:
First watch: 1993 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7.5
Resume:
First watch: 1993 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7.5
- elo-equipamentos
- Jul 25, 2018
- Permalink
This movie was a first time watch for me and it was okay. There were some good things in this movie, but there wasn't anything in the strip that grabbed my attention
Positives for Gardens of Stone (1987): First off, the performances from the cast were all very good and you have people like James Caan, Anjelica Huston, James Earl Jones, D. B. Sweeney, Dean Stockwell, Mary Stuart Masterson, Dick Anthony Williams, Elias Koteas and Laurence Fishburne in the movie. The movie's cinematography looks very good and there are some great shots in the movie. The production value and set design look very good throughout the runtime. And finally, the movie does decent enough job with how it protrays the US Army and how they honored their fallen soldiers.
Negatives for Garden of Stones (1987): There wasn't anything in the movie where I was feeling that this movie was speaking to me. The movie kinda feels shallow throughout the runtime and it never got me to career about what was happening on screen. And finally, the movie was kinda dragging in spots where it really didn't need to do that.
Overall, Garden of Stones (1987) is fine for what it was doing, but there wasn't anything for me to grasp or get me invested in the story.
Positives for Gardens of Stone (1987): First off, the performances from the cast were all very good and you have people like James Caan, Anjelica Huston, James Earl Jones, D. B. Sweeney, Dean Stockwell, Mary Stuart Masterson, Dick Anthony Williams, Elias Koteas and Laurence Fishburne in the movie. The movie's cinematography looks very good and there are some great shots in the movie. The production value and set design look very good throughout the runtime. And finally, the movie does decent enough job with how it protrays the US Army and how they honored their fallen soldiers.
Negatives for Garden of Stones (1987): There wasn't anything in the movie where I was feeling that this movie was speaking to me. The movie kinda feels shallow throughout the runtime and it never got me to career about what was happening on screen. And finally, the movie was kinda dragging in spots where it really didn't need to do that.
Overall, Garden of Stones (1987) is fine for what it was doing, but there wasn't anything for me to grasp or get me invested in the story.
- jared-25331
- Sep 1, 2024
- Permalink
Not anywhere near Coppola's best, but not bad. Mostly a movie on how war affects those at home, especially during times of tragedy, and the relationships involved. Quite moving, especially towards the end.
However, not flawless, not by any measure. Francis Ford Coppola, who gave us three of the greatest movies in history - Apocalypse Now, The Godfather and The Godfather II - plus the excellent The Conversation, is not in his best form here. (In fact, the only time he was in form was in the 70s...). The plot drifts, whole scenes are there for no reason other than padding, there are continuity issues, and the point seems a bit murky at times. Also, the first scene spoils the movie, to an extent, in that it gives away the ending. Remove the first scene and the movie would have been more impactful.
Mixed performances. DB Sweeney is a bit weak and unconvincing in the lead role. Best performances come from the old hands - James Caan and James Earl Jones - who give the movie gravitas and feeling.
Anjelica Huston is unconvincing and touch irritating in her role.
Interesting to see that real-life father and daughter Peter Masterson and Mary Stuart Masterson play father and daughter in the movie.
Worth watching for Francis Ford Coppola fans but not a must-see otherwise.
However, not flawless, not by any measure. Francis Ford Coppola, who gave us three of the greatest movies in history - Apocalypse Now, The Godfather and The Godfather II - plus the excellent The Conversation, is not in his best form here. (In fact, the only time he was in form was in the 70s...). The plot drifts, whole scenes are there for no reason other than padding, there are continuity issues, and the point seems a bit murky at times. Also, the first scene spoils the movie, to an extent, in that it gives away the ending. Remove the first scene and the movie would have been more impactful.
Mixed performances. DB Sweeney is a bit weak and unconvincing in the lead role. Best performances come from the old hands - James Caan and James Earl Jones - who give the movie gravitas and feeling.
Anjelica Huston is unconvincing and touch irritating in her role.
Interesting to see that real-life father and daughter Peter Masterson and Mary Stuart Masterson play father and daughter in the movie.
Worth watching for Francis Ford Coppola fans but not a must-see otherwise.
The "Gardens of Stone" in the title refers to a military cemetery...and the film is set in a unit outisde of Washington, DC whose job it is to provide military funerals. It's also set during the Vietnam War, so as these men serve domestically, their comrades are being killed and returned to them for burial.
