IslandMadMacs

I hope this review finds a home amongst the long suffering hardcore fans who must've been in agony (30+ years!) for the official release. But it's here and I hope you guys enjoy the well-deserved DVD production.

First off, I'm a huge fan of the TV mini-series format that ran from the 70's thru the late 80's, and I was stunned that I had never heard of this production before. Not once ever. As I think about it, I'm still amazed that this slipped past for so long.

I read all 35 reviews that were posted here since 1998 (IMDB reviews) - and I agree with all of you wholeheartedly - this was a fantastic and truly wonderful production.

And I also agree it was a dastardly crime that it took this long for 'Once An Eagle' to be given back to the viewing public.

Okay, onto the review. (some spoilers - so be warned)

As new fan of the series, I was surprised at how good the story that was told. Typically, as others have mentioned, the WWII drama is over the top, hyper-melodramatic and ultimately "Hollywood-ized" - presenting a false, and ultimately, empty impression of the lives of soldiers, both officers and enlisted; especially those soldiers who did their service in between WWI and WWII. Can you imagine being a 2LT for 17 years?!?

You couldn't have better defined the transition between a peacetime Army and wartime Army. The crafty officers who ably played the political game often meant that battle troops would be left behind in the promotions department; creating the initial paper-pusher trained service that combat hardened Imperial Japanese forces could take advantage of.

Love that scene when John Fujioka, despite portraying an army officer who looks suspiciously like Hideki Tojo, clearly represented the real-life naval attaché to Washington D.C. in that period - a certain Captain Isoroku Yamamoto who often deftly deflected concerns that Imperial Japan would ever be a threat to the United States. That clever warrior. He was already on a war footing back in '28, thirteen years before Pearl.

And very interestingly, I enjoyed how the production dealt with Court's homosexuality without having to confront it, which would have skewed the storyline in a pathetic attempt to validate some kind of political point, either pro or con. Very well done. Subtlety like this is a lost art in today's world of screaming-in-your-face lack of diplomatic skills. I realize that some may disagree with me here. But that's my impression given the collective scenes of the man on a personal level; what little there was to reveal - was very revealing indeed.

I've read the comparisons between this and 'Winds Of War'. Until I had seen 'Eagle' - I would've been hard pressed to say that anything was better for the period. And because of the budget, obviously the battle scenes will always favor Winds. But the true character and temperament of the war, the men and women who were involved - you have to watch Once An Eagle.

My only serious complaint was the ending. It felt like it was shortened by one episode, with many unanswered and unresolved questions. For example:

• What happened with Sam's decision to hold Court responsible for his actions at "Palladium"? Of course he stuck to his guns and went forward, but what about after?

• The point at which 'Palladium' occurs suggests the latter part of the war, mid-to-late 1944. There was still a lot of fighting and many battles left in the Pacific theater - was Sam ever given a chance to command again? Or did he lose his chance by accusing a fellow officer of dereliction and murder? Typically those charges in an official inquiry will always taint both officers involved - irrespective of the results, but the ending doesn't point to any single foregone conclusion.

• Did Sam and Tommie ever resolve their issues with one another, the loss of their son, and get back together? I know that things pointed in that direction, but to see them put Donny to rest *as a couple* and move on would have been a reward for viewers who traveled with them throughout their amazing journey. A summation, perhaps after the war had ended, showing them at the home on the lake. Something.

• Was Jinny ever able to settle down and find a life of her own apart from her highly dysfunctional family?

• Was it possible, however remotely, that Donny somehow survived? I know they had the funeral, meaning the Army Air Corp was able to retrieve the remains. But it happened back then that some aviators survived - concealing their American identities by tossing their dog tags into a pile of burning wreckage to throw off & evade opposing forces, attempting to contact partisans, and maybe even make it back to the allied lines.

Even a counting of... skulls... would mean little if the B-29 stuck bottom first - the ball turret gunner's body would have essentially disintegrated making an accurate accounting improbable. Or even worse - had the B29 been unable to drop its payload before impact - what would the corps troops think? The bodies, what little remained, would be completely destroyed thereby making a count of the tags meaningless if not impossible. I can't see how anyone could make an honest appraisal in those situations. Questions like these haunted families for years afterwards, so I honestly see it as possible.

