This is a well-edited documentary of quite a number of fighters from WW2. It is quite ably narrated by Roy Ward, who is known for Prelude to War, The De Havilland Mosquito, The Great Battleships of the Second World War, and The Fall of France. His British accent really lends itself to the production, and makes it even more enjoyable. One can tell a great deal of film has been scrutinized to present each plane in very good detail with quality imagery. I have watched innumerable documentaries of WW2, and I cannot say I saw one clip that I recognized as having seen before.
Reviews
20 Reviews
Get Smart
(2008)
Perfect blend of great action & comedy - Great homage to the series!
9 October 2017
I was watching this the other night on HBO & saw Rotten Tomatoes critics gave this 51%...No Way! This is cast perfectly! Anne Hathaway is quite hot as 99 and Steve Carell is hilarious as 86! Everyone in the cast is perfect! Alan Arkin is great as Chief! There are so many more great roles by many more! I agree with another reviewer that said this movie is a perfect blend of action and comedy! It is a great homage to the original series, and the writing is spot on! Very enjoyable movie...I cannot believe it only got such a so-so 51% by the critics when this came out...it shows what they know! At least the audience liked it a lot more at 67%...just goes to show you can't judge movies by critical reviews alone!
Pearl Harbor
(2001)
16 Years Ago I Would Have Given Less...Now I Really Do!!!!
6 May 2017
I'm glad I withheld judgment on this movie as long as I have. I finally decided tonight to give this movie the just credit it deserves. I have watched sections of this movie from time to time after seeing it in it's entirety a couple of times. That should have told me something right there....this movie is good enough to hold me for periods at a time, over a period of years. The re-enactment of the attack on Pearl Harbor is done in a very stunning and visually appealing way. Do I think it is absolutely geek-historically accurate? No. But there is not another movie that does a better job of capturing the attack. I have watched and read many documentaries on the attack on Pearl Harbor. While it lacks certain historical credentials, it more than makes up with great and awesome CGI! Not ridiculous CGI that takes you out of reality, but really riveting CGI that actually works and draws you in to the movie. There is a great deal of historical accuracy in the movie, and the less than accurate stuff did not bother me one bit! I am not a huge Ben Affleck fan. But he does not disappoint in this movie. Yes, the movie spends a lot of time developing the complicated dramatic romance between Ben and Josh and Kate Beckinsdale, but I have decided it doesn't take too much away from a very satisfying War Movie about Pearl Harbor and the aftermath! No other Pearl Harbor movie has ever done as good a job at depicting the attack as well as this movie visually. And what about the Doolittle Raid On Tokyo? That was done exceedingly well! What is not to like about this movie? The special effects and CGI are awesome! This movie is worthy of a high rating. It is very well done, and I am glad to have had a chance to come around to understanding and realizing what a very well made movie this really is!
Edge of Tomorrow
(2014)
Clean Sci Fi Good Acting Great Effects Great Plot
12 February 2015
Ground Hog Day meets Aliens meets Oblivion....takes great elements from each and adds others to make a great movie. I love all 3 movies, and this one absolutely does not disappoint. It reminds me of a video game in which you die and come back with memories of what led up to the last encounter before you died and you learn from it. One might think it would appeal only to video gamer-aged mentalities....maybe it might, but I loved this movie. This movie is clean and well produced. Special effects are great. Nothing is too far over the top. Well-balanced. Characters are as well developed as necessary without drowning...the action and plot are fast-paced. This movie does not pander.
The Bourne Legacy
(2012)
Excellent Continuation of the Bourne Titles
18 September 2014
Taut, suspenseful, edge of seat...engaging...great acting...unpredictable...well directed...
This movie fills the bill for every Jason Bourne movie. It is almost as if some of the other user negative reviews are bitching because it doesn't have Matt Damon in it. Really? Legacy continues the great series without missing a beat and fulfills and expands the story line beyond everything we have come to expect from previous Bournes.
Characters are completely engaging, and the plot is very credible. I am never left feeling like any aspect is overblown or silly, the way so many spy movies are. This is a rarity among movies, and one that should be admired and respected.
This movie fills the bill for every Jason Bourne movie. It is almost as if some of the other user negative reviews are bitching because it doesn't have Matt Damon in it. Really? Legacy continues the great series without missing a beat and fulfills and expands the story line beyond everything we have come to expect from previous Bournes.
Characters are completely engaging, and the plot is very credible. I am never left feeling like any aspect is overblown or silly, the way so many spy movies are. This is a rarity among movies, and one that should be admired and respected.
