Wulfstan10 Reviews

Sharknado (2013 TV Movie)

Amongst the Worst Films I have Seen

[1/10 · 20 October 2015]

This film is just truly awful in every respect. The film is full of consistently bad acting and formulaic set-pieces, wooden stock characters doing illogical things, and that's the least of the film's problems, in fact they are some of its stronger elements. The story is not merely absurd - which alone would not necessarily warrant such a harsh review and it is at east somewhat "original" in detail. The real problem with the plot is that is internally inconsistent, one example being (SPOILER) how the humans are able to stop the tornadoes and that the mere act of stopping the tornadoes somehow kills the sharks, which had been perfectly fine before the tornadoes enabled them to really wreak havoc on land. The special effects are terrible, and I mean terrible, utterly unbelievable. The result is that this movie is so bad it is beyond beyond funny - it is so so bad it is just exceedingly dull, tedious, irritating, and even embarrassing and painful to watch.

Amazons and Gladiators (2001)

Just a Bad Film

[1/10 · 20 October 2015]

Perhaps it arguably deserves two stars as I have seen worse, but I haven't seen much worse and this overall is, for me fully in the bottom of the heap. I feel that once we're talking about the differences in quality between really bad movies, it doesn't matter that they all get one star even if some are "better" than others, if they're all terrible anyway.

The only decent thing is that Patrick Bergin at least is capable of acting and this occasionally shows through in nice details and nuanced expressions here or there, but that is all.

The production values or cheap and not convincing, which is the least of the problems here.

The actors other than Bergin are terrible, simply terrible. They are wooden and deliver wooden lines in a wooden manner. Nothing about them is remotely convincing.

The story is preposterous, not least of all because of the entirely groundless use of "Zenobia" as some sort of noble rebel leader among ill-defined Celtic or Germanic tribes when in fact she was a queen of a wealthy city state client kingdom of Rome in Syria, partly fighting against Rome at times yes, but not a leader of freedom-loving NW European tribes.

The end is predictable yet totally unconvincing.

Cleanskin (2012)

Good, exciting, but not fully cohesive or convincing

[7/10 · 20 October 2015]

This is a nicely paced action/thriller movie about a hunt to stop some terrorists that has nice points but ultimately is not entirely convincing and leaves certain things unexplained or overly convenient.

The overall story is well-used but developed with some nice twists and unique details. It has some nice characterisations and Sean Bean's central character is particularly nicely shown to be complex - violent and easily swayed to kill "Arabs" or the like or those he sees as likely terrorists, with a somewhat jaded and prejudice attitude but developed nicely with explanations into this while also showing his own developing realisation that he may be a bit too blindly prejudiced and easily led in that direction. The central terrorist similarly is nicely fleshed out as a complex person, idealistic and honorable but torn apart and confused by these very feelings and the events of his life, while the complexities, cynicism, and in some cases hypocrisy of some of the terrorist leaders is also nicely shown. It also does a good job of showing a couple of the other terrorists as unsure of themselves, fearful, and doubtful.

There is good cinematography and some nice editing and many well-developed scenes. The bombing of a café is one example that is nicely done.

The weakest point in the film for me is that there are too many plot leaps that the viewer must make, gaps that are simply not dealt with or which are unexplained, making things at certain times seem either confusing or unbelievably convenient. Ultimately, I am left with the impression that the film needed to be, or was supposed to be, longer but that certain explanatory scenes were omitted. A crucial portion taking place at a hotel is a key example of how it all happens without any explanation or prior information given the viewer, as to why some characters are there or why they are doing what they are doing at that time. The same is true of the roles of some of the characters, such as Sean Bean's partner, who is not developed or portrayed sufficiently despite some nice details about him popping up.

Killing Them Softly (2012)

Good film, good acting, but doesn't come together

[7/10 · 20 October 2015]

Overall, this is a good film with a basically fine story with potential, nice cinematography, and good acting, but the parts don't really come together, it fails to maintain suspended disbelief, and the story ends up being fairly predictable while not entirely convincing.

Cinematography and directing were good, at times excellent, with some nicely artistic shots, some unusual and compelling usage of slow motion in key scenes.

The constant use of news events and speeches by Obama and W relating to the economy and society were interesting and tied somewhat nicely into some of the thematic issues of the film, but ended up being a bit heavy handed, as were the thematic issues, which were ultimately expostulated in a speech at the end that, while nice in of itself, really seemed somewhat forced and out of the blue with respect to the characters.

The acting on the whole is very good, often excellent. There are some good characterisations and portrayals of characters, Gandolfini and Liotta particularly standing out as provided nice, memorable performances. Liotta is especially wonderful in (SPOILER) the beating scenes, no doubt also due to some nice script-directing attention to detail and realism in how one might act.

However, at times it is almost overplayed and gratuitous, perhaps due more to the script and editing that lingers too much on what is clearly good acting with a lot of nice details in the mannerisms, etc. This ends up leaving us feeling that we are watching good actors demonstrating how to do the job well rather than being absorbed in the events. It breaks the momentum and leaves us with fairly disjointed set-pieces of nice acting and dialogue that don't necessarily flow and at times, as with Gandolfini's appearances, seem incorporated only to showcase some nice dialogue rather than adding anything meaningful to the story. Those scenes in part remind me of the adage that if you introduce a gun, it had better be used at some point, Gandolfini's character being the gun who is showcased nicely yet never used - being explained away and vanishing from the movie without ever actually having a point int he plot.

SPOILER - As for the overall plot, it is a potentially interesting plot, despite the fact that it is clearly fairly worn - crooks hold up illicit gambling ring and are hunted down, but the real problem is that it develops in an entirely predictable and unconvincing manner. For the most part, everybody you expect to die, dies, and pretty much when and in the manner expected, the only exception being the one who is instead arrested, again not entirely surprisingly. Those who survive are the ones expected. Moreover, in order to make it possible for the central character, the hit-man played by Pitt actually to discover the identities of the robbers, the plot relies on the all-too-convenient, facile, and somewhat unconvincing solution of having one of them blabbing about it to a known associate of the usual enforcer of the card-game/mob syndicate (for whom Pitt's character is filling in). While this is not in of itself too much of a stretch necessarily, it is well worn, predictable, and in this instance not convincing in part because one of the robbers just happens to have been doing another deal with him, the other robber was apparently aware of that but did not realise it until after the fact, and the man who hired the robbers made a big show of being very careful not to hire the one who blabbed because he seemed like an unreliable junkie, but then ended up, with no real explanation, hiring him anyway, leading to him being involved and then spilling the beans to the enforcer. It stretched credulity.