Overall - fantastic and well worth the 7 hours spent.

I always and thoroughly enjoy stumbling onto a hidden unexpected gem. :-)

A wonderful television mini-series completely ruined by a 45-year old woman trying desperately to pass herself off as a 16-year old ingenue! No exaggeration - that's the ACTUAL age of the character played by Ali MacGraw when the film opens just prior to the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. This TV mini-series really is the most classic example of the title of this post and one I refer to whenever the topic comes up.

That alone makes this completely unwatchable, despite the fact it's one of the best filmed WWII 'global' dramas TV has ever produced. If you have the stomach - or a decent fast-forward ability - you might be able to enjoy the late Robert Mitchum in a very strong performance.

I'm stunned at some of the comments referring to the love story (pun intended). Did they watch the film with their eyes closed? Or are they aging boomers who never cease to amaze me with their "selective memories" and "selective vision". I'm a Boomer myself so don't think for a second I'm some hubristic young punk. 45 WILL ALWAYS LOOK 45. Get used to it. Deal with it. Age gracefully damnit.

The Winds Of War could have been... so good. How much more would we be talking about this mini-series today, some 25 years later, had an ACTUAL ingenue been cast in such an important & critical role? Right now, with the constant haggard old biddy distraction, that alone cancels out most of the wonderful aspects of The Winds Of War.

Wonderful, fantastic, special, and yes - Rare.

I know I detest it when reviewers gush, particularly for a marginal film whose mindless hordes of fans are whipped into passion by the legion of talking heads. Parroting what they say, or worse, believing what they've witnessed actually stumbles its way into the 'special' category. I can think of a good dozen half-baked flicks where it's more important to invoke the sanctioned dogma rather than speak a personal truth. ('Titanic' and 'Dr. Strangelove' come to mind)

This isn't one of them.

Just finished watching "Rare Birds" and I'm genuinely floored - exhausted even. I'm laughed and loved out, totally depleted from the joy of this film. It's been a loooooong time since I enjoyed losing myself in a mildly out-of-kilter world inhabited by good friends, good meals, fine wines, a stunningly beautiful woman, industrial spies from the recreational vehicle conglomerates, 20 kilos of cocaine, perpetual fusion energy, an extinct mallard, and lest we forget, a homemade submarine of questionable seaworthiness. (note to self: gotta fix that brake)

If you loved "Local Hero", this will find a wonderful home in your collection. I'm planning on purchasing an extra just for the office - for when I need to 'get away'.

Then prepare to be flattered. This film has long since been shunted aside as the dubious and inferior version of the 1974 classic. And while it's true that the 'made-for-tv' label lacks the star-studded ensemble which had Lauren Bacall leading a troupe that would be virtually impossible to recast today, especially given the salary and artistic 'demands' of current leading performers; what's completely overlooked is that this film *works*.

I first saw this when it was broadcast on a local CBS affiliate in 2001, not out of interest but curiosity. How would Alfred Molina interpret the role so memorably and indelibly created by Albert Finney? How would the writers craft the isolation needed for the plot to work - given this takes place in modern times and deals with the virtual impossibility of escaping the information world? And most importantly, how would the director and writers create enough drama for this, one of the best loved "murder-mysteries" in filmdom, when everyone even remotely familiar with the original film production knows in advance how it all ends?

Despite all those hurdles, I was impressed. Molina delivers a wonderful performance as the dandified private detective. Even going so far as to give us a wonderful (and accurate) character revelation - seen early in the film when he must deal with the loss of a beautiful and vivacious woman. And speaking of which - when did it become okay to accept implied homosexuality in character where Christie herself had Poirot of the novels hopelessly in love with a woman? (Countess Vera Rossakoff) How and when does his sexuality even become Poirot's most important character trait to comment on? The amount of reviewers here suggesting that very thing is STUNNING. Read the books before making assumptions! I'd like to quote TV character Frasier Crane here (another metrosexual like Poirot) and say, "I've never seen anyone 'in' themselves before."