War of the Worlds
(2005)
60 Minutes Of This Film Should Have Ended Up On The Cutting Room Floor
4 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I still watch this movie once in a while, but only by skipping past the insipid parts, which are frequent. The annoying over-the-top drama with Cruise & his kids is just plain distracting.
Spielberg's special effects are great! And I find every scene with the alien tripods to be fascinating. But his decision to go Cruise-family-centric with the film left it cluttered with needlessly annoying scenes of conflict thrown in for absolutely no good reason.
Spielberg should have realized in the editing room that he could still save his movie and make it a real classic by trimming the scenes that were distracting from the REAL STARS of the movie, the ALIEN WAR MACHINES! I think Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning are great, they just needed to be incorporated with more subtlety. At least the 1953 version showed more of mankind's attempts to battle the aliens.
The only attempt at a real military combat scene we get in this film is one where Cruise's annoyingly waywardly rebellious son is running up a hill towards some aliens we can't see beyond the rise in the darkness. The way the tanks and Humvees were deployed just looked silly and amateurish, as if a giant invisible child was playing with his toys.
I understand that Spielberg apparently wanted to do War Of The Worlds from the standpoint of a father trying to protect his family during the alien invasion. I'm not against incorporating family drama in a movie. I'm just surprised that an experienced movie-maker like Spielberg did not realize the film just really desperately needed some serious editing out of the many scenes that dragged and pulled. That entire scene when Cruise and his daughter took refuge in the house occupied by Tim Robbins' character was a complete waste of time! I would guesstimate at least 60 minutes of this movie should have ended up on the proverbial cutting room floor.
A much better use of those 60 minutes would have been to incorporate scenes showing the military tactical and strategic response to the invasion. Spielberg should have woven in how the world's governments were responding.....something to give some relief to the claustrophobic movie that came out.
Spielberg's special effects are great! And I find every scene with the alien tripods to be fascinating. But his decision to go Cruise-family-centric with the film left it cluttered with needlessly annoying scenes of conflict thrown in for absolutely no good reason.
Spielberg should have realized in the editing room that he could still save his movie and make it a real classic by trimming the scenes that were distracting from the REAL STARS of the movie, the ALIEN WAR MACHINES! I think Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning are great, they just needed to be incorporated with more subtlety. At least the 1953 version showed more of mankind's attempts to battle the aliens.
The only attempt at a real military combat scene we get in this film is one where Cruise's annoyingly waywardly rebellious son is running up a hill towards some aliens we can't see beyond the rise in the darkness. The way the tanks and Humvees were deployed just looked silly and amateurish, as if a giant invisible child was playing with his toys.
I understand that Spielberg apparently wanted to do War Of The Worlds from the standpoint of a father trying to protect his family during the alien invasion. I'm not against incorporating family drama in a movie. I'm just surprised that an experienced movie-maker like Spielberg did not realize the film just really desperately needed some serious editing out of the many scenes that dragged and pulled. That entire scene when Cruise and his daughter took refuge in the house occupied by Tim Robbins' character was a complete waste of time! I would guesstimate at least 60 minutes of this movie should have ended up on the proverbial cutting room floor.
A much better use of those 60 minutes would have been to incorporate scenes showing the military tactical and strategic response to the invasion. Spielberg should have woven in how the world's governments were responding.....something to give some relief to the claustrophobic movie that came out.
Hannibal Rising
(2007)
Well Acted Well Written It is a classic
8 January 2011
Atmospheric. Visually choreographic. Well directed. Excellent screenplay. Well acted. What is possibly not to love about this movie? This movie is underplayed beautifully and yet is powerful. It provides a perfect underpinning of the character development of Hannibal Lechter. Character development is crucial to a movie like this. It is done with skill and knowledge. There is much to distinguish this movie from others that attempt to show the underpinnings of the characters of epilogues. I would place this movie in the line of the Star Wars movie prologues. I have watched this movie several times and it has great staying power. This is the kind of movie you want to watch again and again when it appears in the movie title while scanning channels.
Consenting Adults
(1992)
Plausible Well Acted Good Thriller
24 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The only implausible part of the movie was when Kevin Kline's character chose to leave the character played by Rebecca Miller alone on the rooftop to answer the "fake call" by the character played by Forest Whitaker. Had I been in a similar circumstance, I cannot imagine I would leave her alone after finally finding her.
But as far as the movie was concerned, I found it otherwise entirely plausible and believable. And even my implausible criticism mentioned in the first paragraph could very easily have happened given the emotional response that the protagonist may have experienced.