In the end, the movie is overall an interesting, stylish, nice-looking hit-man/crime/heist film with some good characters and good acting, but which does not really come together. I feel it to be an example of a film made by people who had some great ideas about characters and directing and who wanted to showcase good acting, good cinematic effects, etc., but didn't know how to develop these cohesively with a convincing or truly interesting plot or tie them all together.

Odd Man Out (1947)

Incredible, Timeless, Compelling Classic

[10/10 · 1 February 2008]

I shan't say too much about this film really, and I don't think I need add much, but this is such an incredible, powerful, beautiful, and moving masterpiece, that I just have to say something. Reed will probably always be best known for The Third Man and that is almost certainly always going to be his best-known movie, and with good reason: it is a masterpiece among masterpieces. Unfortunately, this tends to overshadow Reed's other great films and the fact that Reed was not a one-shot wonder who had one happy success.

Not to forget that other masterpiece, Fallen Idol, Odd Man Out is not a film that should lurk in the shadows of another. If among the works of another director, it would shine bright, leaving others in the dark, and this, I believe, is a great testament to how incredible a film maker Reed was. Odd Man Out is perhaps Reed's most moving and emotionally sublime film, incredible particularly for 1947. It shows to full effect Reed's mastery of visual artistry, but also portrays an utterly compelling, insightful look into people and their souls, duty, love, justice, and happenstance. This film amazingly, often subtly, and always naturally, smoothly, and compellingly, digs into many basic elements of humanity. Some of my favourite lines from this film, which embed themselves so well, touch on the fundamentals of human life. I may forget the precise words but I want to finish with some lines that sum up the insight of this film: The police officer says "It is my duty to ensure justice," to which the priest, debating with him, responds "it is the duty of all to do justice"; when one man says "is he dying?" another responds "we are all dying"; and when one man asks "what is faith?" the other responds, simply yet utterly accurately "life."

The Tin Star (1957)

Excellent, Thoughtful Western

[8/10 · 14 November 2007]

This is among the best American Westerns of the 1950s. It does an unusually good job of avoiding the clichés, corniness, and trite sentimentality that needlessly bedeviled too many of its contemporaries, including the films of the much-vaunted John Ford. It addresses touchy, relatively avoided issues at the time, such as US/European relations with American Indians (although admittedly, John Ford did an unusually excellent job for the time in his earlier Fort Apache) and handles them in an intelligent and unusually grey manner, rather than being black-and-white or overly preachy. Of particular note is the story's approach to the half-Indian/half caucasian kid Kip, the outlaw half-Indian/half caucasian McGaffey brothers, and the nasty, Indian-hating Bogardus, the real villain of the film. The storyline is thoughtful and handles the characters well.

Serial Mom (1994)

Should've Been Funny But Isn't Remotely

[2/10 · 23 August 2006]

This film should have been wonderfully and darkly funny and we had high expectations when we watched it back in 1995. It really seemed as though it was going to be hilarious. However, it fails miserably and utterly. The parts which should have been darkly humorous are simply dark and unpleasant, and usually dull. When it's not dark, the film is simply boring and it drags on far too long. It seems that the film makers, Waters, et al., thought that the dark, inherent absurdity of the events are innately funny and they made no effort actually to make them funny. They were wrong. A story about an apparently typical "soccer-mom" type who kills people can be extremely funny if done properly, but in and of itself, a story about someone like that is simply a story about a murderer. As a result, the whole thing is a tedious waste of time that leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

The Leopard (1963)

Beautiful, Thoughtful, With Some Outstanding Moments

[9/10 · 9 August 2006]

This is a beautiful and thoughtful film about the changes occurring in Sicily after 1860, with the unification of Italy and the disappearance of the old Kingdom of Sicily. It explores these changes and and changing role of the old aristocracy through the experiences of the Prince of Salina. Overall it is an excellent film with many beautiful scenes, much contemplation, and a great exploration of the prince's character, views, a realisations.

It has some absolutely incredible moments, particularly the grand ball at the end, which is handled wonderfully. The film perfectly captures the prince's feelings, sadness, and sense of separation or isolation from the rest of the seemingly happy people at the ball and I don't think that I have ever seen this phenomenon handled so powerfully. The whole atmosphere of the ball, with the prince sweating and feeling in a daze while others laugh, giggle, dance and gossip, is wonderful, as is the horrible din while people go to get food and chat away whilst eating. It is unusual in that it perfectly captures such negative aspects of big, "festive" parties so rarely even addressed, much less demonstrated so flawlessly. The fact that such feelings of isolation and the like are a fundamental reality of big parties, especially when one has a lot on one's mind, makes this all the more forceful and compelling.

However, the film has some weaknesses. It does not bring everything together quite perfectly and fails to completely hit the nail on the head. I understand the transformations in the film and the prince's emotions, yet there is too little information underlying all of this too really see the bases for these thoughts, etc. I needed to extrapolate and rely on my own knowledge of the historical circumstances, none of which really should be necessary. The result is that I can easily see how audiences may be confused or uncertain what it's all really about. Moreover, it introduces scenes or issues that seem to have no point, lack an explanation, and go nowhere. Some seem at first to have significance, but then go nowhere and this tends to distract from the central plot and themes of the film while leading to potential confusion about the point of the scenes, as well as expectations that the issues will arise again. However, while these points to me prevent this from being the absolute masterpiece that it could have been, they do not seriously detract from the film and are only minor dents in the film's incredible strengths.

Touch of Evil (1958)

Some Great Directing, But the Story is Lacking and Unconvincing

[7/10 · 5 July 2006]

This is an uneven film with both very good strong points and serious flaws that ultimately I think is overrated.

Many people seem to love this film and I can see why. Much of the camera-work and cinematography, editing, use of sound, shadows, close-ups, etc., is incredible and some even brilliant. The long tracking scene in the beginning is perhaps the prime example of this and it is simply wonderful. This scene and others do a great job of building tension and atmosphere, and setting the mood, such as the shots of Vargas, Quinlan, and others looking around the town at night. Other scenes like the one where Joe Grandi is trying to intimidate Vargas's wife are also wonderful.The story certainly has many promising aspects such as the basic issue of Quinlan's nature, goals, and tactics, Vargas's attitude toward them,what this drives Quinlan to do, and the ultimate trouble this all creates. The exploration of Quinlan's character is a particularly interesting subject and Marlene Dietrich's line at the end is great.