And to the "reviewer" who points to the inaccuracy of the real Orient Express' existence. Well, duh, it's *explained in the film*. Guess you wouldn't know that if you had watched the film in the first place. And if you had, why point out the "inaccuracy"? Don't try to ply your con here you pretentious fop. (this reviewer actually has the nerve to claim humility in his post - incredible)

Still, I do agree that Meredith Baxter was terribly miscast. Never an actress of great ability, her portrayal in the key role of Caroline Hubbard was far beyond her reach. And her screeching voice does tend to wear on you. However, I'd like to offer up cheers to Dylan Smith, who did an absolutely outstanding job as the gimmick entrepreneur and freshly born capitalist Tony Foscarelli - he was hilarious!

I can recall early in 2001, when hearing about this production, speaking with a fellow film fan about how shocking it was that David Suchet was not cast in the role he had been steadily doing for more than ten years in the ongoing BBC series. But after seeing this film - I have to tell you that Molina does a fantastic job. Within ten minutes he was Hercule Poirot. Admittedly a touch more gregarious and less coiffed-n-dandified than you would expect. And quite a bit taller than imagined by Christie, but still a worthy interpretation.

There are far too many reviewers here who seem to be extremely priggish themselves. Frothing over the '74 version as if it we were talking 'Casablanca' or 'Gone With The Wind' where recreation or reinterpretation is truly impossible. Relativity. Everything is relative and should be placed in its proper context. It's been nearly *thirty years* since the Lumet version. My God, an entire human generation has been born, grown up, and had kids of their own since 1974. Are you so entrenched in your own wistful memories of youth to deny another generation Poirot and Christie? That's well-aged hubris and denial talking. "No, it's *our* story", "No, *ours* is better!" Can you hear the creaking bones of the baby boomers? (I'm one myself so don't go pointing your cane at me)

I would encourage you to find your own path and not be deterred by doddering old codgers who won't give up the torch. Sometimes you have to TAKE it from their decrepit clutches. Especially the Boomers - who are obviously not going to do so gracefully.

Is this as good as the 1974 version? No. But, is it as good as the story it wants to tell? Yes, very much so. Check out both films and enjoy the subtle variations of a new storyteller.

I'm not surprised at some of the more gratuitous reviews here as you have to be very wary of IMDb users who actually have the nerve to incorporate pretentious nonsense to spice up their lack of insight. How often do you actually hear someone use the words: "...I dare say..." in a real conversation without laughing? Oh, and let's not forget: "...dry humor helps to bring out the after-taste of Grant's persona." Are you kidding? What're we supposed to do - DRINK the film??? Oh and my favorite, "...and watch Grant rise above mediocrity." What? What'd you do - watch *one* Cary Grant film to make that preposterous statement?!? This was the same period he did "Notorious" with Ingrid Bergman and "Penny Serenade" with Irene Dunne. Some folks need to get some films under their collective belts before making foolish comments and offering them up as 'film reviews'. Sheesh, the cost of freedom - having to wade through the muck of everyone who has a computer, internet access, and the need to see their handiwork in public. Let's get down to business and review a film made during the same period when Grant was at his best and cut down the pompous showboating of those who seem most pleased at regurgitating a syntax they don't use in real life. Filmed in 1944, during the height of Grant's career, this film comes as quite a shock. The uneven production values and motley script seem to mark this film from a much earlier period - something akin to productions made during the early 30's where a tight screenplay and good direction was not a necessity. However talent, and Grant had that in spades, talent shines through despite a weak screenplay and ham-fisted direction. Portraying a man who has played it footloose-n-fancy free his entire existence, Grant's character Ernie Mott, now has to face the moral, financial, and family obligations he has spent a lifetime avoiding. On one of his rare visits back home Ernie learns that his loving and ever supportive mother is now very ill and likely to pass on. Facing her death forces him to grudgingly take on the many challenges of adulthood; including: caring for an ill parent, taking over a family business to earn an honest wage, and honestly dealing with the women who care for him beyond the carefree dalliances he's come to enjoy. Grant portrays what's known today as "a player" - a love'em and leave'em type guy. And despite all best intentions Ernie is quickly seduced into the easy life of crime and the arms of a loose woman. Typical of dramas of this period - you reap the seeds you sow - and he comes to regret those choices as he's soon forced to prey on the very people he loves - in the very neighborhood where he grew up. What he does then and the choices he makes culminate the film. While a standard moral drama - Grant's performance shines as we get to see "Archie Leach". As you watch the film you'll see that he wasn't acting so much as revealing who Cary Grant truly was. Not the suave, debonair gentlemen cat burglar seducing Grace Kelly, but the street-wise kid who grew up in the rough - a sweet Cockney hustler with a talent for joyful mimicry. This was the real Cary Grant - no acting. And on that level this is a most wonderful film and a 'must see' for fans.