One of the sergeants, Hazard (James Caan), is having a crisis of faith. While he enjoys being in the Army and believes in it, he does not believe in the mission in Vietnam. After all, he served two tours of duty there and realizes that the war in unwinnable. This causes difficulties, as Hazard isn't completely quiet about his opinions...and he is trying to convince the young soldiers under his command that going to Vietnam is NOT a great idea. In particular, the son of an old friend is gung ho about going to serve in Vietnam...as Willow (D. B. Sweeney) is completely committed to the war and wishes he had been sent there instead of serving in the States.
I appreciate how the film addresses hyper-masculinity...and you see a lot of it through the course of the movie. The acting is excellent...which makes the story more convincing. The only problem is one that perplexes me...the ending is shown at the beginning of the film so you KNOW what ultimately must happen. I just don't understand that decision, as it really takes away from the overall impact of the story. Without this, I would have given this good film an even higher score.
One of the sergeants, Hazard (James Caan), is having a crisis of faith. While he enjoys being in the Army and believes in it, he does not believe in the mission in Vietnam. After all, he served two tours of duty there and realizes that the war in unwinnable. This causes difficulties, as Hazard isn't completely quiet about his opinions...and he is trying to convince the young soldiers under his command that going to Vietnam is NOT a great idea. In particular, the son of an old friend is gung ho about going to serve in Vietnam...as Willow (D. B. Sweeney) is completely committed to the war and wishes he had been sent there instead of serving in the States.
I appreciate how the film addresses hyper-masculinity...and you see a lot of it through the course of the movie. The acting is excellent...which makes the story more convincing. The only problem is one that perplexes me...the ending is shown at the beginning of the film so you KNOW what ultimately must happen. I just don't understand that decision, as it really takes away from the overall impact of the story. Without this, I would have given this good film an even higher score.
- planktonrules
- Jul 17, 2022
- Permalink
This movie is little-watched compared to Coppola's other Viet Nam movie, "Apocalypse Now", which is unfortunate, because it's a gem. Taking a device straight out of Aeschylus' masterpiece "The Persians", the war itself is almost entirely an off-screen presence (except for a few atmospheric news-reel clips, which serve to separate acts, as it were). Instead, like "The Persians", it considers the war through its effects on those at home, and does a generally excellent job.
It is particularly good at showing the view from inside the military "family", both of that life in general, and the effects of Viet Nam in particular. James Caan and James Earl Jones (the latter especially) turn in fine performances as veteran non-coms (the backbone of any army). One reviewer condemned D.B. Sweeney's portrayal of the young gung-ho recruit Willow because he sounded as if he were reading his line from cue cards - which rather misses the point, which is that because the green Willow doesn't know what it's really like, the slogans he repeats inevitably sound tinny and false.
Despite a few flaws (e.g. Mary Stuart Masterton's character is rather under-developed, and a few scenes are clangers), overall this is one of the greatest of all Viet Nam movies.
It is particularly good at showing the view from inside the military "family", both of that life in general, and the effects of Viet Nam in particular. James Caan and James Earl Jones (the latter especially) turn in fine performances as veteran non-coms (the backbone of any army). One reviewer condemned D.B. Sweeney's portrayal of the young gung-ho recruit Willow because he sounded as if he were reading his line from cue cards - which rather misses the point, which is that because the green Willow doesn't know what it's really like, the slogans he repeats inevitably sound tinny and false.
Despite a few flaws (e.g. Mary Stuart Masterton's character is rather under-developed, and a few scenes are clangers), overall this is one of the greatest of all Viet Nam movies.
