JKwiat5787 Reviews

One Million Years B.C. (1966)

The film that launched the body that launched a thousand ships.

[5/10 · 31 December 2015]

I'm not well 'up' on my prehistoric mammals, the ones which inherited the Earthy from the Dinosaurs, or I'd suggest remaking this film to be little bit more accurate from a natural history standpoint. You wouldn't want to set it in the Ice Age. You'd have had to cover Raquel in fur, and covering so much as an inch of her skin (beyond what's needed to avoid an 'R' rating, of course) was to be avoided at all costs. After all, that was what people, especially guys, paid to see. But how about having the hero defend the village from an attack by a saber-toothed tiger? Hunting Woolley Mammoths would be out; they, from what I know, lived in cold, snowy climates, and that would have required covering Raquel up, as I noted above. That's why the extra research would be needed. What monsters would people have faced in those days in a warm climate, where Welch could stick with her doe-skin bikini? What about hunting horses no bigger than dogs? Harryhausen did fine with that little project in 'The Valley of Gwangi', and they did exist. It;s known that these little horses lived in North America and they were hunted to extinction. It took the Spanish to introduce ridable horses to their possession in the Americas in the 1500s.

I'm sure Ray Harryhausen would have done as well with a saber-toothed tiger as he did with a T-Rex or a triceratops. The basic plot needn't have changed, but the relationship between Tumac, his father, and his brother might have been softened a bit. You don't have to get rid of the sibling rivalry entirely, but it doesn't have to be lethal.

Still, fun to watch.

Midway (1976)

Quasi-history lesson in three hours

[8/10 · 23 January 2009]

My main problem with the production had to do with some of the dialog, which sounded like it was aimed at a junior-high-school audience. The premise by which this movie was produced was obvious to me when I saw it as a high-schooler in 1976: get the main facts right and let the special effects really sell the story. In that respect it was like Star Wars without the light sabers and the blasters. (You obviously had to stick with the weapons systems available on Earth in 1942.) There were bits and pieces of the story left out due to time constraints, like the Japanese dive-bomber attack on 'Yorktown' getting chewed to pieces by F4F wildcats. Time constraints also forced the leaving out for proper explanations of strategic decisions like Nimitz's decision to keep his remaining carriers in the vicinity of Midway after 'Yorktown' is damaged. There was more to it than just 'wanting the fourth carrier'. I don't have too much to say about the sub-plot involving Ensign Garth and his Japanese-American girlfriend that others haven't already said. Probably the most historically-correct aspect of the movie was the differences in the effectiveness of American and Japanese intelligence. All Japanese errors stemmed from their poor intelligence regarding the location of our carriers, and most of what went right for us stemmed from us knowing where there's were.

The fact that I usually watch it whenever its on says enough for my opinion of its watchability.

The Longest Day (1962)

Fine adaptation

[1 January 2009]

To really judge this film, as well as 'A Bridge Too far', one needs to read the book either after or (better yet) before seeing the film. Every time this film comes on, I find myself flipping through my battered paperback copy of the book, especially at the point where Private Schultz decides he needs to lose the $2,500 he won at craps. That actually happened, though there is no mention of him having suffered any serious injuries during training.

Probably the most glaring deviation from the book is that the final breakout from Omaha Beach wasn't as dramatic as was portrayed in the film. Those who survived fought their way off that beach inch by bloody inch. It is true that General Cota was very inspirational to his men in the 29th Infantry Division as he tried to move his men off the beach. I was pleased that some of the more minor 'idiosycracies', like Lord Lovat having his personal piper with him, were accurately portrayed, as well as the incident when Lovat's commandos relieved Major Howard's Paratroopers at 'Pegasus Bridge.' That incident was retold fairly accurately, although I'm not so sure about the exchange of words between Pvt. Flanagan and the other Irish soldier, regarding the way Bill Millin played the bagpipes. It did strike me as classic British humor in a time of stress.

By the way, one error on this page that might be cleared up. Pips Priller's Luftwaffe 'buddy' and wingman, the one who complained about 'not being able to get any sleep', was no major. He's Flight Sergeant Heinz Wodarcyck, Priller's regular wingman on the staff flight of Jagdgeschwader (fighter wing) twenty-six. Also, Priller's final official score was 101, not the 130-some-odd mentioned in the movie. He survived the war, so it's entirely possible that some of those kills occurred after D-Day. Wodarcyck was killed in Operation Bodeplatte, a major strike coordinated with the Battle of the Bulge, intended to wipe out the U.S. 9th Air Force, and maybe the British 2nd Air Force, on the ground in Belgium. That was New Year's day 1945.