Unlike several of the IMDb reviewers who have obviously grinded their sexual/political axe when viewing it through their tinted prisms - I never go into a film with a 21st century predisposition. Still, this is a difficult movie to critique, even taking into consideration the period and accepting the mindset when this movie was filmed.

Clearly this falls into the farcical light comedies of the late 50's/early-mid 60's. Exemplfying the male 'heaven' where a dashing global man of means has several beautiful women (airline "hostesses" no less) plugged into his sexual carnival. But even taking this into account - 'Boeing Boeing' fails to deliver the barrel full of expected suggestive laughs. Levity is there of course, but very sporadic and uneven.

How and Where specifically?

Difficult to define. As both Curtis and Lewis bring their talents to bear, I can only point to the director, John Rich. He tries to capture the 'martini' energy of similar films of the period - 'Some Like It Hot' or 'The Love God?' - but lacked the skill to mesh the cast and material together. (not surprising to discover that he's a TV director and this was his one and only directorial attempt at a feature film) But equally at fault is a script clearly written for the rambling open stage - forced into the constrained demands of film. The harried and frenetic pace reflects a haphazard adaptation of the stage production material.

Rule of thumb to filmmakers: If your viewing audience needs a scorecard to keep track of the players and plot directions - your film needs new a edit, maybe even a new editor.

And scenes that should create sexual tension fall flat as they compete against, and not blend into or with, the slapstick. Conversely, slapstick scenes, which should've brought the skills of Curtis and/or Lewis to the forefront, dribble because they're competing against the sexual energy the scenes actually calls for. An example: When Jerry is "ordered" to massage Ms. Lufthansa - the scene itself isn't filmed; nor is Tony's natural reaction when this event is discovered. Both missing scenes would've led to hilarity. Can you imagine Lewis oiling up and slipping/sliding over Ms. Lufthansa who is curtly directing where he should put his hands or how hard he should push? Or Curtis confronting Lewis, while still covered in oil? Opportunity lost. Instead, the film cuts to Lewis wiping down his hands still *completely dressed* in suit and tie! He then snidely comments "It was like oiling down a baby whale." So is he supposed to be lusting after Ms. Lufthansa, as presented throughout the first half of the film? Or is he disgusted that she's a large woman and he did it only to fulfill her demands as suggested in the second half? Indecision on the part of the director = no laughs.

The entire film is a bunch of similar set-ups with mishandled deliveries. Imagine simultaneously being told ten jokes, but the punchlines are delivered out of order and left for you to decide what fits best and when.

Others have noted the incredible anchor of this film: Thelma Ritter. Cast into the role of 'straight man' against the wackiness of her male co-stars, her character steals this film. Notably, scenes with her in it are where the laughs can be found. This is both enjoyable and sad. So much potential and missed opportunities. It was all 'there' - if only this movie had the right director at its helm.

Because there's not enough laughs to justify purchasing this film at current market prices, which is considerable given it's "OOP" or "LOOP" status, this one is only for true devotees of the genre - or for dedicated fans of Tony Curtis and/or Jerry Lewis.

You don't need a big budget to make a fantastic film.

Simply put: This is an entertaining and surprising movie with everything you could ask for - genuine suspense with believable plot twists, well-timed action, memorable comedy, and special effects that actually has a purpose beyond the "see-what-we-can-do" arrogance of many blockbuster productions.