"Gardens of Stone" did not do very well at the Box Office. The film itself should of been interesting and indeed it is this opinion that the subject matter is very interesting, however why should an interesting subject matter not ultimately prove successful. This film appears to have been hampered by budget restraints and secondly there seems to have been cost cutting. The telling of this story should of never been subject to cost cutting or for that matter cutting corners but that is just what I believe occurred. There is no explanation to all who live in glory that those whose job it is to see to that eternal recognition that such care not be exorcised as an unending committment should find themselves being shorted by budget restraints. There is also mentioned here and now some agreement with those whose opinions truly hampered our efforts as it were while we were so engaged in Southeast Asia. President Nixon spoke often enough about the single greatest weapon the enemy had and that was the Vietnam protests aided and fueled as it were by the brokers of an entrenched media .The enemy was here at home not in the Viet Cong per see. The point being that this film shows not only a cheapened cost cutting attitude but as well it seems that those whose lives were lost have as yet to be respected. There is much to say against a world engulfed by such media and influence that rarely do those whose Love is most dear to us should need be suffer such indignity. There is a mention that as undignified as it may be shows just wear this attitude comes from and that is that the final burial detail assigned the "Old Guard" show a freshly graduated 2nd Lt. Having lost his life after a very short while having arrived in Southeast Asia. One 2nd Lt. Willow fresh out of Officer Training School. It should be further mentioned that it seems in this particular motion picture that this young recruit asked if his Father who was retired after having served dutifully in both Korea and Southeast Asia and who passed away while his son was serving in the "Old Guard" could be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. It is a truly a cynical attitude that engulfs much of this film with the cost cutting serving to magnify a glaring inability to position the passing of both the "Old Guard" as well as the passing of Veterans. Like I have said this is a film which should of been an interesting story however the Budget restraints, the cost cutting measures, the influence from our enemies all contribute to making what should of been an attractive story be as it were much less so, it is your call how this measure s up in an overall opinion however the unwelcome opinions and unwarranted influence would not be welcome were we to be laid to rest. It should be noted here and perhaps referred to as a echo of time everlasting that is hereby acknowledged as Arlington National Cemetery because for those who do not know Arlington National Cemetery is a in fact Military Base. It should hereby be further recognized that Arlington National Cemetery is not a "Garden of Stone", Arlington National Cemetery is in fact a "coming home" for our "Honored Dead" They, those that know Arlington National Cemetery rest in "Honored Glory" This is for our most honored persons hereby resting in "Honored Glory", a grateful citizenry hereby salute you on this a most thankful day ,a day of Thanksgiving.
- nelliebell-1
- Jul 23, 2022
- Permalink
This is a very underrated movie and belongs up there with some of Francis Ford Coppola's best movies. The movie has a great cast that includes James Caan, Anjelica Huston, James Earl Jones, Dean Stockwell and several more people. Caan plays a solider who fought in Korea and Vietnam but is now in charge of Arlington national Cemetery and wants to train young soldiers going into Vietnam but is turned down. Huston is Caan's girlfriend and Jones is his friend who fought with him in Vietnam and now serves with him. Stockwell is the man in charge and D.B. Sweeney is a young soldier who can't wait to get to Vietnam. It's a really great movie that is one of Coppola's best films.
I spent 6 years in the military. And while I never saw combat, I can say, that this was a well made movie. It dealt with the issues of a war, that nobody liked. And it did so, from a different point of view. It was that point of view that made Gardens of Stone on of my personal favorites. Ever detail of this movie was authentic. From the spit shine of the boots to the characters that both James Caan and James Earl Jones played. It was truly, on of the most realistic military movies ever made. Brilliant. Truly brilliant. Francis Ford made a movie, that was true to life, A movie that didn't choose a side on one of America's darkest moments. Ever character in this movie was well thought out, right down to the last detail of each actor. I joined a movie rental store,
solely because they had a copy of this movie.
solely because they had a copy of this movie.
After 'Apocalypse Now', it's hard to believe that this film was directed by Francis Ford Coppola with such sensitivity. Truly a testament that in many ways demonstrates that Coppola is one of film's greatest directors.
This film shows the lives of many different people and their backgrounds in opposing the Vietnam war. James Caan is a military officer working as a home guard at Arlington National Cemetery during the casualties of America's most tragic conflict. It shows his relationship with Anjelica Huston and James Earl Jones as his closest friends. D.B. Sweeney and Mary Stuart Masterson are great as the younger and more naive observers of the times.
Part documentary style, part sentiment and all inclusive drama showcase its impact in a more sedated manner than most other films dealing with its subject but worth a look as an alternative.
This film shows the lives of many different people and their backgrounds in opposing the Vietnam war. James Caan is a military officer working as a home guard at Arlington National Cemetery during the casualties of America's most tragic conflict. It shows his relationship with Anjelica Huston and James Earl Jones as his closest friends. D.B. Sweeney and Mary Stuart Masterson are great as the younger and more naive observers of the times.
Part documentary style, part sentiment and all inclusive drama showcase its impact in a more sedated manner than most other films dealing with its subject but worth a look as an alternative.
- WalterFrith
- Mar 14, 1999
- Permalink