Change Your Image
woebagge
Reviews
Seven Years in Tibet (1997)
Kundun vs Seven Years in Tibet
This was well-acted and the scenery and costumes were impressive. But either the story line of this film or that of Kundun is bogus.I suspect that the Brad Pitt character was far less important to Tibetan history that suggested here, but perhaps more so than in Kundun, which shows NO Western tutors or acquaintances of the Dalai Lama.I saw both films and would say that this one has better scenery and the plot was more suspenseful. From what I know about Tibetan history,though, Kundun was more accurate historically and was filmed in Asia, whereas Seven Years was filmed in Peru. Both films seem too be quite sympathetic to the Tibetan plight of being a nonviolent people having their country taken over by force. An aside: Buddhism is the worlds' ONLY major religion of Aryan origin.
One Man's Hero (1999)
Nearly unknown film is not half bad
I am very fond of historical films, but I don't think that this film was never shown in Miami. I came across a promo tape at a video store. It was obviously made on a rather small budget, and it deals with a historically ambiguous topic, namely that of a group of recently arrived Irishmen that identified more with the Mexicans (whose country, like their native Ireland, was being colonized by English-speaking imperialists), and joined the other side. Mexico, after all, had promised them land, respect and citizenship. The Irish were white and therefore regarded as of higher status than Mexican indios and mestizos.
I find the previous comments that the members of the St. Patrick's Brigade were traitors and deserved to be hung rather weird and devoid of historic knowledge as well as empathy. I suggest that such characters just see "Green Berets" again instead of any future film dealing with the US military.
There was no mention of the war following and being a direct result result of the annexation of the bankrupt Republic of Texas in 1845 or of the Republic of the Rio Grande, which was also nominally independent (though recognized by no one) and divided Texas from Coahuila and Nuevo Leon. No one ever mentions the Republic of the Rio Grande other than in local border history, but it DID exist.
The costumes were convincing, the sets were less so: neither Churubusco, where the main battle for Mexico City was fought, nor Mixcoac, where the brigadistas were hung, is in any sort of flat desert as depicted.
In the Mexican War, both sides used black powder, and the major amounts of flash and light used in the battle scenes seems accurate in showing this.
I was surprised that this film got so very little publicity. I suppose it went straight to cable TV and video because of a poor acceptance at its debut. Americans are still not ready to accept a film in which their history is shown as anything other than glorious and filled with heroes. We DID make fun of the Russians for doing the exact same thing back when they claimed to have invented everything (including ethnic diversity).
I could say "You gotta see this film", but I won't because (a) it's not really spectacular, though a head and shoulders above the older John Wayne Westerns of the 1950's and (b) you will find it very hard see it. Of course the main characters all either die in battle,or are hung in disgrace. The major figure, John Reilly, was branded on both cheeks with a D for "deserter". The sentence was only one branding, but the first soldier branded him upside down.
I wonder if it made any money in either Mexico or Ireland. In reality, it would have been a natural for an Irish or Mexican effort.
Angela's Ashes (1999)
There is no childhood so miserable as a Catholic Irish childhood.
These are the words from McCort's book that start off the film and serve as a theme for the film version for Frank McCort's autobiography. I enjoyed the setting, which was painfully accurate, the acting which made you forget anyone actually was pretending to be what they are not. The soundtrack, with trite American tunes like "Dipsy Doodle" remind you of the period (the 1930's and 1940's) when the action of the film occurs.
I believe that I read that all of McCort's brothers eventually came to the US, and brought Angela's ashes along with them. The Holy Mother Church dislikes cremation, but neither the Church nor Ireland did right by Angela McCort, and her ashes are here, with the clammy Irish damp burned out of them.
I imagine that this film will become to some Irish Americans as the Godfather and Coming to America has become to some Italian Americans. I hear that the Irish rather dislike being reminded how poor, bigoted, ignorant and uncharitable some of their ancestors are portrayed, but the film seems authentic. My own Irish four-great grandfather came to America before the potato famine and became an Anglican and a thirty-third degree Mason just to convince the rest of Georgia and himself that he was no shanty famine Irishman, (well, not any longer, anyway) and this feeling of mixed nostalgia, hatred and shame for the auld sod comes out in this movie for me more than any single other emotion.
I thought it was a masterful film and can't imagine not seeing it again and again when it becomes available for rent or purchase later on. It really should win some serious awards, because it captures the humor, the despair, the fatalism, the hope and the luck of the Irish better than any recent rendition of a book that I have seen. Most books can't be squeezed into even a two and a half hour film, but this was the most successful attempt I have seen to capture the essence of 15 years into 150 minutes I have seen so far.