wforstchen

I agree with the previous reviewer from 2007. Ironic in that I teach a college course on WWII and always end the semester showing the coming home scene of Homer from "Best Years of Our Lives." It has always been so powerful that I can't speak after showing it, and just let my class end on that note, of Homer raising his steel claw hand to wave good bye.

But what of the rest of their lives of that "greatest generation." The day after showing "Best Years," and ending a semester, TCM ran this little gem, "I Want You," and it is almost like a sequel of five years later, about a generation that fought a global war, thought they were coming home to peace and now face remobilization, and also watching their kid brothers getting drafted to go off to a distant unknown front. It is by no means as good as Best Years, but you will see the connection with so many of the same actors, and it almost looks as if it was shot in the same town.

One must definitely remember the context of the time to better understand this film. When made, the bitter quagmire of Korea was still being fought out, hanging over all the specter that it could escalate into yet another global war, this time with nuclear weapons. The tragedy is so evident, recalling how the three vets in Best Years say that all they want is a family and to live in peace. Again, when made, how the conflict would end, if it would ever end, was an unknown.

So definitely see the two films together in sequence. The greatness of the first will lead you into this second, that though no where near as good, is an accurate reflection on the tragic world of our parents and grandparents who after fighting WWII simply wanted to live in peace, and found they never would.

Several weeks back I lost my beloved companion and friend of fourteen years, a golden retriever named Sasha. When I came home from the animal hospital, alone, after having made one of the most painful decisions of my life, my teenage daughter sat by my side. . .and we talked about this episode of the Twilight Zone. I could be wrong, but I recall a line that Arthur Hunnicutt said, when Satan was trying to trick him into hell, but his dog could not go with him. . .and his dog in turn was growling in defiance at the gatekeeper who was trying to trick the old hunter to "step inside,". . .that it would be "one helluva of heaven if dogs were not allowed," and the spirit of the old mountain man and his dog decided to turn away from the gate (of what they had thought was heaven, to wander eternity alone.) What a tearful moment when they meet a "good ole' country boy" on that eternal road, only to discover he is an angel, sent out to find 'em, and "sure neighbor, of course dogs are allowed into heaven."

I'll confess I cried as I talked about this with my daughter while we mourned the passing of our beloved golden. Rod Serling was truly a genius, a voice that in the early sixties spoke out against racism, hatred, "know-nothingism," and was a profound inspiration to me to become a writer. This episode, across forty five years carried a message of comfort to all of us who have lost a beloved friend. I urge you to get a copy the next time there is a one of the Twilight Zone marathons or purchase it. There will be some tears, but comfort as well. As always, thanks Rod, for all that you taught us. . .even now.

A girl friend while I was in graduate school coaxed me into watching an episode saying "it was my type of show," and I finally agreed to watch, just to be polite. At first I thought I had to just endure a "chick flick" night but found myself absolutely captivated by the series. It has an easy relaxing slow pace and for this guy, the fascinating delight regarding the very early days of aviation. I fly an antique airplane and thus another reason I love this series since it captures that wonderful sense of excitement and adventure for those first aviators, and of course the delightful young lady who loved them. It carries with it as well a sense of poignancy for a world about to be lost in the trenches and the skies over Belgium and France. If you wish to enjoy a simple relaxing series, that recreates the essence of rural life in England pre-World War I, this series is for you.

Quite by accident I caught this great classic on television today and copied it, to share it later in the day with my teen age daughter, thrilled to have a copy of one of the rare movies that Aaron Copland did the soundtrack for, and having as well a distant memory of how beautifully touching this film was. I realize now, after watching it again, I had suppressed a highly traumatic scene when the young boy discovers his dead pony, and at that moment a very disturbing scene as he fights off the carrion birds. It is definitely not suitable for younger children and a bit of a shocker even now considering the movie was made in 1949.

But. . . and there is always a "but" for something like this. The movie is beautiful and elegant. Aaron Copland's soundtrack is lyrical, so rich with its "sense" of Americana. Every performance, from the grandfather, now out of place in time (and darn what moving eloquence when in this setting around 1900 he describes the "westerning" spirit of the America of his youth and now "we are old men, standing on the shore of an ocean, and there is no more west for us.") to as always the beauty of Myrna Loy in any role she plays.

The varying themes triggered a deep and heart felt conversation with my teenage daughter. Memories of my own aging father, remembering his youth and telling the same stories once too often (and oh how I wished I had listened with more love and respect), to the anguish of losing a beloved animal companion. . . My daughter and I cried together during that scene and talking about it afterwards. . .and even the deeper issue of what was America and how the "westerning" spirit shaped us.

This is a remarkable film, and definitely look beyond the exceptional cast to who was behind it, Copland for the music and Milestone directing. . .do not miss it, and if your children are in their teens, definitely share it with them as well. . .and be ready for some heart felt conversation afterwards. Sharing this tonight with my daughter was a true blessing.

Wm. Forstchen

I've been a fan of Sondheim's "Sweeney Todd," for over twenty five years. Have seen it on stage, and treasure the 1982 video recording starring George Hearn & Angela Landsbury, along with the more recent "concert version," also starring Hearn in a revival of his famed role, I've always thought him superior to Cariou's performance. (And true devotees, avoid the current Broadway touring version, it is minimalist, just viewing several clips turned me away from it.) But on to the movie. I approached this movie with mixed emotions. I mean how many times has a favorite musical, in this case what could better be defined as an opera, have a successful transition to film. Darn few have made it. Could an "opera" even connect, especially with a younger audience. Yes and "I'm full of joy." I've always admired all three primary components involved in this production, Burton, Depp, Carter. . . little did I fully realize the range of their talent until the opening scenes, the dark, frightful settings of Victorian London (one anachronism. . Tower Bridge did not exist at the time the story is set, sorry professional historian here). Carter's passionate voice gave a different feel for Mrs. Lovett, and Depp's every movement conveyed a sense of a coiled serpent about to strike.

