chaucer-1

Essentially a remake of the 1971 "Man In The Wilderness" starring Richard Harris as Zachary Bass (Hugh Glass) and John Huston as Captain Henry, although this version is said to be based on the 2002 novel of the same name by Michael Punke. That said however, the real-life story of the mountain man, Hugh Glass, is well-known in Western lore.

Visually, "Revenant" is stunning and markedly superior to the 1971 version - as is to be expected with the advances in cinematography in the intervening 45 years - but dramatically it's pretty poor fare when compared to "Man In The Wilderness". DeCaprio doesn't even come close to capturing the gaunt suffering of Harris's Zachary Bass and Domhnall Gleeson's performance is pretty pallid compared to the craggy awfulness of John Huston' Captain Henry. Pity, it's such a great story.

Great subject but so poorly produced and directed as to be little more than a period soap opera with a better (than usual) class of actor. The setting, character cast and story-line has been so sanitised that there is an unreal, chocolate-box quality to the production. The village is so clean, tidy and polished as to be almost clinical in appearance, no one smokes apparently (in war-time Britain, for goodness sake)not a dangling Woodbine in sight, the male characters religiously shave daily and never swear - not even the mildest expletive - whilst the the villagers' teeth are gloriously white, even Hollywood models - not a missing molar or yellowed snagged-tooth in sight. It's as if the director and production team had decided at the outset to ignore any attempts at verisimilitude - substantial cost saving perhaps but it tarnishes the series irretrievably.

As westerns go, Cowboy is probably more veracious than most that have, or will, come out of Hollywood. Drama is not its strong suit, in fact the plot is pretty prosaic, but the story does convey a certain gritty reality about the life of a cow-herder in the closing years of the 19th Century - the Chicago scenes excepted. It should appeal to those who prefer a little accuracy in Hollywood offerings. As someone who has spent more than a few years in the saddle of an Australian Stock Horse, my main interest in Cowboy is with the actor Glenn Ford. I've watched most of Ford's westerns and, in these, as in Cowboy, he displays one of the most consummate examples of horsemanship that Hollywood has ever offered. I am aware of camera angles and editing magic, but in Cowboy (as in his other Westerns) his seat is superb, heels down, back straight, hands up, and a total physical connect between horse and rider - a centaur really. I wish that my own performance was as good .

Anyone who has read any of the numerous biographies on the life of Howard Hughes, particularly Noah Dietrich's own best-seller, will do well to avoid this Hollywood pot-boiler because they will be mightily disappointed. The chutzpah of the makers in omitting huge chunks of the Hughes' story and the host of interesting and historical characters who impinged on Hughes' life, whilst embellishing relatively minor incidents is little short of breathtaking. The casting of the baby-faced DiCaprio as the central character is laughable - at no time does he even come close to close to capturing the essence of a man who was a giant of his times. About the only good thing that can be said about this film is that the few flying scenes are well done. But as an accurate portrayal of an American titan, forget about it - the earlier version starring Tommy Lee Jones is far superior.

Apart from a few curious departures from Le Carre's book of the same name the main thing wrong with this film is the casting of Diane Keaton as Charlie. Why the producers saw fit to use a relatively minor American actress to play the key role in this very strong story is something of a mystery, particularly when so many fine European actors were available at the time. Keaton strives to do her best but remains unconvincing throughout the play and her inadequacies are, unfortunately, highlighted by the superb performances from the rest of the stellar cast. Notwithstanding, the film is still well worth watching if only for the performances of Klaus Kinski and the rest of the cast. Plus the strong story line tends to over-ride some of the casting flaws. Moreover, since the film was made in the 1980's it is grittily realistic and doesn't suffer from the mawkish revisionism of recent films about international terrorism. Note: the earlier commentator who wondered why the character of Charlie would have been selected as a intelligence agent, seems to have missed the main point of the story. Charlie wasn't an agent - she was bait.

One of the great mysteries of filmdom, as far as I'm concerned, is that it took a pot-boiler like Silence of the Lambs, and what was essentially a minor lacklustre supporting role, to bring (Sir)Anthony Hopkins to the attention of the general film-going public. Particularly with so many stellar stage, television and film roles behind him, dating from the late 60s to the very early 90s when SOTTL was released. During this period he made 84 Charing Cross Road - on the surface a modest little family movie. But for those who look behind the gaudy video tape cover, the cast was the tip-off. Just look at the actors: (Dame)Judi Dench; Anne Bancroft; Ian McNeice; Maurice Denham; Anthony Hopkins, and, of course, the unutterably lovely Connie Booth (in one of her rare film roles). In the event, 84 Charing Cross Road really was, and is, a triumph of the film-makers and the actors art. No violence, no explicit sex scenes, no computer-generated scenes, nothing but the interaction of actors playing ordinary, everyday human-beings: but the result is gripping and uplifting. 84 Charing Cross Road, brilliant though it was, was not the acme of Anthony Hopkins screen performance in the 80s, a couple of years later he went on to make Alan Ayckroyd's "A Chorous of Disapproval" a movie which was supposed to star Jeremy Irons in the lead role. Although Iron's performance is beyond reproach, Hopkins stole the movie with his performance as the stereotypical amateur dramatics producer Dafydd Ap Llewellyn - another tour-de-force for Hopkins and a movie which can be watched time and time again. Getting back to 84 Charing Cross Road? One of my favorite movies! When the weather is dull and drear and there's a touch of winter in my soul, 84 CCR is one of the happier movies which lifts me up and gives me faith in the human condition.