This was well crafted and well acted. Anyone that has a problem with this movie's plausibility factor is being way too critical and ridiculous.
But as far as the movie was concerned, I found it otherwise entirely plausible and believable. And even my implausible criticism mentioned in the first paragraph could very easily have happened given the emotional response that the protagonist may have experienced.
This was well crafted and well acted. Anyone that has a problem with this movie's plausibility factor is being way too critical and ridiculous.
Transformers
(2007)
Disappointment and Waste
24 August 2008
I DVR'd this in high def and was really looking forward to a cool movie with good transformers in titanic battles against the bad transformers. It just seemed like I was watching another one of those movies like Independence Day where they just couldn't help but try to inject corny lines and ruin the movie by making it seem unrealistically staged and I just could never immerse myself into the plot. It was another formula "teenage" movie (and I hate to use that term because it has nothing to do with teenagers, but rather has to do with writers and producers and directors talking down to teenagers thinking this is what they want).
I hate it when Hollywood takes a multi-million dollar budget and a cool subject and then turns it into schmaltzy crap like this. Why not make it more "realistically staged" with a more serious tone the way people would really be acting like if Transformers really did start a huge battle on our planet? If I was a director of a movie like this, I would let the plot and story breathe in an atmosphere of serious realism. Be subtle with humor and effects. Don't just start blasting it at the audience with both barrels for the entire duration. Thanks for screwing up another potentially great movie Hollywood.
I hate it when Hollywood takes a multi-million dollar budget and a cool subject and then turns it into schmaltzy crap like this. Why not make it more "realistically staged" with a more serious tone the way people would really be acting like if Transformers really did start a huge battle on our planet? If I was a director of a movie like this, I would let the plot and story breathe in an atmosphere of serious realism. Be subtle with humor and effects. Don't just start blasting it at the audience with both barrels for the entire duration. Thanks for screwing up another potentially great movie Hollywood.
Bowling for Columbine
(2002)
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were the killers @ Columbine
17 September 2004
Just thought I would point out who the Columbine killers were. They were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. To his credit, Michael Moore did defend Marilyn Manson, who some people tried to portray as being somehow responsible for Columbine. Did Michael Moore point out that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were the killers? I just watched Bowling for Columbine (BFC), and I think Michael Moore decided it wasn't Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who should be held responsible. I think Michael Moore thinks it's evil corporate America that killed those kids. Let's also throw in America's militaristic foreign policy that killed those Columbine students. Don't forget to throw in Dick Clark and Charlton Heston! What a crock!
When Bill Cosby's son Ennis Cosby was killed and robbed in 1997 on the side of the road by a wannabe gangster immigrant from the Ukraine, Bill's wife Camille publicly blamed America's cultural hatred of blacks for teaching the Ukrainian immigrant to kill black people. In other words, Michael Markhasev didn't kill her son, America killed her son. The reason I bring this story up is that it all strikes me as the same kind of logic that Michael Moore is using in BFC, which is to say that no one has personal responsibility for anything anymore, and if we really try, we can find corporate, cultural, and military institutions to be much better scapegoats than Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
Michael Moore cynically uses the Columbine horror for his own use. He doesn't bother with telling us the truth. He just uses those student's deaths to advance his own political agenda. If I murdered a bunch of people, and Michael Moore was my defense counsel, I can hear it now...."my defendant did not kill those people, SOCIETY killed those people. you cannot convict my client unless you convict our government, our culture, and our country!" This is exactly the kind of argument Michael Moore makes in BFC. I don't buy it, and I don't think anybody else really does either.
When Bill Cosby's son Ennis Cosby was killed and robbed in 1997 on the side of the road by a wannabe gangster immigrant from the Ukraine, Bill's wife Camille publicly blamed America's cultural hatred of blacks for teaching the Ukrainian immigrant to kill black people. In other words, Michael Markhasev didn't kill her son, America killed her son. The reason I bring this story up is that it all strikes me as the same kind of logic that Michael Moore is using in BFC, which is to say that no one has personal responsibility for anything anymore, and if we really try, we can find corporate, cultural, and military institutions to be much better scapegoats than Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
Michael Moore cynically uses the Columbine horror for his own use. He doesn't bother with telling us the truth. He just uses those student's deaths to advance his own political agenda. If I murdered a bunch of people, and Michael Moore was my defense counsel, I can hear it now...."my defendant did not kill those people, SOCIETY killed those people. you cannot convict my client unless you convict our government, our culture, and our country!" This is exactly the kind of argument Michael Moore makes in BFC. I don't buy it, and I don't think anybody else really does either.