I found inwardly I was almost like a judge at an event, ready to hold up a score card, how did each scene, each song match up to the Broadway production. (And I promised my daughter I would not sing along with the movie, though I did slip a few times with my favorites such as "these are my friends.") There is a certain maniacal madness with George Hearn's rendition of "These are my friends" and "Epiphany" that I think are hard to ever match, but maybe it is like trying to compare a Dali to a Picasso, or whatever, both carry a power in a different way. In short, I was not once disappointed, and often found myself cheering on something far better than expected, especially the magnificent Perilli contest and the "More Meat Pies." (oh those close ups of the juice running out. . .you can tell they had fun making it.) And speaking of juices running out. OK, gory as all hell. I took my teenage daughter with some trepidation, she has seen the stage version and is a fan as well. I think I was more shocked then her with that first massive blood letting with Perilli. . .and the "ride down the slide" that has a certain resounding thump at the end that definitely shocked the first time.

So, if you are a fan of the Broadway productions, do not hesitate to go, you will be awed for behind both is the genius of Sondheim, and the different methods, stage versus film, actually compliment each other, art in two different forms and neither detracts from the other or makes you wish something had been done different. If you've never seen the stage production, do so, just avoid the current Broadway touring production.

After a great evening at the theater I waited until my daughter went to bed, figured she was asleep and then stood outside her door, calling her name, in the same way Sweeney and Lovett call out Tobie's name while hunting him. . .there was a moment of silence and then the reply from the other side of the door, "father, how about a shave."

I'm a pilot besides being a history professor and writer. I've eagerly looked forward to the release of this film. Just last week, my partner and I, who own a replica of a WWII "warbird," while working on our plane, were talking excitedly about seeing this film. The "buzz" with pilots who got a sneak preview at Oshkosh was that there was some great stuff to behold in this film. So on opening night I was there, half expecting the theater to be packed, rather than half empty.

Wish I could give it the thumbs up, I was so rooting for it to be good. . .but sigh. . .I can't, at least for those of you who are "tech heads" when it comes to flying and the handling characteristics of WWI aircraft. As another critic pointed out, just where the heck did all the Fokker triplanes, painted red come from? Check your history on that one.

There were a few good moments, the ground level chase, just some of the flying scenes were you felt it wasn't CGI but the real thing, but in general, I'm sorry folks but aircraft of that time just couldn't pull off some of those maneuvers without wings sheering off or stalling and snapping into a killer spin. A 90 degree vertical climbs even in a WWII Spitfire was a challenge, in WWI, get ready for a stall and a killer spin in five seconds after going vertical. Minor point, but hydrogen burns blue, does not explode in red and orange. . .sorry, maybe I am too much of a geek on this kind of stuff, but it kills off the "suspension of disbelief" that is so essential with any movie, the making sure that technical details are dead on right, even if the audience does not realize it.

Possible spoiler. . .The trench fighting sequence, for any with a knowledge of the actual ranges and such and has walked those battlefields, was ludicrous, a pilot landing in the middle of that to rescue a buddy. . .insane.

The character development. . .again a sigh. It was out of a standard play book and frankly, you could have made a check list, from the "clues" as to who would die, and who would live to make the final scene of flying off into the sunset. And of course the rotten Hun flying the black plane. . .well don't want to give another spoiler but think you can guess what happens.

Well, at least it was an effort and I'll give it a five for that. I will confess admiration for the crew that so hopefully put this together and I do honestly hope they'll earn out and turn a profit. Maybe it might inspire other film makers to go for more on WWI, a so neglected topic with so many rich stories to tell, made even more poignant because of the tens of millions who fought in that war, fewer than fifty are still with us, and all living memory will be gone in just a few more years, the last combat piloting passing away about a year ago.

I will not shoot this film down completely. If you love flying, well you gotta go see it and while seeing it, pick out those few moments that ring true and enjoy them.

Recommendations. Of course check out Howard Hughes classic. If you can get by the plot, the flying is real, no CGI back then, and at times incredible to behold. The other great WWI classic, "Dawn Patrol," now there are characters that get into your heart with a story line that holds you, and conveys as well the terrible sense of doom that hung over all who flew in that war. For a more modern take on classic flying films. Definitely, by all means, find Deep Blue World. It is a Czech film, about Czech pilots with the RAF. Real, and I do mean real Spitfires are used, and the flying sequences, whether you are a flying nut like me, or an armchair pilot, or even a guy out for a "date" movie with a DVD, will find this one to be great.

"The History Guy" Asheville NC

I was "turned on" to this movie by my flight instructor and now I wonder how the heck it was out there for nearly five years before I finally discovered it. If you have any love of flying at all, especially an attachment to the planes of WWII, this is an absolute must see, vastly superior to the pathetic "Pearl Harbor" and up there in rivalry with the famed "Battle of Britain" filmed more than thirty years ago. There are moments when you feel as if you are flying wingman, literally dodging the shell casings of your leader as you roll in on a Me 109 or He 111.

As an historian this film deeply touched me as well for it is about the plight endured by tens of thousands of gallant Poles, Hungarians, Slovaks and Czechs who in 1939-1940 fled their homelands, made it to England, fought with utmost bravery for the survival of western civilization, and then were so callously abandoned by "us" after the war when they were arrested by the communists upon their return to their native lands. I have stood atop Monte Cassino in Italy and was moved to tears by the cemetery for the Polish troops that stormed that mountain that British and Americans could not take. I have traveled as well to Prague (the most beautiful of cities) and studied their history. Their story of abandonment, I believe, should be a lesson to us even today about obligations to gallant allies.

But back to the film. If you love flying, see this. If you are interested in the aircraft of WWII most definitely see it. Without doubt the most brutal, direct, and frightfully swift air combat scenes ever replicated for film. And yes, if you even are seeking a touching romance, there is that as well in heartbreaking detail.

Bill Forstchen Professor of History Co-owner of a WWII replica "warbird" P-51 Mustang "Gloria Ann"

I teach a college course on WWII, in graduate school studied under several experts on the subject and have interviewed numerous survivors on both sides. This film comes out on top, perhaps the finest ever made on the subject of the war (though the Belorussian "Come and See" & "Schindler's List" are darn close as well).