The Caine Mutiny (1954)

A couple of points...

[10 June 2008]

I've seen this movie many times, and generally have lots of good things to say about it. Everyone who's seen it knows how good the acting was, especially Humprey Bogart, who, so I'm told, was wracked with pain from cancer at this time. I more remember Fred McMurray as the kindly father from 'My Three Sons' and as the 'Absent-Minded Perfesser' so it was refreshing to see him do a different role and do it well. Probably the next best performance was by Van Johnson, as the executive officer, loyal to his captain at first, who, in the end, jeopardizes his career in his attempt to save what seems to him a foundering vessel. But there are a couple of things I want to say, all regarding the 'yellow stain' incident.

One, unless I performed as badly as the Commander Queeg had in that incident, he would have lost my respect as well. He performed the acts of a coward in a combat situation when all around him were functioning properly. Coupled with what else happened, of course he lost the respect of his officers. There is a difference between deference to authority and true respect for one's leaders. That's why unpopular officers in Vietnam ended up being murdered by their own men. (Of course, the general discipline breakdown of the army in Vietnam bred these things).

Two, when this happened, the entire Fifth Fleet, our 'sledgehammer in the Pacific', was supposedly on hand, supporting this landing. Ships and aircraft are everywhere. Am I to understand that nobody but the crew of the 'Caine' knew what was going on? Somebody, somewhere, MUST have seen the ship drop that dye marker and retire at high speed, and wondered 'Hey, what's that old destroyer doing? I've never seen anybody do that in an amphibious landing. Are they supposed to be doing that? The ship doesn't look like she's been hit...what's going on?'

Lastly, I think it IS possible for a coward, in peacetime, to rise to the command of a military unit, especially a small one like a destroyer-minesweeper. Does anybody know how well they will perform when they realize that people are actually trying to kill them? I've always talked a good fight but since I've never been in combat I can't guarantee that I wouldn't be the biggest chicken in any outfit. I think, given human nature, the people who accurately predict that they will perform poorly in combat will outnumber those who will predict accurately that they will perform well in the same situation. the real surprise comes, I think, when the soldier in combat finds he CAN function in his first engagement. But then there's also that reaction to having killed your first man...

The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

Better than the book

[28 January 2008]

First I saw the movie and got excited by the beautiful backdrop scenery. Then I found out that the two main historical events depicted, the siege and fall of Fort William Henry and the subsequent massacre, actually happened. So I saw the movie again. Then I read the book. Then I read a good book about the French and Indian War.

This is an instance where the movie deviates from the book and is the better for it. Then I'm pleased with the fact that history wasn't tampered with, at least not too much. Historians aren't sure how the Fort William Henry massacre was triggered or how complete it was; it IS documented that the massacre actually happened. I find no historical record of Colonel Munro conducting any campaign of lodge-burning against the Huron; but then again it IS documented that Munro did not have any daughters. Those characters are in the book as well as the movie. Cooper invented them himself.

The idea of Huron war parties raiding on the frontier doesn't pop up in the book or the historical record, but it's perfectly plausible; the native Americans fought that way all through the Coloinal period. The savagery of Native American warfare is depicted fairly accurately; all accounts I have confirm that. The concept of taking captives is depicted accurately too, for the reasons described.

Being of the bent that I am, I find the dual love stories involving (1) the Cora Munro-Hawkeye-Major Heywood triangle and (2) the Uncas-Alice Munro relationship all well and good; they were done well enough. I was more fascinated by the historical backdrop and the very nice North Carolina scenery, which is supposed to mimic the Adirondacks, where the story is set.

For those with time on their hands and money to spend, both Fort William Henry and Fort Carillon (better known as Fort Ticonderog) exist; they have been fully restored and are now historical museums. I visited Fort Ticonderoga when I was 12 years old, and found it fascinating. Now that I've seen this movie I want to go out that way again, start at Fort William and Henry and work my way North to Crown Point, learning all I can on the way.

What I really recommend is to see the movie once, enjoying the scenery and the love stories, as well as the action. Then read "The French and Indian War: Deciding the Fate of North America" by Walter R. Borneman. Then see the movie again, from a different perspective.