However, Dietrich's line rings hollow and comes across as both insincere and melodramatic because the film as a whole is not compelling or convincing. The film's the underlying plot and the screenplay itself are wanting, although some of this may be due to editing as well. Ultimately, the subject matter just fails to fully impress or convince. The story doesn't work and in the end one comes away not really being convinced or caring about any of it. The pieces don't all fit together and some of the elements seem jumbled. Some scenes, moreover, are inexplicable and seem added without apparent purpose to the story or without explanation as to their relevance. A good example is the scene with the two women joining the Grandi toughs at the motel. That was unexplained and went nowhere. What was the point of having it and who were the women? Other elements, such as the very ending itself, seem perfunctory. In addition, promising elements were not fully developed or explored and either only hinted at or left hanging.

Ultimately, this film starts promisingly, has a subject with potential, and is very successful most of the time in creating the right mood and tension, and yet it becomes lost and jumbled, and fails to convince or fulfill its apparent goals.

O Lucky Man! (1973)

Strange and Interesting; Surprisingly Compelling

[9/10 · 1 November 2005]

To say the least, this is an odd movie. It has no real "plot" per se or at least not a continuous , cohesive storyline but, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of La Dolce Vita (and I mean pretty loosely), it follows one man as he drifts through various events and people, and how those experiences do or do not affect him. The events are also rather surreal, often very strange, brutal, or sexual, and at times a bit disturbing. The commonalities or unifying elements throughout, aside from the character, are constant social commentary, often rather harsh; the fact that the whole film is a series of apparently random experiences, each by happenstance leading to the next, and an ultimate conclusion; and the fact that in the end the events change the character.

I won't say that this is one of my top choices of films to watch on a regular basis, at least not if I just want to relax and have a good time, but it certainly is interesting and strangely compelling. Despite the often tense situations and some humour, etc., I douybt most people would find the film particularly fun or exciting, so one should certainly not expect that. Nevertheless, there is something about the film, perhaps a mixture of the oddness, the apparent randomness of it all, the impacts of the events and people, and McDowell's great portrayal of a seemingly clueless but sympathetic character, that draws the viewer in to care about the events. The result is that the viewer does want to keep watching throughout the roughly 3 hours to see what is going to happen next. There is something gripping about the lack of a particular story line so that the viewer wants to see what seemingly random, unconnected event will follow and whither it will lead. In the end, the viewer does see a progression and how the film ends up with essentially a counterpoint to the beginning.

In addition, everyone is enjoyable to watch. This is particularly true of McDowell, of course, since he is usually great and is the one constant person throughout. He wonderfully portrays his character Travis and Travis's transformations.

At the same time, the viewer also constantly encounters numerous points, images, events, etc., that work themselves into the viewer and make the viewer think, even if not right away.

The film also has a great soundtrack that I think really helps the film. The songs have a way of deeply embedding themselves in the viewer just as McDowell's character and the events themselves do. The lyrics are also quite telling and catchy.

This film is certainly not for everyone and I'd say that the average moviegoer would probably not like it or at least be confused or bored. But, for some, at least, this will be an enthralling and gripping film.

I also think that any thinking person who takes the time to sit through this film, even one who does not especially enjoy the movie while watching it, will at least appreciate, and be affected by, parts of the film. There is a lot here to ponder, some extremely obvious, some almost unnoticeable. Some of it is in the specific events or characters themselves, some in the apparent randomness of these haphazard events leading into each other and ultimately changing McDowell's character, Travis. This latter element is clearly seen in how he changes from the very beginning to the very end.

Ultimately, this is a movie that I doubt anyone can fully appreciate right after viewing it, much less while actually viewing it. I think that full appreciation requires at least some time to digest the film after wards and possibly another viewing later. I won't say one could ever fully understand all of this film, as I don't think anyone can, while there are probably many ways to interpret a lot in this film.

I recommend that anyone who likes "different" or thought-provoking films, etc., to try it, be patient, and aftewards just think about it or let it wander around in your mind for a while without actively trying to think about it. I think that the film will work itself into a viewer's mind and stay there, without any effort on such a viewer's part, and that even someone who wasn't sure about the film right after watching it will be affected and appreciate something from it.

A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

"My mistake. Four coffins"

[9/10 · 31 October 2005]

ALthough in many respects this film pales in comparison with Leone's later films, it is itself a brilliant cinematic achievement. In part, this is because its failings primarily appear to be due to constraints of budget (very small and highly uncertain) and time more than anything else. Even to the extent that the skills of Leone, Morricone, and others hadn't fully flowered yet, this film is incredible at how brilliantly it is handled for what is really a first-time go. Leone had worked on, and even directed, films before, but this is his first real foray in his own direction, and into a genre that he revolutionised and with which he became forever synonymous. Who can imagine westerns without at least thinking of Leone's films, while who can think of Leone without thinking of westerns (even though his last, and arguably greatest, film was a sort of gangster film)? Similarly, one should not criticize this film for being based on Yojimbo, for that film itself was based on an American story while A Fistful of Dollars really is very different in many key respects, not least of all Leone's visual style or his own sense of irony and symbolism derived from Italian precedents and Hollywood westerns.

We also see the nascent Leone visual style here, with the close-up style and contrast of close-ups and long shots appearing. This alone sets it apart from previous films, westerns and non-westerns alike, and still provides for great visual treats that one can appreciate today.

This film also ushered in Leone's obsession with details, hard faces, grungy people, etc., that also revolutionsed the genre.

This films also marks the first brilliant score of Ennio Morricone. It is here that he introduced the lonely whistling, guitar music, chorus, and unusual combinations and styles that developed into the music that has become in the U.S. synonymous with westerns and duels in the same way that Leone's visuals and themes have.

Despite its minor flaws, this is still a great film that is not only revolutionary but still great and fun to watch even today. Like Leone's other films, it is timeless.

One must also admit that it is amazing that in the U.S. an Italian film maker basing his films partly in Italian culture and an Italian composer could come to so define and be synonymous with this genre that Americans had considered so uniquely American, and highlight its underlying universality. That alone reveals the greatness of the films, of which this is the first.

For a Few Dollars More (1965)

Simply Incredible

[10/10 · 31 October 2005]

This is, I think, the first of Leone's true masterpieces, and quite possibly Leone's most "watchable" film. A Fistful of Dollars is a great film: revolutionary, gritty, violent, and fun, and it certainly was the true beginning of a monumental change in westerns. However, this is the first film where Leone's brilliance fully comes to the front. On the other hand, while not quite as famous (in the English-speaking world) as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (GBU) and perhaps not quite as great a cinematic achievement as GBU or Once Upon a Time in the West (OUTIW), this film is nevertheless not far behind those clear masterpieces.