I had the remarkable experience of watching this film last night with two veterans, one a GI who fought from Omaha to Czechoslovakia. . .and a German infantry officer, a veteran of four years on the Eastern Front. The German, who met Hitler several times, within minutes was exclaiming over the historical accuracy, right down to "Hitler's" lower class Munich accent. . .something an American audience would never pick up on. My German friend, who at the end of the war was in East Prussia, in the debacle of attempting to evacuate over a million civilians ahead of the Russians, was profoundly shaken by the film. . .saying the horror, the hospital scenes, the utter chaos, the lynchings, the sight of 12 year old children fighting. . .all of it was real. And an interesting observation by him. . .he had no idea Berlin, at the end, had been as bad as what he witnessed along the Baltic coast and is still haunted by. It truly was "Gotterdammerung" for an entire nation and this film brings it frightfully close to you. If you are a parent of small children, the terrifying ending for the Goebbel's children is an absolutely searing nightmare.

I think the most important point of the film was the portrayal of Hitler. . .not as the stereotyped raving madman, usually overplayed like a bad performance of King Richard, but far more subtle. I've talked with many who knew Hitler, including a childhood playmate of Helga, Goebbel's oldest child, and all will tell you that Hitler could be absolutely charming, focused on you, even courtly when with women. The terror is, that even as the actor shows us that "human" side, in his soft voice he is dictating orders, observations, and comments of absolute evil. The true form of evil rarely looks evil on the surface, it seduces us with a fair face as it leads, sometimes an entire nation, into damnation. THis film captured that evil.

My German friend's comment at the end of the movie. . ."I still can not believe we fought for that monster for six years."

A history professor at Montreat College

I've been there. In fact the initial fun of watching this film with my family was recognizing the location because of the background mountains. I go to Mongolia nearly every summer to do historical research and also for the fun of it. . .it is indeed one of the most beautiful places in the world, and inhabited by the most wondrous of people.

Part documentary, part drama, I found this film to be a real reflection of so many families that I've met over there, have camped with, have ridden with. The close bond of children, parents, and grandparents is a lesson I wish our culture would relearn. . .and yes I cringed at the very end when the two boys are setting up the television dish. I had an identical experience in the far north of the country, in Hosvgol Province, featured a couple of years back in National Geographic. My buddy and I rode up to a ger (yurt...tent) and within the entire family was glued to the flickering "glass image," the traditional hospitality and greetings all but gone. We were offered the traditional milk tea, milk curds and some aureg (fermented milk) but then everyone turned back to the screen. Story telling, sharing photographs of families, talking about children, legends, horse races, life in America, life there. . .was gone, as all turned back to watch the flickering screen, ourselves included. How I wanted to scream out, and yet who am I, with my own wide screen box, to beg them not to fall into the trap.

But back to the film review. It is beautifully photographed, I actually sat there teary eyed at points, remembering my own travels. The storm scenes. . .if only you could feel and smell it. It is like you are being nailed by a sand blaster, the smell has a static electric feel to it, and frankly, after a day or so makes you feel a bit crazy, I did not blame that little girl at all for crying. . .and it also ruins your camera equipment unless you seal everything in zip lock bags. (I've lost two cameras and two camcorders there due to weather.) One detail I noticed was the cameraman filming with his back to the wind. If he had turned the camera into the wind, it would have blasted the lens within seconds. Just to capture it at all on film was quite a feat. Two of my trips over there, we had a documentary team with us, and both times their equipment failed within days. So the team that made this film. . .just from the technical logistical side, an amazing feat.

The music, well in the film it is captivating, haunting, and believe me, to hear the songs again. . .yet another teary eyed moment for me, remembering sitting under a star studded sky and hearing the same songs while the bowl of fermented milk goes back and forth, and then we guests sing our songs in reply (fortunately my one friend does doo-op and our Mongolian friends just adored "The Lion Sleeps Tonight," I did that darn wena-wop line as his back up every night til it drove me crazy! And wherever we traveled, word of us raced ahead and wherever we stopped our new found nomad friends would ask "sing Lion song!" Drove me crazy!) Yet again, back to the film. I just wish there was more of their traditional music, it is wondrous, haunting. Do notice in particular the scene where the musican first hangs his two string fiddle on the camel's hump and then let's the wind "play it." Nearly all traditional mongolian music is a reflection of natural sounds, right down to differences of the wind on the desert versus grasslands or the forest, and in the northern regions the "beat" is almost always that of horse hooves. There is another documentary out there on throat singers, I can't remember the title, but do try and see it.

But back to the film again. Wonderful, delightful, share it with your kids, and afterwards do think about it. I am by no means a technophobe or "back to the land" type, but within this film is a statement about how to live our lives. . .and for that lesson alone I go back there every year.

William Forstchen History Professor Montreat College

Possible spoiler. . .but guess everyone knows the ending.

Absolutely haunting. I've only seen the film in its entire length twice, once as a child and again as an adult. Jodie having to shoot the deer, at the end, and the dream sequence of him running afterwards. . .well as a child it left me devastated. And I will confess, I had the same response again as an adult. Call me overly sensitive, but The Yearling, was just emotionally overwhelming and always will be for me.

I think the acting is superb, Gregory Peck giving one of his two incredible performances as a loving father, the other one, of course, in "To Kill a Mockingbird." If ever there is a film role model for fathers today, it can be found in these two films. Peck's love for his son, his desire to protect his world and let him be a boy for just a little bit longer, is beautifully portrayed.

Whenever this film is shown on television I will indeed watch the beginning up to when "Flag" is found, but then I do turn the channel before the end. My daughter is nearly twelve now, and I see the transition in her from child to adult and the film has influenced me, as a loving father, to hope she enjoys that childhood as long as possible before having to let go of it. And yes, we've seen the first half of the film together, we both get a teary eyed and then switch to something else.