100 Rifles (1969)

Acting? Plaot? Who needs 'em

[26 January 2008]

After a quick perusal of some of the other comments I wonder if 'plot' or 'acting ability' were even intended. The attractions were Raquel Welch (for the guys to drool over) and Burt Reynolds (for the gals to drool over) with Hall-of-Fame fullback Jim Brown thrown in for good measure and a story which makes for an entertaining shoot 'em up if you're into that sort of thing. Setting the whole thing in politically unstable Mexico in the turn of the century gives the story an air of plausibility, especially with Eric Braeden being added as a German adviser. (Also more eye candy for the ladies.) Come to think of it, it's not balanced; the ladies have Reynolds, Brown, Braeden, and Fernado Lamas to look at; the guys only have Welch. I can't comment on the historical backdrop the way I do with a lot of my other comments because I know close to nothing about what was going on there at the time. I've heard of Pancho Villa, but that's about it.

Most of these actors probably never got to really show if they could act since their sex appeal sort of became the secret of their success. Did anybody ever coach Welch as an actress? I wouldn't bet on it. They'd just dress her up in an outfit that made the most of her natural attributes, tell her to look sexy, and roll the camera. At least, that's my prejudiced notion. However, I know Welch was at least partly Hispanic, so a Mexican girl like in this movie and in Bandolero! may have come a bit more naturally.

The Legend of Zorro (2005)

Hollywood attempts historical sleight of hand.

[6/10 · 18 January 2008]

I've read a few of the other comments on this film and I agree that's it's a good one if you're looking for fun and not taking it too seriously. As for me, with my interest in history and the historical backdrops of films, I figure it was old-fashioned illusionism. While my eyes are fastened on the beautiful assistant (Catharine-Zeta Jones as Elena De La Vega) the scriptwriters hope I don't notice the historical inaccuracies they try to slip by me, many of which are touched on in the 'goofs' section. I've got plenty of information, for instance, on the Henry Rifle, which was patented October 16, 1860, while California was admitted to the Union Septmebr 9, 1850. That didn't bother me so much as the supposed involvement of the Confederate Government, which wouldn't be organized for 11 yeas. The only plot premise that had any credibility was the tension between Alejandro Vega (Antonio Banderas) and his wife over his activities as Zorro. She's naturally a bit worried that one of these nights his luck's going to run out and he'll be delivered home with a sword sticking out of his chest. Banderas and Jones show that they've got a little bit of the comic in them as they argue as they go about trying to foil the villains' plot.

Plot wise i think the Tyrone Power-basil Rathbone version is best, but while Linda Darnell is - or was - nice in her heyday, Jones blows 'em all away. She's the highlight of the film.

Planet of the Apes (1968)

Racial as well as religious commentary?

[8/10 · 26 May 2007]

I haven't read the other user comments, some of which are pretty lengthy, so I don't know if anybody else picked up on this particular point. It has to do with the scene right after the famous 'take your filthy paws off me' sequence, where Taylor is talking to Nova. A number of gorillas enter the holding area where Taylor is being held. Julius turns a fire hose on Taylor, who is in the cage he shares with Nova, enabling a couple of other gorillas to enter the cage and remove Nova. She ends up in another cage. The point/question is this: might this not be a reference to 'Bull' Conner turning fire hoses on Civil Rights protesters in (I believe it was) Selma, Alabama, in what was then recent history? If so, this becomes another social comment in a movie which does a fine job of concealing social commentary in the context of one of the finest science-fiction stories ever thought of. This puts this series of these movies on an approximate par with 'Star Trek', the original series of which was going through it's first run at that time, and which also buried social commentary inside of it's stories.

Something struck me as funny when I read the trivia section. I saw there how Roddy McDowell liked to drive home with his makeup on, evoking reaction from various motorists who would notice what appeared to be a chimpanzee driving a car. I could just picture the situation if he had been pulled over by one of LA's finest for some infraction or other. The cop steps up to the side of the vehicle to request to see the driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance coverage, and is greeted by what seems to be a chimpanzee operating a four wheeled motorized vehicle on a public road (or highway) in the State of California.

"Is there a problem, officer?"

A Bridge Too Far (1977)

Read the book...

[8/10 · 15 July 2006]

Beiung a World War II history buff, first I saw this movie, then I read the book. As a story adapted from a book, I tend, maybe unfairly, to compare it with the Harry Potter series. "Bridge' was made with 1977 special effects technology, which had to recreate events which actually happened. The Potter stories used computer technology to conjure up a fantasy world. The comparison comes, as I said, from the fact that both are movie adaptations of books.