The characteristic Leone visual style and incredible artistry are very powerful here. Although some of this is evident in small amounts in the previous film, here we really get to see the incredible, revolutionary close-ups and the contrast between close-ups and long shots. These and other images are powerful and beautiful. The film also brings the deliberate pacing and wonderful, almost unbearable, build-up of tension before quick action. Leone's sense of irony and brilliant weaving together of various motifs and symbols (particularly religious) also comes to the forefront in this film, as does the humour.

The story is more complex than before, and more emotional and profound than GBU or OUTIW. Not until Duck, You Sucker! does Leone really delve more into emotions and psyches more than here, which gives this film an added depth and power.

The scenes showing Indio's psyche, obsession, and mental decay are also powerful and perfect. Some (including Leone himself, apparently) feared that Volonte was overacting a tad, while others point out how the flashbacks are supposedly inaccurate portrayals of the effects of marijuana, however, this all works incredibly well. Volonte is quite convincing as a criminal sinking into a form of psychosis and obsessed with personal demons of the past and the flashbacks work brilliantly at hitting this theme home, creating an powerful, surreal, mournful, and lonely eeriness that, although it is not clear at first, perfectly parallels Mortimer's own despair and quest.

The the way in which the story progresses, and brings the three main characters together, is brilliant. The introductions of the characters to how Mortimer and Manco focus on the same bandit (Indio), but with the reason for the interests rather subtly and vaguely indicated from the start, to how Mortimer and Manco "duel" before joining forces (sort of) is perfect.

The music here, while similar to, and less famous than, the score for GBU, is also simply incredible. Just as this film reveals the first full flowering of Leone's gifts, it is also the first full flowering of Morricone's abilities and style introduced in the prior film. The score is in fact just as incredible as Morricone's subsequent ones and it excels at creating a sense of loneliness, despair, mournfulness, and eeriness in a way the even GBU doesn't and which fewof his other scores have. The only scores of his that I can think of which match or excell it on this point Once Upon a Time in America (at least with respect to despair, mourning, and loneliness), The Great Silence, OUTIW (but the harmonica music only) and The Untouchables (in despair and eeriness). This score thus perfectly conveys the atmosphere of the lonely, unpleasant towns, the lonely, harsh life of the bounty hunters, the harshness of the outlaws and Indio's increasingly crazed mind, and Mortimer's despair and personal quest.

Finally, we for the first time get to see Lee van Cleef in a first role and he is simply outstanding. He handles the role so well, it's hard to imagine that he had nothing even approaching this magnitude before.

This film really has no real faults, the only ones being a few technical errors such as the discrepancy in the wanted poster that Mortimer slides under the door near the beginning. However, these are tiny, most people won't notice, and no-one should really care about them. They are also problems that vanished in Leone's later films where he had more time and more money.

In terms of length and pacing, this is also one of Leone's shorter, faster-paced films. Only a Fistful of Dollars and Duck, You Sucker! compare in those terms. This can be good, or bad, depending on the person, interests, or mood. Personally, Leone's longer masterpieces are my favourites, but sometimes even I don't have the time or patience to sit through their relatively slow development (and I am someone who can watch the 3.75-hour Once Upon A Time in America over and over) and want the quicker pace, action, and wit of this film. Also, certainly for some people this movie will be better suited on this point and those who find GBU or OUTIW to be a tad long should opt for this. It certainly is one of the two most lively and fun of Leone's films (the other being the longer GBU).

On the whole, the combination of everything makes this a brilliant masterpiece and the pacing and development make the film extremely fun and fast-paced to watch. It is a clear masterpiece.

The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1970)

Revenge and "Butterfly Mornings" in the Demise of the Old West

[7/10 · 28 October 2005]

Not the usual Peckinpah fare, this movie is interesting and had a lot of promise but it sputtered out and fizzled in the end. I really wanted to love this movie, and thought that I would, until it came to a close.

The story is of a man abandoned in the desert by his two "partners" and left for dead, but who finds the only spring for many miles around right on a stagecoach route and sets up a rest stop and watering hole. At the same time, his original sole purpose is revenge, but other forces, including some key people and the changing nature of the west lead him to reexamine himself and pull him in new directions.

This story sounds great, and it basically is. It's a promising tale exploring luck, friendship, love, the value of revenge, whether people should bother with revenge and where one will go when obsessed with revenge, and the demise of the Old West. It thus possesses many interesting themes, and is really a very unusual western, with a different and fresh approach.

For much of the film, the story and themes are handled well. Unlike the usual Peckinpah movie, the issues are handled gently, yet they are no less powerful for that. it draws the viewer into the story.

Moreover, the characters are great and the actors's performances excellent. Jason Robards (Cable Hogue) and David Warner (Cable's friend, the "preacher" Joshua) are always a pleasure to watch and here they excellently and compellingly portray interesting and wonderful characters. Robards' performance is particularly compelling and sympathetic, while being fairly subtle and without being over the top, or begging for empathy.

There are some other elements that are a little questionable, but still generally work or which at least do not detract too much from the film. Some elements of the romance, particularly the song "Butterlfy Mornings" are a little saccharine and corny, but I can overlook these easily. The speeded-up motion to convey humor is also not very subtle, original, or particularly effective. However, it does generally work and it fits the mood of the film and the characters of Cable and Josh.

Another point is the theme music, such as that played at the beginning of the film during the credits. It's a type of 60s/70s folk music and while unusual for a western it certainly fits in with the notion of the film as a ballad of a colorful character.

The real problem is the end. It has its good points such as the message about the end of the Old West, and David Warner's concluding monologue, which is enjoyable (if perhaps a tad long),poignant, and compelling while making some pretty good points. Cable's ultimate transformation on revenge is also handled fairly well at the end. I do not want to give it away, but suffice it to say that otherwise the ending is a tad strange and comes across as hurried and thrown together. The transition from the second to last scene to the last scene sudden and apparently inexplicable. The events seem to be a cheap way to end the movie quickly, with an all-too-facile-and-convenient instrumentality ushering in the final moments, giving the impression that Peckinpah, et al., didn't quite no how to conclude it so threw this in to do the job. In addition, the conclusion does not really fully address the issues that the movie seemed to be raising, such as revenge and the end of the old west, and it leaves the develop of some of the characters (especially Josh) dangling. It just throws some elements of the issues and characters in and calls it a day. The result is that the rushed, cheap ending does much to nullify the strong virtues oft he movie. I don't have a problem with the basic result, but I do have major problems with the way it was handled.

