I thought the Lord of the Flies type scenario could lead to an interesting plot. I was wrong, not in the traditional, "oh well, at least the cinematography was good", but in the more "OH MY GOD, argh, help, THEY STOLE 2 HOURS OF MY LIFE".
I may be overreacting, hang on, i'll check.... No i'm not, this is single-handedly the worst film ever made. The raft scene where the 'baddie' sabotages their escape for his own gain cracks me up, in fact the baddie himself, and the hero and oh god - its wrong. INCLUDING - the shameless attempt to add some plot with the rape pregnancy/suicide attempt part of the plot and even more cringing is the older woman (who only just lost her fella) almost loses her toyboy and falls in love scene - give me strength.
I swear - i would LOVE to meet anyone who liked this film and pay for their psychologist, coz it sucks, it just plain sucks, in the worst way...
(oh and where does the Spanish girl get swordfighting skills from?) pah!
Michael Corleone was the best, Tony Montana sublime but Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade aint far behind in one of the greatest performances i've ever witnessed from the legend that is Al Pacino.
Agreeing with some that the last scene in the 'courtroom' wasnt all that necessary (but still uplifting) the rest of the film is fantastic. Pacino gives Slade authority, humour, stuborness and a sense of class few could manage.
O'Donnell pulls off the 'wet-behind-the-ears' role of Charlie Simms very well considering the presence of Pacino, giving the role exactly what it needed, somebody to take Pacino's crap and look completely out of his depth (the character not the actor).
The scene in the hotel room where Slade tells Simms to pass him over a few bottles of that 'John Daniels' and Simms responds 'don't you mean Jack Daniels' the next line is my one of my favourite ever...
'When you've known him as long as i have kid, you can call him John'
Love the character, love the film, for once the Oscars got it right 1993s best actor in a leading role deserved it fully.