I adore the soundtrack based on the work of Delius and highly recommend his "Florida Suite."

The cinematography award is well deserved, stunningly beautiful, again with a dream like quality to it.

As to some of the critics. Please. . .you have no concept of life in 19th century Florida after the Civil War. It was hard scrabble, and if a man was disabled, his family literally could starve, thus forcing Jodie to face his terrible decision regarding his pet. Our politically correct sensibilities of today had very little room in the 1870s, and yes this statement is from an animal lover but also an historian of the period. I'm almost amused by the critics who casually say, build a barn, or make a bigger fence. . .try it some time, using the tools of the period in the climate and eco-system of Florida. I think the scenes where Jodie and his "Ma" do attempt that in order to save Flag, are heart breaking and realistically portrayed.

So, if you haven't seen this one, do so, but even you tough guys, you better have a box of tissues handy. A warning though, if you have children who are sensitive to animals, think twice or preview it first, it can be very traumatic.

A friend of mine who is a professor of communications always points out to me, the professor of history, that all film must be placed in the context of the day it was filmed. Definitely the case here with this rather surreal gem. Why do I call it surreal? Well anyone who is reading this most likely knows the background of the film and its later impact, but for me it is just utterly strange to see this attempt at making a community in the Soviet Union look "just like us." The two Walters? Huston and Brennan? Quintessential American characters. . .and I kept waiting for Walter B. to ask for his false teeth or sing "give me that old time religion," and for Walter H. to go into his "gold dance." And Aaron Coplan with the sound track? Though a valiant attempt to sound "Russian" you could still hear the Americana and expect the dance, at any moment to shift into a hoe down. Compare Dana Andrew's incredibly bad monologue as he flies to his death in this film, (and yes sounding like a bad monologue from a Soviet propaganda film) to his stunning performance, but two years later in Best Years of Our Lives, when without saying a word, just sitting in a bomber with that "thousand yard stare", we far better grasp the horror of war. Years back the Soviets, who loved Mark Twain, supposedly made a movie of Tom Sawyer. I guess the effect must of been the same. There are some stories that just don't translate, and this film is one, a strange heavy handed attempted at propaganda.

I've shown parts of this film several times to my WWII class and they sit there gape mouthed, not knowing whether to laugh or cry with embarrassment for all involved.

Now to the trivia and IMDb site, and may it be a warning to you. I travel to Mongolia every year to do research. Several years back one of my traveling companions was a film buff like myself and we'd pass the long hours of bouncing around in the back of a jeep over the trackless steppes talking about favorite movies and peppering each other with trivia questions, informally keeping score with the winner (or was it the loser) having to chug down some more fermented horse milk. We drifted on to this movie chuckled about it and then I asked the fatal question.. .who wrote and directed it? And then we sat there blank faced. NEITHER of us knew the answer. The most golden of all rules, never ask a movie trivia question without IMDb on hand had been broken. You undoubtedly know the torment that resulted. For days, back and forth we agonized over an answer the nearest computer terminal five hundred kilometers away. We'd of given gallons of that horse milk to suddenly fall upon an Internet Cafe out in the Gobi. At two in the morning, one of us would roll over in our tent and curse the other "Who the $$$%^& wrote the $$$%*% screenplay?" It was hell. And then, the strangest rescue I've ever experienced. We were camped along the Orkhon River and in the distance, like the lone rider approaching in Lawrence of Arabia, we saw a jeep. A shimmering dot that a half hour later pulled up and stopped. . .and out piled three elderly British ladies, sounding for all the world like they were straight out of a Monty Python skit. Actually they were an awe inspiring delight, three women in their sixties, fulfilling an old school girl promise to one day explore Mongolia together. . .and they pull up to our camp in the middle of no where. So of course we invite them to stay, and we are soon in deep conversation about our love of the country, when suddenly it hit me. . .here might be our rescue.

"Ladies, this might sound strange, but my friend and I have a question. . ." "Oh go ahead dear.. ." and again it was like being in Monty Python.

"Would any of you know who wrote the screenplay for North Star?" "Oh you mean Lillian Hellman my dear. . ." They got our finest bottle of vodka as a reward. How the hell they knew, well it turned out our rescuer was a film buff as well. And the lesson was learned. NEVER ask a film question unless you know the answer, or have IMDb on hand...which is still difficult in some places in the middle of Mongolia

I was really looking forward to this one. I mean Ridley Scott, another historical epic. . .how could it fail? It failed in large part due to the script. . .a bit more on the historical in a few paragraphs. Scott's "Gladiator" though it played fast and loose with history, nevertheless within five minutes I was hooked, On The CHARACTER, and thus willing to forgive the fiction of the story. Just the scene of Maximus in the wheat field, the transition to the way the men looked at him and whispered "general" as he passed. . .I immediately cared about what happened to this guy.

It never really happened in Kingdom of Heaven. I think Orlando Bloom is a superb actor handed a clunky script. I found myself sitting in a theater, within fifteen minutes, wanting to somehow stop the film and scream "rewrite!" A golden moment lost was his encounter in the desert, the potential of a deeper friendship, which if developed further, pitting friend against friend later on, could have become the focal point and metaphor for the tragic conflict about to unfold.

The history stuff. Nearly all the major characters were true, the general plot as well about the fall of Jerusalem which would trigger the famous Crusade of Richard, the visual details superb with costuming, sets but there is one big but. . .the siege.

I've actually worked with catapults, built one with students, have researched them, and in grad school studied under one of the world's leading experts on the subject (check out an article in Scientific American from around '78-79 which he co-authored if you are interested). In this film the catapults had the rate of fire and impact of a battery of German 88s. Sure it looked cool, but they just never did that level of damage, nor created such exploding impacts. The big trebuchets, reload time was darn near forever, in the film they were banging off like repeaters. . .yeah maybe a very minor point for 99% of the audience, but it did leave me shaking my head. I guess Scott, drew such acclaim for the opening in Gladiator that he just couldn't resist.