I regularly contribute to IMDb's I Need To Know Board where many board favorites tend to be the memorable kitschy flicks. In the coming years - this will be one of them - I guarantee it. Not only is this a really fun movie to idle away a 'popcorn video night', it's filled with unique visual hooks and interesting plot twists that tend to find their way into the collected memories of film fans.

While others have noted similarities to other well-known films of the genre - I urge you to watch this with a fresh mindset (pun intended).

This is probably one of the best Stephen Baldwin films from his hodge-podge career. Had he chosen to do more along these lines I suspect his limelight wouldn't have gotten so dusty that he'd end up as a B-rated 'star' for reality TV schlock. Doing solid, low budget, but profitable films is a career track that had Edward Herrimann and C. Thomas Howell working for decades while their "will-only-work-for-great-scripts/directors" driven counterparts have been forgotten or relegated to the world of early retirement.

One with the Grodin narration, and one without. I suspect many of the negative reviews refer to the highly edited TV-version. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the commercial VHS tape offered is the edited version, so caution is advised.

As a fan of heist films, I only recently learned of this rare film and had an opportunity to obtain the widescreen laserdisc presentation. And while it's true that this isn't a top-notch comedy or thriller, it's certainly better than you would think given the majority of less-than-flattering reviews here.

There are clever heist tricks - many of which have not been used again since this film. You know how much Hollywood likes to "borrow" clever ideas and use them over and over to the point where they become sad clichés. Well, you have to admire the use of cockroaches and chocolate cake to defeat an ultra-secure vault! How many times have you seen that done before? Or since?

If you're a fan of the heist genre or a Grodin devotee - this is a 'must see'. Otherwise, I'd wait 'til it gets a DVD release.

I sought out this film based solely on the wonderful reviews and comments left by fellow IMDb members, going so far as to pay a top premium to obtain a previously owned VHS. To say I was disappointed would be an understatement.

It's not that this isn't a decent film; in its proper context it's actually not too bad. But to slurp on the adjectives that reviewers have generously heaped onto this flick is more than a touch disingenuous. Perhaps it's real admiration on their parts, I'd rather not speculate. All I can say is - it's decent.

Made along the lines of "Baron Munchausen" in its quirkiness and mixed metaphors, The Navigator tries to balance stark realism and half-imagined visions. Taking us from a plague infested 14th Century village to a modern 20th Century city via one of childhood's best fantasies: Digging a hole to the other side of the world.

But there's so much clutter and unresolved thematic elements that it's extremely difficult to appreciate what is, or isn't, occurring on screen. Look, I'm not a pedestrian film-goer waiting, or expecting, to be spoon fed a story. But confusing will always be confusing and claiming pseudo-intellectual superiority because it *is* that confusing doesn't make it 'special by default'.

Believe me, I appreciate the original idea, that's a big plus for Navigator. And thumbs-up for giving us the ultra-realistic world inhabited by the characters. Their filthy blandness stands out from the all too common "clean & crisp" that Hollywood mistakes for life in the middle ages. (Just how many times can you populate a giant castle with outlandish costumes borrowed from the yokels-n-yahoos who regularly attend the Medieval Festival?) These truths speak to the sincerity, honesty, and originality of the filmmakers.

But the approach taken by a young Vincent Ward is just too disjointed to be considered a good film. Decent pretty much sums it up. However, it does give us a true peek into the future in another way: The Navigator is a proving ground for a filmmaker who will, in ten years, hit his stride with the amazing and genuinely stunning achievement --- "What Dreams May Come".

There seems to be an unending line of bullsh*t dilettantes who are desperate in their attempts to be fashionably critical. Worse - they're completely out of their depths as 'film critics'. Bunch of lemmings crying out for attention.

This is a hilarious off-beat film with a surprising link to an actual US community. (see the DVD Extras) And kudos to the reviewer who noted the passing of Michael Jeter - he really will be missed. I was so gratified to see him on the big screen again. It was a genuine surprise since I found out about his death only after watching this funny film.