In the end, this film is certainly well worth a look. Don't expect the usual Peckinpah-type film, but don't deride the film on that basis. Even knowing the ending I still would watch the film again, and there is a lot to appreciate. Unfortunately, I can also really appreciate how great this film could have been.

Mac and Me (1988)

The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen

[1/10 · 21 October 2005]

Considering that there are many other comments about this film with roughly the same opinion, and that this film so disgusted me that I couldn't watch the whole thing, I shall keep this brief.

I first knew this would be utterly dreadful and a film to avoid at all costs when I first saw it in a video store in the mid-90s. The box alone was more than adequate warning of how horrible this film truly is. Unfortunately, I had the misfortune of glimpsing it one day on television and mistakenly figured I'd watch at little to see how bad it was.

I can think of nothing good about this film. The horrid creature, "Mac", is so poorly made that it is truly disturbing. This was the primary impetus for me turning it off because I simply couldn't stand to see that thing one second more. In addition, the acting is utterly abysmal and what I saw of the story appeared to be a moronic rip off of already tired elements from E.T., itself not exactly a great cinematic achievement.

Apparently, there is much more about this film that is awful, such as alleged Coke and McDonald's plugs and dance routines, etc., but I couldn't stand the film long enough for those elements to lodge themselves in my brain and I cannot personally comment on them. Suffice it to say, that this film is an absolute monstrosity even without those added negatives.

Normally I do not write opinions of films unless I have seen basically the whole thing, but I felt that in this instance, I had adequate exposure, and my opinion was strong enough, that a comment was appropriate.

Flash Gordon (1980)

"He'll annoy every one of us!"

[2/10 · 21 October 2005]

I cannot really fathom the relatively good ratings and comments about this film. Utterly dreadful and among the worst I have seen, it seems to me designed simply to annoy intelligent people. This despite the presence of several good actors and direction by Mike Hodges. Hodges directed the 1971 masterpiece Get Carter, a fact that alone is enough to ensure him a high place in my regard. I therefore find it kind of unsettling to see that he actually worked on this irritating waste of film.

In part, the dreadfulness of this film is a result of the source material itself. Horribly dated and oozing with old-fashioned prejudice and racism, the characters have little place in the modern world. Probably the most glaring example is the fact that the deceitful, conniving baddies are the obviously Asian Ming and his "Mongo people" while the good guys are all Caucasian types and Flash is every inch the jock Nordic/Anglo-Saxon golden boy. Such obvious use of stereotyping and prejudice turns me off, to say the least. Such prejudice, while never admirable, is one thing in the context of the 1930s, but utterly inexcusable in 1980. I fault the makers of this film because this should have been obvious. This factor alone, in my opinion, ruins the film.

Moreover, although the basic story (sans the racism, etc.) could have been reworked to make something that, while corny and campy, is at least imaginative and fun, no-one appears to have bothered to do that. The story is mundane, clichéd and tired, with no attempt even to take advantage of these traits. Those who made this film at least could have shown that they knew the material was goofy and clichéd and used this to advantage. They do not and instead give every impression of playing it straight. One might argue that this itself is supposed to be part of the fun, since playing comedy or clichés straight can be utterly brilliant and hilarious. Here, though, the movie simply seems so truly bad, so genuinely straightforward, that I find it impossible to believe this is intentional. A goofy, clichéd movie that knows it is goofy and clichéd can be wonderful. One that does not know it is goofy and clichéd is not fun; it is simply goofy and clichéd.

To add to this film's woes, the "special effects", so called, are utterly ridiculous. Again, elsewhere someone might have taken advantage of cheap special effects, but not here.

Finally, the "soundtrack", if one calls it that, is beyond dreadful. It is incredibly cretinous, annoying and, most unfortunately, unforgettable. I don't know if I shall ever rid my memory of "Flash, aaaaaahhhh!" or "He'll save every one of us!" Those horrid lines were repeated ad nauseum, it seemed, and, despite the passage of years, occasionally resurface in my mind. I have to say that, as with the glaring racism, this defect alone renders the film unwatchable.

This is one example of a phenomenon, rather amazing to me, whereby a film with talented people in the end bears no discernible trace of their talents. Had it not been for the truly awful "soundtrack" and the failure to avoid the old racism of the original, this would have been at least bearable, but still no better than a low-mediocre film. As it is, though, this film stands out in my mind as a highly irritating and unpleasant bit of drivel.

Midnight Express (1978)

Artistically excellent, but utterly, inexcusably prejudiced

[2/10 · 7 October 2005]

I have a hard time even talking about this film, much less giving it an overall rating, but felt compelled to. My rating of 2 is somewhat arbitrary, but it certainly represents my overall opinion of this film when considering both purely artistic/film-making elements and the disgusting bias of the film. My discussion is thus in two basic parts that do not really interrelate, but I think that anyone must consider both these aspects of the film.

Artistically, this film is for the most part simply excellent. The cinematography, visuals, acting, etc. are all top-notch. The use of shadows, perspective, lighting, smoke, etc., are incredible and excellent for creating a strange, surreal, and utterly frightening impression. Even here, though, there are some problems, though not with the visuals, etc. My main problem for a cinematic point of view, and the one that does tie into the other overarching problem with this film, is how it portrays the main character, essentially a none-too-bright, low-life drug smuggler as some sort of victimized hero. Even if he does not necessarily deserve the treatment he is shown receiving in the film, it is hard to feel much sympathy for such a character. The film even goes so far as to try to evoke sympathy and care for another loser character who complains that he was put in prison for stealing candlesticks or something like that from a mosque. How is one supposed to empathize with scum like that? In the US, that'd be like stealing from from a church and I don't think most people here would view such conduct very highly. It is especially hard to sympathize with such a character when he portrays no remorse for what he did, but instead turns it around on the supposedly "evil" Turks.