I left the theater disappointed. No real emotional involvement, a sense of having seen a film that was OK, but frustrated that with a solid rewrite, better character development it could have been great. I guess even the creator of Blade Runner & Gladiator is entitled to the occasional less than sterling presentation.

Conclusion. . .next time, tighter writing and out of the gate character establishment.

I was definitely part of the Baby Boomer Davy Crockett phenomena. Heck, I actually won a contest of Davy Crockett look alike when I was four years old in Newark NJ, and as I look back, I believe that wonderful and completely fictional television series by Disney, helped to trigger my interest in history, which has been my career now for over thirty years, starting as a middle school teacher and now a college professor, along with a number of books published.

I eagerly looked forward to this film's release and I regret now, that for one of the few times in my life I listened to critics who absolutely trashed a film so that I never went to see it on the wide screen. Made the same mistake with Blade Runner when it first came out!

So it was wait until Starz picked it up and frankly, I was blown away. I actually went out the next day and rented the wide screen DVD version to check it out more closely and will definitely buy it, I love it that much.

This is the best of all the attempts to tell the story of the Alamo. Sure, I grew up on the Crockett and Alamo legend, but I also got a healthy dose of cynicism about the whole thing when examining it from the Mexican perspective, particularly in relationship to the slavery issue and the promises made and broken by Houston and Austin to the Mexican government. This film, though it dances more than a little around those issues still at least touches on them.

But what really caught me was the attention to historical accuracy in relationship to the battle itself. I'll claim that for the first time every, a film captured the "feel" and truthful presentation of late 18th and early to mid 19th century linear warfare. Other films always make it look absurd, but here you see how it did work, manuevering masses of troops up to then deliver terrifying volley fire at close range then charge with the bayonet.

The weapons and how they were used was dead on perfect, right down to the use of canister by the artillery and regardless of what one critic said about shells, they were indeed used and the incident with Travis and the spurting fuse was perfect. Formations, volley fire, skirmishers, the awesome and terrifying Mexican pioneer troops, whoever was responsible for the setting and staging of this battle did a brilliant job. The set was perfect as well, down to the finest detail. The cinematography as well, especially the stunning scene from a high angle shot, the charges coming in from all sides at once, the defenders getting overwhelmed.

I'd rate this movie up with Zulu as a film about a small determined garrison standing against impossible odds, which is a great archetypal story.

In contrast, "Patriot" which drew so much critical acclaim was absolutely gut tearing, in a nauseating sense, when it came to any semblance of historical accuracy regarding battle and every year now I have to deprogram my students regarding its retched attempt at showing what Revolutionary period warfare looked like. For that matter I'll put Gettysburg and of course Gods and Generals in the same miserable league.

I do not understand why so many critics are trashing the acting and casting. Bill Bob Thorton and Jason Patric are superb. I was awed by Thorton's approach to the legendary Crockett character. Much of what was and still is believed about Crockett is all myth (and yeah even admitting that breaks this Baby Boomer's heart). Crockett was a character created by American theater and the first of the nickel and dime novels of the 1820-30s. He was something like a Schwartznegger cult character for his time, even while still alive, but his exploits were all legend. Thus the stunningly truthful scene of him confessing what really happened in a fight against Indians, the incredible acting when he kills, almost by accident, a Mexican soldier and you immediately sense that this is the FIRST man he has ever actually killed and he is horrified by it. . .and how in the end (SPOILERS AHEAD) he is trapped by his own legend into becoming a hero regardless of his fears. A historian that I studied under in graduate school wrote about the Alamo and was the first to tell me that Crockett, according to Mexican sources, survived the fall of the garrison and was executed after wards. I remember not wanting to believe it (Baby Boomer here, remember, Davy Crockett went down swinging). The debate varies, did he willingly surrender and beg for his life, was he wounded, overwhelmed and then executed. . .we will never know, but the screenplay does address it, and does it well.

A fictional scene undoubtedly, but still profoundly moving, Crockett playing the violin during sunset of the final night of siege. A beautiful scene that is haunting.

In closing, my thumbs up as a historian for this work. It is not a film that many would care for, no love interest, no ridiculous heroics, no Mel Gibson trying to do a Daniel Day Lewis, then sweeping off the girl in the low cut bodice after slaughtering a plentitude of foes, just a gritty, straight forward war story that is profoundly moving.

Only negative. The perpetual scowl of Quaid as Houston. Though his big final scene, the Battle of San Jacinto, is darn good as well, especially when done through the POV of Sequin, and the terrible dilemma faced by Mexican-Texans fighting on the Anglo side.

Like a couple of other reviewers I remember seeing this film as a kid at a riotous Saturday matinée. For weeks afterwards we played cossacks, even found a ravine in a landfill where I lived in NJ to play out one of the scenes. We were lured into seeing it with a great "trailer" of cossacks running riot, fighting, horses galloping about. It looked cool. The absolutely wretched love story that took over most of the film almost triggered a riot in the theater that day.

This is one of those epics films that I like to describe as "so bad it's almost good." The writing is awful, the so called epic scenes tend to be ridiculous, a couple of thousand extras might have helped, and of course a overly mushy love story is thrown in, complete to the soft focus scenes. (David Lean could pull off the soft focus over and over in Zhivago but whoever directed this turkey simply made them laughable.) And yet. . . I just love Yul. He looks the part of a cossack and he plays the part. Tony, in contrast is absurd. I guess he just couldn't shave his head to the traditional cossack style so it get's explained away as adopting the "Polish" style. The parties though, and the riding around. What a kick. When I saw this film again in grad school with my Polish girl friend at my side, it triggered our first real fight. I roared over the line, "put your trust in the sword and the sword in the Pole," (Freud would have loved that one!) and she just freaked. She then announced she would enjoy attending the party as it unfolded on my dorm room TV, a thought I found appealing in regards to her, but I made a comment that I would be hung before I'd let my as yet hypothetical daughter go to one. That really set the girl friend off with accusations of sexism.