I saw the film in the theater but can't remember having been wowed by the jump sequence, which I'm sure must have been breathtaking. Likewise for the artillery bombardment which preceded the initial attack of the Irish Guards.

A similarity to the Potter series is the fact that due to time constraints, a great deal of background information (from the book(s))has to be left out. Some things which might be regarded as errors reflect the fact that screenwriters aren't necessarily historians. Browning, in the first meeting with the three division commanders involved, claims that 'this sort of thing hasn't been attempted before'. Not only is he ignoring the 18,000 man airborne drop into Normandy in the pre-dawn hours of June 6, 1944, but he seems to have forgotten that the Germans attacked Crete in 1941 with 20,000 paratroopers. They took the island but suffered shattering casualties in the process. Gavin may allude to the fact that there was a large-scale German airborne assault in Holland in 1940, which was targeted at bridges and airfields and suffered heavy casualties.

I tend to wonder what Brits think of the disparaging remarks regarding Field Marshall Montgomery which were written into the conversation between Von Rundstedt and Model. Having read other books about the war, I have a little bit of an idea of the problems that Montgomery was facing with regard to manpower. Put simply, while the Bristish soldier, man for man, is as tough a fighter as you'll find, Britain, being a small Island nation, has a tough time fielding large armies. That's why an American wound up with Supreme Command; most of the troops on the western front were ours! Put simple, Monty couldn't afford having his army suffer heavy casualties; that evidently affected his style of command. He liked to stack the deck in his favor as much as he could, before launching any operation. My main criticism of him is that he tended, as Abe Lincoln once said it, to 'cackle before he laid his egg'. Which means he'd talk about how he was going to do this and that to his enemy, then not have to cover up a bit if things didn't go according to plan. Like at the end of the movie, when Browning tells Urquhart that Monty thought that Market-Garden was ninety percent successful. It's more like an American football game, where the home team drove the ball seventy-five yards to the opponents five and came away with no points, and got a lot of players hurt in the process. How could you say that the operation succeeded, when all along everyone said that failure of any part of the operation meant total failure?

My main praise of the picture has to do with how much of the story got told accurately and well in the time allotted. I went back to the book to find out that Anthony Dean-Drummond, the British signalman who was worried about his radios working in Holland, was worried about exactly that, and that they failed in the manner depicted.

My main criticism has to do with General Sosabowski's comment at the end of the story. "I know what let's do today. Let's play the 'war' game' Everybody dies'. If he felt that way, he should have put his comments in a letter to Herr Hitler in Berlin, who seems to have been an individual who thought that war was truly a fun thing to participate in. (?!) You have to read a lot about him, and watch movies like 'Triumph of the Will' to see that. Sosabowski's comment sounded to me like he blamed the Allied High Command for starting the war. As a Pole, he probably was on hand when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939. he should be the most rabid general Officer in that group. The British officers should be next; the order being, who's homes got bombed by the Germans? The Germans never bombed the United States, but their U-boats sank lots of our merchant ships, so that's the only reason why Gavin and Taylor might harbor personal animosity against the Germans. War is easier if you hate your enemy, and Sosabowski should hate the Germans viciously for what they did to Poland.

Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981)

Is this what we're coming to?

[7/10 · 15 July 2006]

I'm watching this movie once again as I type this comment, and what I'm most struck by is the narrator's prologue. As gasoline prices in my area tickle three bucks a gallon for regular, the prologue begins to sound like prophecy a la Jules Verne, who predicted submarines in '20,000 Leagues Under The Sea'. Mocern Western Civilization is powered by fossil fuel, and when the fossil fuel is gone, so will civilization be. I am NOT confident that we will come up with any alternatives. And it'll be worse, because we will also have the problems of a huge population (6 billion+ as I type) and global warming, so it' won't simply be a matter of going back to the technology of 1800.

The best science fiction has to do with the plausible, and this movie, seen again in these times, should scare people because conditions like those depicted are very well what may be in store for our kids and grand kids.

Fighter Squadron (1948)

Fairly Decent, but could be redone much better today using CDI.