Like quirky heist comedies? Don't miss this one. ;-)

(edited April 2006) Note: The comments I left are still valid but the placement in the queue makes it seem to contradict the many favorable opinions left after my original posting. My comment is directed to those reviews now found at the very end of the listings - the first comments left soon after the film's release by pretentious idiots passing themselves off as critics .

Are you looking for 'Ace Ventura' - then watch that. Looking for 'The Godfather' - then watch that. This is a great gem of a small budget film.

The laughs are genuine and the love story, which is actually the main theme, plays well with all these character actors. As always - you can count on Wallace Shawn to add his own humble humor to his role as the downtrodden tax accountant.

I'm not surprised at some of the negative comments since everyone has an opinion, some of which will naturally be different from your own. But don't let them turn you away from this fun-filled action/romance story. Seriously, if you like films like "The Cutting Edge", "Forget Paris" or "French Kiss" --- this is a definite must see. :)

This movie short showcases the stress, humiliation and perception of the homeless in thirty-minutes of film better than most major "productions" which wrestles with the issue. Filmed through the eyes of a small family who have fallen on hard times you see the trauma and anger, sometimes even humor, living with no permanent roof over ones head.

I'm not a liberal and am angered at the blatant abuse of many social programs, but this film will change the way you perceive some of the people who have fallen through the cracks. With the growing state of unemployment and credit bankruptcies occurring at a shocking rate - this short film will give everyone pause before "looking away".

First off, this is a much better movie than you would think by just looking at the cast and production.

Yes, essentially this is a wartime romance with all the tear jerky stuff you would expect. (which I happen to enjoy too) But, and this is where things take a turn toward the interesting, this film properly portrays several elements of the US military during the Vietnam War. Including what I consider an incredibly detailed Navy Seal Ops unit, both in characterization and temperament. It borders on the bizarre that such a nugget of special ops combat would be hidden inside a romantic flick.

Their mission, of course, is based on the real life US Army Special Forces rescue operation/raid on Son Tay Prison. But the effect is amazing. A sort of "what if" had the Navy been tasked with the rescue.

Additionally, the firebase hospital scenes were again surprisingly realistic. As well as the actions of the personnel on the naval hospital ship. I'm not sure who the advisors to the movie were, but their on-hand knowledge were well used by both the director and cinematographer.

This was at the height of star Ken Wahl's career - so it comes as a sad reminder of careers that 'could-have-been'. The acting is well done and the romance with beautiful Cheryl Ladd very tangible.

Finally, kudos to Lane Smith who portrays the by-the-book Navy doctor, Commander Markel - and R. Lee Ermey as the Marine Gunnery Sergeant. Not surprisingly R. Lee wasn't stretching his acting muscles too much since he is in fact a globe-n-anchor combat vet who did multiple tours in Nam. If you enjoy the berating bark of everyone's favorite jarhead, check out History Channel's "Mail Call" which R.Lee hosts.

Similar to the timeless and powerful Kirk Douglas/Burt Lancaster classic "Seven Days In May". This surprisingly good political thriller was filmed during the height of the Watergate scandal. And although there was some relevance to events at the time, the Vanished storyline does not deal with the trials of 'Tricky Dick'. What it does do, and do well, is take the viewers along a very slippery political path laced with many red herrings. There's some ingenious scripting I suspect will trip up even the most jaded viewers: Threats of war with the Chinese communists, treason at the highest level - and considering this was made in 1971 - scandalous suggestions of homosexual liaisons affecting the national security of the United States. It's a strong 'all star cast' with good performances all around. Particularly in light of the fact that this was a made-for-TV production.

Robert Young, of Marcus Welby MD fame, really steals the show as the manipulative congressman from the south. His performance as Senator Gannon, perhaps unintentionally, is a dead-on-ringer for a "mean" Mark Twain, his evil twin brother perhaps. Rivaling that of Hal Holbrook's recent one man performance and Jerry Hardin's much beloved turn at the author during the Star Trek next generation TV series.

If you know of anyone who might have a copy of this movie - I would certainly like to talk with that person. :-)