In fact this movie and "The Vikings" finally inspired us to stage a "barbarian party," a riotous success which is still legend with our friends, I won't go into the details but it was great, everyone in costume, food and drinking horns filled with beer flying about, etc.

But back to the film. The book is remarkable, in fact when I use to teach Russian history it was required reading. It appealed to me not only as the great Ukranian epic but the sci fi author as well, a model actually for the great heroic epic fantasies of Howard, Lamb, DeCamp and others. In contrast the film could actually be a case study in how Hollywood can turn an epic book into smush, and then lure kids into seeing it with a great trailer of a bunch of guys riding around.

And definitely do not miss Yul singing the "Cossack song," absolutely hysterical. If you can dig up a few Ukranian friends to sit with you, do so, and watch them go berserk! It would be like their making a movie in Kiev about George Washington and casting Danny DeVito in the lead, building a couple of log cabins out in the middle of the real Ukranian steppes (and I've been there) and saying its Valley Forge.

And yet, if it ran again tonight at midnight, I know I'd watch it. . .the same way I'd watch a train wreck.

A final note. Tony was insane. Janet Leigh was ten times (dare I say it?) "the babe" when compared to his co-star in this film whom he later married.

"Portrait of Jeannie" ran again tonight on TCM and yet again I sat there mesmerized, and yes, admittedly in tears. It is a haunting film, one that once seen echoes in memory. It fulfills an ideal of love found and lost, with a promise that it will be found again, this time forever.

The use of Debussy is inspiring, as is the sepia tone shots which impressed me even more than the famed green tinted finale of the storm. I do wonder how that effect of sepia was achieved, as if a rough layer of burlap was draped over the lens to create a look of photographs from a lost age. It creates a sense of 19th and early 20th century images that is stunning. I was in NYC this summer for a couple of days and found myself at a bookstore on Columbus Circle doing a book signing. After I was finished there I wandered into Central Park, on a mission to find the locations of where the wonderful sequence of Jeannie, ice skating, meets Joseph Cotton and their first stunningly filmed encounter at night on a pathway. What a thrill to find those spot.

I grew up in NJ back in the 1950s and remember the stories about the great blizzard of 1948 and do wonder if that blizzard was used by the director for the incredible outdoor shots of Jeannie's first meeting with her lover born too late and the ice skating scene.

To any who have yet to see this film. You might be a cynic, jaded by all that our world tosses your way. This film can reawaken within you the dream, or memory of an ideal love, the bittersweet sense of loss and of promise. Believe me, I tend towards "guy" films, but with "Jeannie," cynic that I can be at times, I still pull out the box of tissues, sit back, have a good cry (something I don't admit to my macho friends) and marvel at the timelessness of this incredible film.

This one caught me off guard. I stayed up past midnight to watch "Cabiria" on TCM, mainly because of my interest in film history, figuring I'd watch it out of "academic" interest, but never expected to be so completely engrossed by a film 90 years old. Yes, the plot is jerky, the coincidences a big stretch for a modern audience, and for Americans hard to follow if you don't know the history of the Punic Wars, but set those issues aside and just simply enjoy the feast.

I was truly caught up in the story. Not to offer a spoiler here, but the Temple of Moloch sequence blew me away. Its actually rather frightful and creepy. I wonder how many of the little kid actors who were being offered up as sacrifices, (and hard to believe that if alive today they'd all be near a hundred years old), wound up in therapy afterwards! There's even shades of Indiana Jones here with the rescue and I found myself cheering the heroes on. The siege, the special effects, even the closing scene are a treat and stand up amazingly well to modern eyes. An interesting social history point. The actress who played the evil princess undoubtedly was the definition of feminine beauty in 1914. . .things have indeed changed (for the better in my opinion!)

One serious question and if there is a reader who is a historian with an answer let me know. There's a powerful scene in the Temple of Moloch where large golden hands appear above the priests, looking very much like the Hitlerian salute. Very similiar to the hand atop the helmet of one of the Tuetonic Nights in "Alexander Nevsky." Is there, just possibily a connection to the adoption of the salute twenty years later?



I never knew about the actor "Maciste." I realized that here is the prototype for all the Italian "Hercules" of the 1950s that I use to love at the Saturday matinees of my childhood. The actor is truly dynamic, an Arnold Schwarznegger presence of the silent screen and in my opinion stole the entire movie.

From the film history side you can see so many influences, on all that would come afterwards. While watching, its hard to believe that you are looking at images filmed before World War I, and all involved are long since gone. You see, as well, the promise of a new born art form that has become such a central part of our lives.

I've been a fan of Tolkien since childhood and like so many waited a lifetime for this film. In fact, one of my reactions, while watching the credits run at the end, was a sense of tremendous loss, like that of a child who is going to bed after Christmas is over. . .the anticipation is gone, the "quest" has been fulfilled.

I have to throw in a comment, call it a professional comment about the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. For perhaps the first time, truly the first time, a film got it "right" when it comes to ancient and medieval warfare, especially the charge of the Riders of Rohan. All my old favorites, Spartacus, even Gladiator and Braveheart, fall apart, historically, during the charge and first moment of contact in the battle scenes, all other films devolving into the lone hero running about with hundreds of extras senselessly running about, without any formation, discipline or tactics even before the two armies collide. A charge, especially a cavalry charge, was all about mass formation acting as a battering ram, start slow, keep formation, build up speed, then hitting like a tidal wave, . . .ROTK DOES IT RIGHT! Jackson and team, truly give us the sense of scale, of mass ponderous formations building up speed, becoming unstoppable, of the terrifying sight of six thousand cavalry coming straight at you, not individuals all spread out, but a wall of horse and warriors. To paraphrase from another favorite film, Patton "You know I actually felt sorry for those damn orcs!"

I've actually talked to a few old soldiers who have been in stirrup to stirrup cavalry charges (my Dad being one, in a pre-WWII training exercise) and they tell me it was one of the most frightful yet supreme moments of their life, a total madness takes hold. Perhaps I dwell too long on this, in what should be a comment about a movie, but darn it, I've waited a lifetime to see it on film, and I'm still awed.