Behind Enemy Lines
(2001)
Excellent Movie Deserving a View
12 March 2003
I am very picky about my action flicks, especially military action flicks, and Behind Enemy Lines seems to hit every note just right. Every scene follows fluidly and logically, and there is an air of realism that permeates the film. The plot involving the corruption of the multinational leader is portrayed very realistically. The cinematography and editing and acting are all excellent. It never seems to pander to a younger audience. The action sequences are compelling. This is a standout movie deserving a watch.
Band of Brothers
(2001)
Not Enough Battle Scenes
11 November 2001
The battle scenes which showed Germans and Americans desperately fighting were great! Surprisingly, and unfortunately, there weren't enough of them. Even the episode entitled "Bastogne" didn't actually show Germans and Americans fighting, but rather tree top explosions, wounded men in foxholes, and an inept company leader. I guess that may have been Easy Company's perspective on the battle. There are many great stories about the ferocious pitched defensive battles during the Battle of the Bulge, and I was disappointed. Don't get me wrong, this was a great WW2 Mini-series. I just think it would have been better if a WW2 mini-series included great battles in every episode, instead of just a few.
Magnolia
(1999)
I got the frogs, what was with the singing?
14 September 2000
I don't have a set length for duration of movies. But I do wonder why this movie had to be over 3 hours long. There was a lot of emotional pain in this movie. Lots and lots and lots of emotional pain. There was also a lot of very good dramatic acting. The pain and emotional agaony portrayed in this movie was very convincing and very moving.
Watching this movie kind of makes me feel like I am missing out on something. I can't relate to all the pain being conveyed on the screen. I feel their pain. I understand their pain. But somehow, I feel like their pain is greater than any pain I have experienced, and somehow, there is a pain gap that I haven't crossed. No question about it, this was a well directed and acted movie. There's a lot of talent here.
I understand the pain, and I understand the frogs. What was the deal with everybody singing? The everybody singing the same song thing just left me cold and queasy. If they just would have left the singing thing out, the movie could have been just under 3 hours.
Watching this movie kind of makes me feel like I am missing out on something. I can't relate to all the pain being conveyed on the screen. I feel their pain. I understand their pain. But somehow, I feel like their pain is greater than any pain I have experienced, and somehow, there is a pain gap that I haven't crossed. No question about it, this was a well directed and acted movie. There's a lot of talent here.
I understand the pain, and I understand the frogs. What was the deal with everybody singing? The everybody singing the same song thing just left me cold and queasy. If they just would have left the singing thing out, the movie could have been just under 3 hours.
Militia
(2000)
Why can't movies depict reality?
22 August 2000
The opening scene told me everything I needed to know about this film. I know next to nothing about ATF procedures and militia groups, but I will guarantee you I know more about them than the makers of this movie. The ATF raid on the militia camp was carried out with such ridiculous distortions that I immediately lost the ability to get into the movie. Maybe the makers of this movie should have used me as a technical consultant, and I would have helped them make a movie that wasn't so idiotic and contrived. Why do so many Hollywood movies ignore even trying to depict a sense of reality when they try to represent the actions of police or military or even militia groups? If the militia group was so well-trained, why were they all standing out in the open, making themselves perfect targets for the ATF gunships? I'm really sure an ATF tactical commander is going to order the destruction of all the buildings after the militia members surrender!!! Jeeez what a crock!!!!!
Any interest I might have had in the remainder of this movie was utterly ruined by the ludicrous depiction of the ATF raid on the militia compound. I long for directors and producers who know how to set an air of reality (or at least the illusion of what I think reality might be) for a movie to allow me to immerse myself in it. It's obviously not for a lack of money. It also seems obvious that the makers of this movie were more interested in preaching some kind from some kind of Hollywood pulpit, disregarding the intelligence of the viewers.
Hell...go ahead and make a statement if you want to, but do it without insulting the customer, otherwise you won't even get the chance!
Any interest I might have had in the remainder of this movie was utterly ruined by the ludicrous depiction of the ATF raid on the militia compound. I long for directors and producers who know how to set an air of reality (or at least the illusion of what I think reality might be) for a movie to allow me to immerse myself in it. It's obviously not for a lack of money. It also seems obvious that the makers of this movie were more interested in preaching some kind from some kind of Hollywood pulpit, disregarding the intelligence of the viewers.
Hell...go ahead and make a statement if you want to, but do it without insulting the customer, otherwise you won't even get the chance!