I saw this movie when it was first released and, despite, the appalling historical distortions and artistic "interpretations", enjoyed it. There is no doubt that film's success and popularity came, almost entirely, from the outstanding performance by George C Scott: he was, and is, the movie. Without Scott, 'Patton' would have been just another war movie - and not a very good one at that. From an historical point of view, the movie treated Patton very favorably indeed, not surprising since the screenplay came largely from Ladislas Farrago's hagiography "Patton, Ordeal & Triumph" which almost deifies Patton - later histories and biographies are more honest, more accurate and reveal the seamier side of the Patton story including the fact that he was far from the gifted general that the movie would have one believe. Regretfully, Scott was unable to reprise his triumphal portrayal in "Patton" when he, unwisely, made "The Last Days of Patton" in 1986 - in some ways that disaster detracts from his original performance. "Patton" hasn't aged well. Thirty-five years down the track the use of the Spanish Army (and its equipment) as extras, poor continuity and patriotic hyperbole - which, no doubt, was stirring in 1970 when the US military was getting an ignoble beating in Vietnam - now grate, severely, on the viewer's nerves. Nevertheless, the movie is still worth watching for, what is probably, George C Scotts greatest movie role.

I saw this movie when it was first released. I thought that it was an absurd load of hokum then and it certainly hasn't improved with age. The underlying theme is pretty standard tree-hugger stuff; evil, rapacious white men destroying the Garden of Eden and dispossessing the innocent, noble savages along the way. The film claims to be based on a true story, but I'd take that with very large pinch of salt. If indeed it was based on true events then the producer/director has been a bit careless with the some of the facts. The Amazon basin is an enormously hostile environment, just about every critter, bug and bacterium that likes to eat people lives there. Amongst the native Indian tribes, that still live there, the infant mortality rate is something like about 80% and adults who live much past 40 years are rarities. Needless to say that's not the way the place is portrayed in the film. Certainly not cinema verite.

Anyone who is looking for an historically accurate depiction of the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava, and the events that preceded it, had best leave this one on the video store shelf. Visually, the movie is well done and the cavalry action scenes are nearly as good as those portrayed in Sergei Bondarchuk's "Waterloo" - despite the fact that Bondarchuk had most of the Russian Army as extras. Unfortunately, director Tony Richardson couldn't make up his mind whether he was making a movie or a social commentary and his indecision pervades the story line from beginning to end. I notice that some other commentators here have praised the film for its accuracy. In reality it was anything but - most of the sub-plots were fabricated and some of the actual battle scenes are either gross distortions of what actually happened or improbable speculations. Captain William Morris (17th. Lancers), for example, was not foppish dilettante soldier portrayed - rather he was a tough, seasoned professional who had attended the Royal Military College, served in three previous campaigns and had taken part in the charge against the Sikh guns at Aliwal, India. Nor did he ride back wounded to the British lines after the charge as the movie would have it - in fact he was so badly wounded that he was left on the battlefield and was rescued much later by two of his comrades, both of whom received the Victoria Cross. And Captain Louis Nolan certainly didn't have an affair with Morris' wife (Vanessa Redgrave) as the plot implies - Nolan had never met Morris before they were both sent to the Crimea.

It was much in vogue to make iconoclastic war movies in the late '60s - "Oh! What a Lovely War", was another - probably because of Vietnam. It's a great pity that Richardson choose 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' as his protest vehicle since it leaves an enduring stain on the memory of 700 very gallant men. Yes, there were 700, not 600 - Tennyson got it wrong.

Reading other comments I wasn't sure if we were talking about the same movie. Putting the record straight. The aircraft used in the film wasn't a Vought Kingfisher, it was a Grumman Duck. The river was the Orinoco in Venezuela, not the Amazon in Brazil. It flows into the Atlantic, not the Caribbean. Murphy was the sole survivor of a Royal Navy Fleet auxiliary, not a British submarine. Having said that, the basic plot of Murphy's War bears a striking resemblance to that of The African Queen but it doesn't come close to that classic. Nor does O'Toole's and Phillips' acting approach the magic of Bogart and Hepburn. I first saw Murphy's War (I had previously read Catto's novel) when it was released as a feature movie. Even then I wondered what possessed O'Toole to take it on. It wasn't a role well suited to him and that still shows many years later. Nor was the the regal Sian Phillips particularly convincing as a medical missionary. Having said that - and after revisiting Murphy's War - the movie has aged better than some and is worth watching if only for the flying sequences, the delightful performance of Phillipe Noiret and the marvellous panoramas of a South American river delta.