In a broader sense the battle had tactical sense, incredible formations and effects, the frightful sense of despair and yet final defiance as Gondor prepares to go down fighting, and Grom, the battering ram. . .again WOW.

Beyond that, the entire film was superb, and like another reviewer I believe this series will eventually stand in the rankings as one of the five best movies of all time. It is, as Tolkien intended his story to be, an archetypial creation, a mythology of the West that touches something deep within our cultural heritage and memory.

If I have any other sadness, besides that sense of loss when it was finished, I just wish we could have seen, through Frodo's eyes, "The Far Western Shore. . ."

Bill Forstchen Montreat College

Until this evening I did not even know this movie existed. The owner of the local video store asked me to check it out and "review" it for her and the customers. You see I'm a Civil War historian, co authored a NY Times best selling novel on Gettysburg, so I guess they figured my comments might be worth something. No one in the store had heard of the film and they were curious about my reaction.

I was completely caught off guard by the emotional power of this film. I expected an "artsy" experience ladened with too much nihilism, or worst of all, a film claiming to be set in the Civil War without any historical accuracy whatsoever. Instead, from the opening credits, it caught my heart. The opening minutes, the cinematography, the dialogue all of it was perfection, catching so eloquently the tragic parting of families at the start of the war. The director of this film did more, in fifteen minutes, on an impossible budget, to capture the tragic essence of 1861 than you'll ever find in Gods and Generals, Gone with the Wind, or any other effort. I will openly admit a scene of a father leaving his children filled me with tears, and there's only one or two other movies out there that can do that to me. Gone is our fantasy images of the Civil War, with drums, and bugles, flags held high and marching to some distant glory. Instead we see it as a family saying good bye, perhaps forever, to Daddy. It was done, gently, without overblown cinematography or music, and it was done to perfection.

As we move to battle, again great attention to detail, though I might quibble about a few minor points, but yet again, the chaos and carnage has a sense of reality. I do no wish to creat a SPOILER here, but just sufficient to say, that the encounter and evolving friendship between a confederate and union soldier left me in tears as well, especially in the realistic manner created in this film.

Long before film, American melodramas on the stage often harped on these encounters between a boy in blue and a boy in gray. It seems no Civil War movie is complete without one, but they are usually so poorly done, and so hackneyed in the writing as to be nothing but an embarassment. The script writer for "Wicked Spring" pulled it off simply and wonderfully. Thousands of such chance meetings did happen during the war, and the scene in this film truly echoes the pathos without going over the edge.

The team that put this film together, well my hat's off to you. It is obvious you made this movie with reverence and love and yet at the same time produced a finely crafted piece that let's us glimpse the tragedy of that war. Now, if only this team could be turned loose with the same budget several other Civil War, and Civil War related films had, now there would be a movie.

I realize that movies ultimately are for entertainment, and yet as a professor of history, and a writer as well, I do cringe through most movies set in the past, especially when they deal with military themes. In the case of "Master and Commander," however, my hat is off in a salute! Never have I seen a movie that so graphically captures the "feel" of life aboard a ship of the Napoleonic period.

As for the battle sequences, I was stunned. They finally got it right! Naval artillery rounds did not explode in the 18th and early 19th centuries, they are solid shot that shattered whatever they hit. Not to offer a SPOILER here, but the first volley left me gape mouthed and darn near ducking for cover myself it was so well and accurately done. I know because I have fired live artillery rounds, solid shot and canister, from Civil War period cannons and have seen the carnage such weapons, though primitive to our eyes, can create. The entire cast and crew of "Master and Command" deserve three huzzahs for their devotion to accuracy, and also for the presentation of a rousing good tale. They show, as well, that "good history," can indeed sell and I hope it is the beginning of a trend.

Dr. William R. Forstchen Professor of History Montreat College Montreat NC

co-author of "Gettysburg, A Novel of the Civil War"

Just sit back and assume you are going to see something so strange that you'll either flee to reruns of Beastmaster, or fall in love with an enchanting film unlike anything you've ever seen. Its an old Soviet production from the mid fifties, filled with overacting in the best traditions of social realist acting, and that indeed is part of the charm. But it is so much more, a child like wonder land of wind demons, magic swords, squirrels beating on mushrooms like bongo drums, and some of the best darn villians ever created. I first saw this in a theater when I was a kid and fell in love with the tale, so much so that it actually impacted my life in a major way. I wound up in a library, a ten year old wanting to read about Russian history, folktales, and above all else, the Mongols, who are the bad guys in the film. Well, I now spend my summers in Mongolia working on archaeological digs, have wandered around Russia doing the same, and though I teach American history on the college level, this film triggered a life long love of the exotic world of old Rus and the "Tugar," i.e. Mongol Hordes. . .along with the science fiction novels I write in which a Mongol like Horde are the major antagonists. For that alone I'm grateful to the weird genius of Ptushko, the director of this and several other equally strange movies. When I ran a college film series as a student I ordered this one up for what I guess you could call a "stoner's night," the old routine of strange cartoons, "Reefer Madness," and such. Everyone went nuts over "The Sword and the Dragon," and said it was the best of the night! Some of my favorite moments, the tower of human bodies, the great dancing girl routine, the 1000 lb envoy, the dancing squirrel, the wind demon, and the beautiful entry scene in the the court of Prince Vander. . .a moment as beautiful as any put on film and one of a couple of songs that are in Russian. So, go ahead and call it goofy. . .it might haunt your nightmares, you might just freak, call me a nut and turn it off in ten minutes. . .or you might get haunted by the film and watch it again and again. "Bravo Ilya Murometz!"

I was very impressed and profoundly moved by the opening installment of "Band of Brothers." The presentation of the conflict between Winters and Soebel was an interesting look at methods of command and leadership under stress. The jump sequence was stunning, comparable to the opening of "Private Ryan," in its frightful intensity. The battle to destroy the German battery had a gritty realism to it which I felt was even better than the last half hour of "Private Ryan," and I believe captured the essence of small unit actions.