This segues into the fundamental problem with this film, which is so inexcusably, thoroughly, and groundlessly prejudiced that this aspect of the film almost utterly negates its artistic value. Not only are the events at least somewhat fictionalized in a way that makes the Turks look worse, but every element of this film is bursting with what seems like simple disgust and hatred for Turks and Turkey without any foundation. Every single thing about the Turks is used to make them look monstrous and inhuman, while the city of Istanbul, an enthralling, beautiful, and vibrant city (although admittedly, the 1970s was something of a low point in the city's life and status), is shown as scary and bizarre. An example is the story about stealing from a mosque, mentioned above. The film even goes so far as to imply that stealing candles from a mosque isn't that bad because, after all, it's "just a Turkish mosque," which is utterly ridiculous and disgusting. Even anti-Turkish racial/ethnic slurs are bluntly stated as if they are totally justified. No culture in the world, now or ever, is even remotely as bad as the Turks are shown here, and I can't think of another film I have ever seen that makes any other nation, ethnic, or political group (not even Nazi-era Germans) look so demonic. I am not a Turk, but I have also been to Turkey several times and I can say from personal experience that Turkey and Turks bear absolutely no resemblance to the nation portrayed here.

I want to emphasize that I am not trying to use this as a soap box to espouse political or social views about any country, etc. My discussion of Turkey and the bigotry and falsehoods in the movie are only intended as a discussion about the merits of this film. I touch on the accuracy, etc., of any film that is supposedly about "real" events, people, places, etc. I would have made the same criticisms had it shown any people or nation the way it shows Turks.

Alfie (1966)

Excellent

[10/10 · 26 September 2005]

This is an excellent, pretty frank and even-handed look at the life of a mid-1960s womanizing single man. The story and acting are excellent, utterly convincing, and interesting.

Alfie's character is very well-developed and portrayed; rather than being a single-dimensional icon or stock generalization, he is complex. Alfie is sympathetic and unsympathetic at the same time. He is a chauvinist who cares little for the people (primarily women) in his relationships, avoids emotional attachments or long-term relationships with women who seem to want them, lives in the moment for himself, uses women, has them cook for him, etc. Yet at the same time he also shows some consideration for them and at least appears to want them to do what they want, be free, etc. He in some ways wants (or at least truly thinks that he wants) the women to live by the same rules he does. He also clearly never has any intention to hurt people, which he also states quite clearly. However, he clearly does not think about how his actions do hurt people and he is too focused on himself, while he may at first think that he wants the women to be as "free" as he, but in reality he doesn't as he realizes only too late how hurtful it is when women treat him the way he has treated them. This dichotomy in his character is handled with great subtlety and care, and the way he comes to realize how hurtful it is to be in a relation with someone like him is perfect. It is also developed excellently with his first-hand look at how his actions hurt women whom he professed never to want to hurt, when he sees the pain that he admits he never wanted to know about. Meanwhile, throughout the movie he is slowly (very slowly at first) beginning to realize what he is missing by shutting the women out and cutting his ties with them when they get too close. The final scenes of the film where each of these realization hits home one after the other is handled perfectly.

The film is also an excellent look at the time, on the cusp of radical social change with respect to gender and sexuality and the specifics of the story appear utterly out of place and unconvincing in the modern remake. There is, moreover, no real point in remaking such an excellently executed classic as this.

Finally, I want to add that, although the comparison never seems to be made, I find this film to be somewhat similar to La Dolce Vita in some of the overall themes (pointlessness, pain, etc., of superficial relationships and living solely in the moment), yet this film is handled far better. Obviously, the films are not entirely on the same points, with La Dolce Vita dealing with other elements as well and in a different country, etc., but some of these basic points are very close, and the approaches are also very similar: showing the stream of changing, empty relationships and the failure to grasp at the chances for a full, meaningful relationship, that in the end ultimately leave the character without any meaningful life or direction, lost and lonely. I also find Alfie to be more gripping and watchable as La Dolce Vita, for all its strengths, sags pretty badly in the middle and never really quite hits things on the head.

Harry's Game (1982)

Excellent, gritty, and impossible to find

[9/10 · 26 September 2005]

I mention spoiler only because I vaguely refer to the general nature of the ending, although I do not actually give away anything that happens.

This is, as others have stated, an excellent thriller and look at the IRA and the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The acting, music, etc., are generally all excellent and the story is interesting and gripping. It is gritty and does not really seem to argue or demonstrate any particular viewpoint on either side, be PC, or anything else. As others have stated, the ending is pretty heavy-duty and the details are highly unexpected, to say the least. I will add my complaints to others who have stated that it is really too bad that this film is largely unheard of and hard to find. I find it all too true and unfortunate that many non-American films are too frequently ignored and unnoticed because of the lack of advertising, etc., compared to often inferior American blockbusters, etc.

A Perfect World (1993)

Great Story but Falls Flat

[7/10 · 10 August 2005]

A Perfect World is a great and interesting story with massive potential. The plot and characters are meaningful and have great potential, while Costner's character in particular is complex. On the one hand, he is a violent criminal, yet at the same time he can be sympathetic even if one cannot truly like him. The development of his relationship with the boy, while the police are after him, is excellent and creates a much more thoughtful film than one that simply involves police after a bad kidnapper. On the one hand, the viewer cares about the boy and wants him rescued, yet at the same time he is not in the hands of a one-dimensional stock villain.

Of the actors, Costner himself does a very good job (as he sometimes does!). He is believable and sympathetic and unlikable at the same time.

The problem with the movie is that it's almost (not quite, but almost) ruined by Eastwood's typically careless and uninspired directing and general handling. One major problem, common with Eastwood-directed films, is that it's not quite convincing, a problem which appears to be a result not of the story or acting, but the directing, overall handling of the characters, details, etc. Here, this is particularly true with respect to the time period. The directing also fails to make the most of the potential emotional impact. As usual, Eastwood's directing shows technical proficiency but nothing more: no artistry, insufficient attention to details, etc. Had this been handled by a different director, it could have been a truly great film. As it is, it is worth watching but kind of falls flat.

The Big Gundown (1967)

Excellent "Spaghetti" Western

[9/10 · 18 July 2005]

This is absolutely one of the best so-called spaghetti westerns ever, after Sergio Leone's films of course, and it rates very highly among all westerns. Unlike many other non-Sergio Leone westerns, the cinematography, camera-work, etc., are all very good and some scenes are very artistic and even worthy of Leone himself.

Lee van Cleef is excellent as the pseudo-lawman/bounty hunter with integrity who believes in "justice" and "progress" for society.

Ennio Morricone, as usual, provides a great score for the film. The song is rousing, while the music for the chase scenes is excellent. Morricone also does a folk-music/square dance version of the theme for the wedding party, which is a neat touch.