Anyone who is looking for an historically accurate representation of the early years of Elizabeth 1's reign had best pass this one by. As far as this type of drama is concerned it has some superficial charm in respect to location, costumes and casting but the hideous distortions of fact are so blatant and so pervasive that the film becomes almost satirical. William Cecil cast as an ancient white-bearded dotard for example - Cecil was actually a mere 38 years old during the period portrayed. Why Hollywood feels obliged to revise history so often (shades of 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot') is a mystery. Usually the real history is far more dramatic than anything the Hollywood hacks can dream up. Probably the only character who was reasonably treated in this particular film was Geoffrey Rush's Walsingham.

Having bought and read the book a few times - which I thought was a superb piece of writing - I was thrilled to receive the DVD as a Xmas present. Anticipating the usual Hollywood hoopla and revisionism I was agreeably surprised at how faithfully the film followed the real events and how effectively the director was able to re-create the very real drama of the actual event. The producers and (perhaps more importantly, the director) avoided the temptation to embroider the Mogadishu raid with fluff and yet managed to insert very real aspects of close combat such as the machine gunner who temporarily loses his hearing because of his partner firing his SAW to close to his [partner's] head. This reeked of veracity. (One of the more absurdities of modern filmdom is how protagonists casually shrug off the stupefying and deafening effect of high powered weapons fired in close proximity or in an enclosed situation).

If I have one disappointment it was that in the epiloge the producers failed to fasten the blame for the Mogadishu fiasco on the [then] existing Washington administration for failing to approve the use of light armor (and specialised air support) for the Mogadishu raid. Although I suppose that it will be rationalised in history it must be galling for the American Special Forces (Rangers and Delta Force operatives) to accept that they were actually rescued by light armor elements of despised third world countries (eg Pakistan & Malaysia) using lightly armored APC's long discarded by the American military. But I suppose that Hollywood can hardly be expected to risk the 'black' list by being too honest.

Now to the technical flaw. It's simple really - no flies! In BHD blood flows like water and in that part of the world blood attracts flies. I haven't been in Somalia but I have spent time in South-East Egypt and I know that if one scratches a pimple and draws blood, then several thousand flies flock in for a feast. In BHD no flies; zilch, nuttin, nada. Even in Morocco where BHD was filmed - no flies.

Trivial perhaps! But for me and a few thousand others who have served in the general region this impinges on reality. But then I suppose integrity has its limits.

This movie begins with a whimper and ends with a faint moan. A long turgid litany of unlikely, if not impossible, events starring an ageing Tommy Lee Jones versus a pudgy and clearly unfit actor playing a sociopathic former special forces trooper who hates guns and loves animals, but simply loves carving up humans with a knife. From the opening absurd scene with Jones caring for a wounded wolf I knew that it was going to be bad and I guess that's why I watched this movie: to see just how bad it got - I wasn't disappointed. Jones has made some stinkers in his film career but he really must have needed money badly (perhaps to pay the polo ponies' feed bill) to have lent his name to this disaster.

Why this movie never got much attention has always been a bit of a mystery to me. Funny, sad and (as another commentator mentioned)absolutely veracious when it comes to the world of of amateur theatricals. Brilliantly written by Alan Ayckbourn, superbly cast and performed this film drew upon the cream of the British acting profession, and it shows. Why on earth Hollywood waited until the superficial Hannibal Lecter to award Anthony Hopkins an Oscar when it had his outstanding performance in Chorus of Disapproval is another of life's mysteries. I never get tired of watching it. For the commentator from Olive NJ who bucketed the film, he/she should be aware that the film is set in Yorkshire not Wales - different country.

The story of the maneaters of Tsavo has been well known for many years in big-game hunting circles and ranks with the stories of Jim Corbett about the man-eating tigers and leopards of India (all of which are also true). I had read several accounts of the Tsavo incidents and looked forward to the film dramatisation. Regretfully, the inclusion of fictional characters (the absurd Remington)and events and the re-shaping of Patterson (he was a sergeant at the time, not a colonel) to fit the Hollywood image obscured the real drama and terror of the story. Truth is often stranger than fiction, a fact that seems to elude scriptwriters who, it appears, cannot resist the temptation to improve on the original usually to the detriment of the tale. That was certainly the case with this movie. A potential great which ended up very ordinary.

Update 2006: I seldom re-visit comments that I've made on various web-sites but the "Ghost & The Darkness" recently appeared on my local TV Channel and I was moved to revisit my comments on the IMDb. I was amused to read certain additional reviews from commentators who apparently believe that Hollywood's version of the events at Tsavo, during the latter half of the 19th. Century were/are accurate & true which, if nothing else, illustrates the power of Hollywood to change history. I still cherish the inane comments of one commentator who, apparently, believes that the Remington character really existed and that the (really insignificant) character played by Val (Some-Body-Or-Other) was wasn't really a Sergeant but was 'really' a Colonel (hey, in Hollywood's lexicon) - a Colonel trumps a Sergeant every time! Bottom line? When ignorance is bliss, it's folly to be wise! Reality is nothing! Virtual Reality Reigns!