[22 April 2006]

I read a lot about the history of this campaign. I am pleased to see so many notice that the ME-109s in the combat sequences are actually P-51s in drag. Being a Mustang fan, I would have preferred it the other way around, with the P-51s as the good guys and the P-47s trying to impersonate Focke-Wulf 190s, something they probably wouldn't have been able to do. I always chalked the P-51s-as-109s to Hollywood trying to stay under budget. In those day there were plenty of National Guard P-51 units and any one of them would have been happy to be in the movies, I'm sure. Some of the one General's general orders ring true, like P-47s not being allowed to go below 18,000 feet, but that was because the FW-190 was better that earlier P-47s at those heights. If there was anything that I objected to, it was the idea of a 'test strike' on Berlin with 30 B-17s. Raids of that type are never attempted as half-measures. What actually happened is, the first time we tried for Berlin, the weather got too bad and the mission was recalled. That was March 3, 1944. The next day we tried again and the mission was recalled again, except that one group didn't get the recall message and 30 bombers actually unloaded over Berlin. I have no information as to whether they actually hit what they were aiming at or not. We finally hit 'em on March 6, and went back several times. It's said that when Hermann Goering saw B-17s with fighter escort over Berlin, he knew that Germany would ultimately lose the war.

From A to Z-Z-Z-Z (1953)

The daydreams of a boy with ADD.

[8/10 · 27 December 2005]

This cartoon is about a boy with Attention Deficit Disorder, done at a time when the affliction was not well understood at all (that only happened after 1980). I relate to it, as I'm sure anybody with ADD does. This also points up how widespread the disorder is: either Jones had it, or he knew someone who did. I'm sure that if I told my old high school classmates that there are an estimated fifteen million of us in the United States alone, they'd day "You mean there's fifteen million like YOU, Joe? God save the country!

Then again, that teacher's teaching methods are so boring that it's a wonder she holds the attention of any of those kids for any length of time at all!

Memphis Belle (1990)

Nice visually but historically flawed.

[6/10 · 13 November 2005]

I would have to confess that I didn't watch this movie very closely the last time I saw it as I was looking up information on this plane on the web, and in books I own...the visual effects, especially of the German fighter attacks, are fine but the Belle's last target was Lorient, a port in France, not Bremen, Germany. The Belle flew her 25th mission on May 17, 1943. However, the movie shows P-51 Mustangs providing fighter escort. Problem here: the P-51 wasn't available until December 1943. Further, the P-51's greatest asset was it's range; it would have been able to take B-17s all the way to Bremen and home again. P-51s, with additional drop tanks, could take B-17s to Berlin and Bremen is only a little more than half the distance. As it was, the three available groups of P-47s couldn't even cover the mission to Lorient; they were sent on a fighter sweep of Northern France and Belgium.

According to my research, on six of the Belles missions no repeat no losses were suffered, although bombers were damaged. The only time that the attacking force lost bombers in double digits in any raid that the Belle was on would have been her twenty-first mission, April 17, 1943. 115 bombers went to Bremen...16 were shot down. Aircrews reported that enemy air reaction was the heaviest they'd yet seen.

The real casualties came during the summer and fall of 1943, when the 8th bomber command went deep into Germany. Also, by that time, the higher German fighter officers would have had time to figure out how to go about attacking B-17 formations, which was a hazardous proposition, despite the casualties suffered during the crisis period of October 1943.

Battle of Britain (1969)

Good retelling of the story of the Battle, with decent historical accuracy.

[8/10 · 25 July 2005]

Movies like this don't get enough credit for their fine special effects. Did they use real Spitfires, Hurricanes, ME-109Es, etc., or were those models blowing up, trailing smoke, etc. Usually, to get an award for special effects, there has to be some illusion of magic, like the Harry Potter series, or laser bolts going to and fro, like the Star Wars films.

He isn't identified as such, but I think Harry Andrews plays Sir Archibald Sinclair, who is Secretary of State for Air in the 'new' (only in existence since May 11, 1940) Winston Churchill government. Sometimes I get exasperated with the Internet Movie database for not identifying characters like this, until it occurs to me that they aren't identified in the movie itself. The captain of 'Prince Of Wales' in 'Sink the Bismarck' is a good example, as are a lot of the other characters in that one. If they're not identified in the film itself, it's not the responsibility of the database to find out who they are. The database uses pretty much the same identification the character has in the movie.

They say Roert Shaw's charsacter was based on British ace 'Sailor' Malan, who rpeached the rule 'never fly straight and level in the combat area for more than thirty seconds'.

They do a good job of explaining things to the audience which the characters already should know about and understand - like how the control system for ADGB (Air Defence Great Britain) worked.