The Climb
(1997)
Very Memorable Film
15 August 2000
I disagree completely with Sweedy regarding the plot. I found the plot to be very plausible. The character studies were very well laid out, and the movie worked well enough for me to rate it very highly. I could relate very well to everything in the movie, including wanting to climb a tower in my neighborhood when I was younger. Perhaps one needs to understand the setting for this film to understand the movie completely. The people that made this movie did a great job of capturing the feel of the era, and wove the story and the characters into a very memorable film.
The Thin Red Line
(1998)
What's not to like?
12 July 2000
This is a very good film. I had no problem making the transitions that this movie made from action to inner thoughts and the natural surroundings. In no way did I find this movie "unwatchable" as so many have said in earlier comments. To the contrary, I found this film to be finely crafted and very entertaining. There seems to be a great divide between those who absolutely hate this movie and those who believe it is the most beautiful movie ever made. I don't belong in either of those camps. All I know is that The Thin Red Line is memorable, poignant, moving, and I believe it will eventually be recognized as such by most.
The Settlement
(1999)
Solid Movie
8 July 2000
I too enjoyed this film. It was just dark enough to make me question whether it was a drama or a comedy. I don't think this movie will ever make my top 100 list, but just as you cannot stop reading a good book, I couldn't stop watching this flick. It stayed within itself very well, which helped to make this a very solid and entertaining movie.
Dogma
(1999)
Dogma is a dog
3 July 2000
I wasn't offended by this movie, but it was a little over the top for my taste. I watched it because of an enthusiastic recommendation by my niece. I agreed with Donald Roy Airey's comments that it seemed like "Wayne's World" meets "Prophecy". I love a good satire, and nothing is sacred, but this movie could have used a lot more subtlety to be keep my interest. I really hate it when I start hearing myself being preached to in a movie, and there were a number of those moments also. A movie is funny because it simply is funny, and doesn't try too hard to get there. This one just didn't get there for me.
Three Kings
(1999)
An action movie with intelligence
30 May 2000
This was an action flick that handled itself with intelligence and didn't pander to a mindless moronic audience as so many action movies do. I have seen far too many action flicks that have tons of explosions and nothing to think about except whether it will ever become interesting. The direction, acting, casting and script were all top notch. Three Kings was moving and inspiring because it wasn't willing to settle for the lowest common denominator, as so many hollywood action flicks do. This one is a classic.
The Mummy
(1999)
A waste of good special effects...
20 April 2000
I remember seeing the previews for this movie, and never once was there any indication how silly it was. The previews indicated only the promise of great special effects and a good horror movie. There was something about what people were saying (or not saying) that made me wait. Now I know what it was. This version of The Mummy didn't take itself seriously enough to be classified as a horror movie. I just cannot understand why anyone would want to produce such fluff when it could have been so much more. The special effects were great, but they seemed completely out of place every time yet another moment of levity was introduced.
The IMDB genre for The Mummy is Adventure/Action/Thriller/Horror. This film takes itself so unseriously that it qualifies itself as none of those. Every great special effect and piece of cinematography is ruined by the silly dialogue. This film could have been a classic, but instead it was ruined by its ridiculous tendency to insert a silly piece of slapstick or dialogue every chance it had.
I suppose that is why I disliked this film so much. It's not what the film was, it's what the film wasn't that I can't get over. Had the cast been given a serious script, the mood of the film would have seemed right, and I could have truly gotten into it. Instead, every time I even started to try to immerse myself, it got silly and ruined it for me.
I cannot imagine why anyone I know would look forward to a sequel to this film. It's possible to interject humour in any movie genre without ruining the overall mood and feel. This film seemed to go out of its way to shoot itself in the foot every chance it got.
The IMDB genre for The Mummy is Adventure/Action/Thriller/Horror. This film takes itself so unseriously that it qualifies itself as none of those. Every great special effect and piece of cinematography is ruined by the silly dialogue. This film could have been a classic, but instead it was ruined by its ridiculous tendency to insert a silly piece of slapstick or dialogue every chance it had.
I suppose that is why I disliked this film so much. It's not what the film was, it's what the film wasn't that I can't get over. Had the cast been given a serious script, the mood of the film would have seemed right, and I could have truly gotten into it. Instead, every time I even started to try to immerse myself, it got silly and ruined it for me.
I cannot imagine why anyone I know would look forward to a sequel to this film. It's possible to interject humour in any movie genre without ruining the overall mood and feel. This film seemed to go out of its way to shoot itself in the foot every chance it got.
Tell Your Friends