The story is interesting and well-developed, as well. In its full-length version, it is in fact somewhat deep, with van Cleef's Corbett being a fairly complex character who undergoes a significant character development in the course of the film. In the abridged American version, unfortunately, he is shown as simply bounty hunter who mercilessly kills all before him in cold blood, who never bats an eye at his job, making his character two-dimensional and making the end more flat, more perfunctory, and less convincing or meaningful. In the full-length version, though, he cares about justice, gives outlaws a choice (and a chance), and there is significant development on how he becomes so obsessed with finding Cuchillo that he crosses the boundary between justice and personal obsession. He then re-examines himself and the events in which he finds himself to come to a significant realisation near the end.

The Great Silence (1968)

Not Quite Leone, But Great

[9/10 · 6 June 2005]

This is certainly among the very best, if not the best, non-Sergio Leone spaghetti western, and while it is not on the same level as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly or Once Upon a Time in the West, it is superior to A Fistful of Dollars and at least close to being on par with For a Few Dollars More. Compared to the latter, I really think it is just a hazy matter of opinion as to which is greater.

One of the greatest strengths of this film, and the way in which it is most fresh, powerful, audacious, even groundbreaking, is the ending. I know everyone who talks about this movie talks about the end, but that's because it probably is what sets this film apart more than anything else. In fact, the ending is so gut-wrenching that it either causes great admiration or anger, and it is so unique and harsh that that westerns even after have tended to avoid a similar ultimate result, the closest probably being Unforgiven and even the harshness of that ending utterly pales in comparison with the audacity and harshness of this one, especially since this was 25 years earlier.

The rest of the story itself is also fresh, fascinating, tense, and very cynical. Spaghettis tend to be much more cynical than American westerns (at least until the Wild Bunch), but this is among the most cynical and unusual of all. Here, the bounty hunters who kill "according to the law" are the clear baddies, shown as cruel and greedy and the film spares no punches in pointing out how technically their actions were legal and justifiable, yet they were vicious and evil, taking their jobs to the extreme. The good guys are, aside from the sheriff who tries to reign in their violent way of enforcing the law, the outlaws and Silence, a man who hires himself out to kill bounty hunters. This is very fresh, and although Leone touched on the nastiness of bounty hunters, only in films such as the Wild Bunch and Unforgiven do we see commentary on the hunters that even approaches this in harshness, cynicism, and irony.

The characters are great and unusual, as well, and the lead actors portray them wonderfully. Trintingnat is excellent and utterly sympathetic as the emotionally battered Silence, a killer who is nevertheless spurred on by a sense of justice, not greed, and who tries to avoid unnecessary killing. In contrast is Loco and has buddies, who kill solely for financial gain, and who never bother to bring their victims in alive, even when possible. Kinski, as usual, is great as the baddie, giving a sense of evil that is visible in every part of him. Here, he's even greater than usual, for he isn't snarling and quivering with emotion, but cold, calm, even polite. This makes him seem even more evil and frightening, especially since you can still sense his viciousness simmering in the eyes and beneath his cold facade. I especially love how he matter-of-factly explains his position within the law to the sheriff and others.

The setting is incredible, as are some of the shots. The snow everywhere is beautiful and harsh, frightening, and eerie at the same time, and the people riding through the snow or coming out of the snowy hills or mist are powerful. The outlaws in the snow, with their scythes and rags, give an incredible, eerie impression, as does Loco hunting victims in the snow or the blackbirds flying overhead. Similarly, the stage rolling past is an incredible scene. The red blood on the white snow is also incredible, artistic, and effective.

The film also has, not surprisingly, an incredible score by Morricone, and it is among the best. It is sad, beautiful, a little eerie, and powerful. It fits exceedingly well with the mood of the film and the scenes.

Most of the film's major drawbacks are perhaps due to budget constraints or at least a possible "B-movie mentality" in film-making. Leone's later films broke far beyond that mould to be truly great films and works of art by every conceivable standard, highly professional, smooth products. This suffers from the main failing of other spaghettis in general, and the film is a bit uneven in technical qualities, film, carefulness of editing, and the like. One can also fault Loco finding the buried gun, but I think that really is nit-picky and it can easily be rationalized.

My single biggest complaint is the failure of Corbucci, et al. to take full advantage of the scenery, contrast of blood and snow, etc., and create more really powerful scenes. I feel that had Leone done this film, and worked on it with the care and style that he brought to the Good... and Once Upon..., he would have thoroughly rectified this. As it was, the scenery, images, eeriness, etc., were great, but they could have been far better.

Duck, You Sucker! (1971)

Another Leone Masterpiece

[10/10 · 17 May 2005]

At first, I was going to rate this a 9 because I felt like my praise for this film was influenced by the fact that it was made Sergio Leone, one of my absolute favourite directors, and that it would seem odd to give so many of his films a 10. However, the truth is, his films usually are that great (with the exception of his pre-Fistfull of Dollars movies) and upon further reflection, I realized that I really do think this film deserves a 10.

This film certainly has a much more profound, and very moving, exploration of the main characters' lives and relationships than Leone's prior films. This is one of the key elements here as the story really gets deep into the psyches and emotions of Juan and Sean, revolves heavily around the development of their relationship, and truly explores their places, roles, and goals in life, as well as how Juan must figure out and cope with his future.

The film is profound in other ways, going deeper than the surface of politics and revolution. As is usual with Leone, nothing is clear cut, and even though the film makes the revolution appear justified in theory, with the rich and powerful being pretty darn bad, the "good guys" and the revolutionaries are themselves complex and not entirely noble (although I should point out that this is not entirely original since the earlier A Bullet for the General showed similar complexities in the same subject, even if it seemed more political and pro-revolution). Juan and his family are essentially bandits, interested in enriching themselves rather than improving society, yet they are protagonists and they become accidental revolutionaries, showing that revolutionaries weren't always fighting for just reasons or ideals. Moreover, revolutionary leaders are shown as flawed and in some ways weak and hypocritical while the revolutionaries are not above spilling a little extra blood.

The film is also the first of Leone's films to have an ending that is in some ways truly sad. The ending in Once Upon a Time in the West had some sadness to it, but it was greatly mitigated and had a different emphasis and focus. Here, one really feels Juan's loss after his life has been turned upside down; his family (who were the entire base of his existence) wiped out, the new friend, whose relationship with him, the film portrays, dead; and with him stuck in a role that he does not want or really understand. The film thus greatly touches upon the nature of, and meaning in, human existence in a way that really is not obvious, at least until the very end.

Rod Steiger and James Coburn really help bring out this strong character exploration and emotion. Both are at their very best in this film, imbuing their characters with great life and making them utterly compelling.