I'm a military historian and teach a course on WWII. I'm recommending this one to my students and friends, and hope that the series sustains the level of realism so far achieved. Yet again, Spielberg & Hanks have demonstrated a commitment to showing the harsh reality of war, and honoring those who stood against tyranny.

As a professional historian and published author I find it impossible to avoid throwing in a few comments about this film. I finally went to see it this weekend (July 14th) long after the hoopla surrounding its release, and yes I did go primed as a critic due to what I heard from students who take my course on WWII.

I left the theater feeling angry, angry over the fact that the film could have been far more effective, entertaining, and revealing simply by being respectful of the history of that fateful day. Of course I understand the need for profit in film. I've had several books optioned for the screen, and whether I am writing fiction or history, I of course have an eye on the bottom line. And yet I would like to think that when it comes to certain subjects, that these subjects would be approached with the respect they deserve. Pearl Harbor, D-Day, Gettysburg, the deaths of Kennedy, King and Lincoln are sacred moments in our history and when done on film should at least be treated with some respect. I am not asking for a somber documentary, or even a high tech remake of "Tora Tora Tora," but I was hoping for a bit more than the trivia dished out with an obvious eye towards marketing to the 18 year old female audience. I can not fathom why second rate directors and production teams feel compelled to trash over history in favor of improbable fiction, when so often the real stories are far more compelling. Spielberg did this beautifully in both Schindler and Private Ryan. The real history was respected, the fiction blended in with skill and grace, creating films that are the highest level of entertainment, while at the same time being films worthy of historical respect. I use both in my classes, and the most successful class I've ever taught involved bringing in four D-Day vets and opening the class with the first fifteen minutes of Private Ryan. I would never dream of insulting my class, or veterans, with the use of Pearl Harbor. Of course I could carry on about the absurd plot lines, (come on, the guy would of gotten a telegram out the day he got out of France), the technical screw ups (1980s frigates as targets, flying in the wrong direction when the B-25s head to China. . .the sun is setting behind them. . . and the planes did not bomb as a group, and why did Affleck get on a train in New York to go to England when the Queen Mary was sitting in the harbor) but I think the issue runs far deeper. It is an issue of all the lost potentials of this film. Sure, go ahead and create fictional characters in a real setting, some of the best books ever about history are actually historical fiction, but what was lost was the potentials of the real stories. Forty five minutes less of poorly written romance replaced with a rich cast of supporting actors playing real roles could have transformed the film. When the "Oklahoma" rolled over hundreds of men were trapped inside. They touched on it in the film, but what a lost moment for a real character, the boxer who fought Dorie for example, with just a couple dozen lines of writing to develope him out and we could have better felt the horror of it. Yes we did see Dorie, but it was sensed that the role was almost an obligatory salute to diversity, rather than a heart felt introduction to the gallant role played not just by African Americans but also Latinos and Filipinos serving that day. How frustrating---all the lost stories that could have been brought to life. The Japanese side deserved far more, instead it was reduced to a few attempts at imitating Kurosawa's "Ran" with the outdoor sets and banners. I did like the dialogue of the pilot writing to his father, but damn it, here was a chance to create a real character, a pilot with a family, willing to die for his country, and then indeed he does die, shot down in the raid. If we had followed his perspective for just a few minutes the raiders would have been far more than soulless killing machines. The only human touch I felt for the Japanese side was the gunner waving the children off, a genuine act which did reveal at least some humanity on a side that fought brilliantly even if it was for a cause that was wrong. As an historian yet again I left a theater frustrated at what could have been, and angered how a crucial moment in our history was reduced to trivia. I must repeat that there are certain moments in history which are sacred to a people and should be handled as such when someone wishes to make money off of them. This film trashed the memory of that day of infamy, and tragically another twenty years must now pass before someone attempts to do it right. Unfortunately those brave few survivors of that day will no longer be with us to see it. I just hope that the next "historical" film that comes out does in some small way truly connect to the real history, and in so doing both the producers and the public will profit from the result.

As an historian I can't resist commenting on the movie. I teach a course on Roman history and frankly. . .I LOVED IT! Granted, as in all films, they run right over most of the historic details (such as Commodus ruled for 12 years and did not die in the arena but instead was strangled by a wrestler) but what the heck, it was other things I was looking for. I've visited Rome several times and was stunned to see the relatively good accuracy of recreating the arena, especially the details such as the awnings. One of my students who traveled to Rome with me was by my side at the movie, and when the scene first shifts to the arena we were on the edge of our seats, noting the details and were thrilled, pointing out where we had stood. Nor did Scott go 50s Hollywood with thousands of gladiators fighting it out at once, the games were terribly expensive and even in Rome a fight with fifteen or twenty on a side was a big show, except of course for the famed dedication of a water works project during the reign of Cladius were supposedly five thousand fought in one day in a fake naval battle.

If you want to catch a sense of what Rome really looked like, the sense of the power of the cult of gladiatorial combat, and visually what a Roman army looked like (though not quite fought like) this film will do it. And, as well, if you want to get a bit of a creepy sense that you too might have been seduced by the power of the games, as the character of Oliver Reed so beautifully explains, then definitely see this film.

The battle sequence at the start was stunning and incredibly well acted, though I still wait for the day when the moment of contact between the opposing sides is done correctly, with mass formations, shields overlapping, piliums (heavy Roman javelins) flying. But yet again, what the heck, it was pretty darn close!

I hope Gladiator sets a new trend towards films set in other historic periods and with it the effort to recreate the look of that time. I know that a lot of my more stuffy peers will sniff, whine about details etc. but when you are trying to motivate a 100 level freshman survey class, this film will spark the interest and get the questions flowing, which can then be directed into "real" history.

One question though and I hope someone responses. Was it me or did I hear the battle chant from the movie Zulu? Zulu is one of my favorites and I could swear that twice I heard the banging of the shields and battle chant at the very start of the movie when the Germans attacked. Let me know, its been bothering me.

Enjoy the film