Duck, You Sucker also has Leone's trademark artistic directing and cinematography. It is not chock full of the incredible scenes and images the way the two immediately prior films are, but one only need see a few scenes to know who made it. The opening is typical Leone in that it shows something strange and in a way that does not immediately tell the viewer what is actually going on, drawing the viewer in to find out what he or she is watching. The scene in the coach, with the emphasis on the people eating, is also very effective.

The music is, as usual for a Leone/Morricone collaboration, great and highly effective. It's even more unusual than the music in the Dollars films, and I think some find it odd or unsettling, but it is highly effective.

Babar: The Movie (1989)

Unfaithful and Not Good for Kids or Adults

[3/10 · 17 May 2005]

This film is far inferior to the apparently less-loved and less well-known "Babar:King of the Elephants" and one should not be confused between the two.

In terms of style, animation, etc., the two are very similar, and a lot of the same people worked on both. However, Babar the Movie inexplicably strays from the stories, totally messing with the events as portrayed in the books. One example is that in Babar the Movie, Babar is a very young, and apparently reluctant, king at first, seemingly thrust into the position, and without Celeste as queen. This is completely different from the books where Babar, although chosen king, is mature by then; is the one who makes the elephant society "complex" and urban, etc.; and marries Celeste as soon as he becomes king and before he builds the city. Moreover, the "war" with the rhinos in Babar the Movie is more violent, so it is not as good for really young children, and it is inexplicable and apparently senseless, unlike the fight in Babar: King of the Elephants or the first books.

The story and conflict in Babar the Movie may be based on some of the latest books in the series, but not any of the books I have read, and it differs in story and spirit from the Babar books with which I am familiar. If it is based on later books, then I would venture to say that such books, if actually like this cartoon, stray from the original ones and fail in the same regards and for the same reasons.

Also, adults seem to like this one more because it is less "cutesy" and more "dark," but I disagree with any such opinions. Both cartoons are still child-oriented, neither really is great, neither is very artistic, and neither really transcends the child/family genre to appeal truly to people of all ages. I don't especially enjoy or appreciate kid/family oriented stuff that much, but I don't find this any more appealing to me because it is supposedly more "mature." In fact, the more artistic sequences of Babar: King of the Elephants I find to be handled much better, with greater care, skill, and art, than anything in Babar the Movie. I also find the scene in the other film, where the hunter kills Babar's mom, to be more powerful and interesting, even emotionally unsettling, than the stupid war in Babar the Movie, yet, it has an important point, is highly relevant, and is more appropriate an issue for kids. The war in Babar the Movie is unsettling as it seems totally gratuitous and sensationalized, used simply to create a showy story. It gives the feel of throwing in elements from a low-grade action film with pointless violence used only to gratify base desires, which simply is not appropriate for a cartoon such as this or for Babar.

Babar: King of the Elephants may be a little more "cutesy" than the books, and suffers for this, but it does basically stay faithful to the original spirit.

In sum, if one really wants to watch Babar, then one should watch Babar: King of the Elephants, not this movie. If one instead wants something more artistic or fitting with "mature" tastes, interests, etc., then one should watch neither. Babr the Movie seems to try to straddle both worlds (children and adult), and in doing so fails to succeed in either. Babar: King of the Elephants pretty much knows where it is and it succeeds as a result.

Babar: King of the Elephants (1999)

Pretty Good Adaptation

[7/10 · 17 May 2005]

There aren't really any spoilers here, unless one has never read the books, which is probably not too likely. But, I just wanted to be safe since I do point out a couple events in the cartoon.

Babar: King of the Elephants is really a pretty good adaptation of the books to a cartoon, basically telling the events that are in some of the first few Babar books. The stories and characters are displayed faithfully, telling the events very much as they happen in the books, basically staying true to the stories, the themes, and the characters. There is some conflict, but it is mild and very appropriate even for the youngest of children.

This film is not great art and it is nothing special in terms of animation, etc., but it is solid and gets the job done. The result is fairly entertaining, although a little more child-oriented than adults might like. Some scenes in particular are done quite well, such as the beginning with the "jungle" noises, the singing birds, and the credits, as well as the scene where Babar's mom is shot. On the other hand, some musical sequences like "getting the job done" as Babar makes his city are a little corny and definitely only kids are likely to appreciate it.

I also want to add that I find this film far superior to the apparently more loved and well-known "Babar the Movie" and that one should not be confused between the two. In terms of style, animation, etc., the two are very similar, and a lot of the same people worked on both. However, Babar the Movie inexplicably strays from the stories, totally messing with the events as portrayed in the books. One example is that in Babar the Movie, Babar is a very young, and apparently reluctant, king at first, seemingly thrust into the position, and without Celeste as queen. This is completely different from the books, and this film, where Babar, although chosen king, is mature by then; is the one who makes the elephant society "complex" and urban, etc.; and marries Celeste as soon as he becomes king and before he builds the city. Moreover, the "war" with the rhinos in Babar the Movie is more violent, so it is not as good for really young children, and it is inexplicable and apparently senseless, unlike the fight in this movie or the first books. The story and conflict in Babar the movie may be based on some of the latest books in the series, but not any of the books I have read, and it differs in story and spirit from the Babar books with which I am familiar. Babar: KLing of the Elephants may be a little more "cutesy" than the books, and suffers for this, but it does basically stay faithful to them.

Code Name: Wild Geese (1984)

Pretty Bad

[2/10 · 11 May 2005]

I saw this film quite by accident. We had decided to watch The Wild Geese (with Richard Burton, et al.) but the person who went to the video store brought back this on accident, apparently thinking that there was some connection between the two films, which I suspect was part of the reason it has this name. There is no connection, other than the similar name and the fact that they both deal with mercenaries sent to some troubled region.

I was rather downcast upon finding out this was not the right film, but kept my hopes up. I was very familiar with Lee van Cleef, and find that he can do a very good job, and I had recently become familiar with Lewis Collins from a couple good or decent films he had been in.

However, even this hope was to be dashed. This film is really quite bad. The acting is bad, being either wooden or over the top and Lee van Cleef is nowhere near his best here. The whole plot is like a formulaic, brainless version of The Wild Geese, the production values are bad, and the action or chase scenes are poorly produced and sometimes utterly ridiculous. I wouldn't bother with this one and would check out the far superior The Wild Geese (a pretty good film) or even the latter's "sequel" Wild Geese II, which itself is mediocre but much better than this.