wildcats76
Joined Jul 2011
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews7
wildcats76's rating
Why set the film in Indiana, if you're going to film it in Massachusetts. I wasn't buying the Indiana setting. Why cast a mutt from New York City and a giant Italian guy as his brother? I wasn't buying any of them as small town Indiana people.
This was the world's most dysfunctional family. They really stacked the deck. I guess it's possible, but I had trouble believing it. Car accidents, divorce, autism, illegitimate baby, incest, murder, chemo, vomiting, pants-crapping, peeing on someone, reform school, precocious kid, etc.
I didn't buy Ken Howard, Mr. East Coast, as a small town Indiana judge.
Having said all that, Downey delivered as he always does and the frames of cinematography were stunning. There's also some good dialogue.
But this picture was too long, too convoluted, poorly cast, and lacking intrigue. The case itself was boring. Duvall can't remember certain things. Big Deal.
I actually appreciated the idea of a slightly autistic adult brother who films everything with a move camera. That was an original concept. The romance thing fell flat. Totally awkward.
But the movie is worth watching for the physical setting, the Downey intensity, and the dialogue showing family daynamics.
This was the world's most dysfunctional family. They really stacked the deck. I guess it's possible, but I had trouble believing it. Car accidents, divorce, autism, illegitimate baby, incest, murder, chemo, vomiting, pants-crapping, peeing on someone, reform school, precocious kid, etc.
I didn't buy Ken Howard, Mr. East Coast, as a small town Indiana judge.
Having said all that, Downey delivered as he always does and the frames of cinematography were stunning. There's also some good dialogue.
But this picture was too long, too convoluted, poorly cast, and lacking intrigue. The case itself was boring. Duvall can't remember certain things. Big Deal.
I actually appreciated the idea of a slightly autistic adult brother who films everything with a move camera. That was an original concept. The romance thing fell flat. Totally awkward.
But the movie is worth watching for the physical setting, the Downey intensity, and the dialogue showing family daynamics.
Sorry folks. Iraq was not Vietnam. A jungle in Southeast Asia is very different from an open desert in the middle east. That's not to belittle what our soldiers went through, but I think Vietnam was a bit more unpredictable and freaky, given the terrain.
We have deserts in America. We don't have jungles.
Why not include at least one veteran who adjusts well to life back home? I'm sure there are plenty. It would provide balance.
Other than the one substantial event at the end of their tour, was the rest of their experience over there so terrible? Some reviewers have said that this is not an anti-war movie, but I think it is. You hear so many characters questioning our motives, but not many, if any, effectively defending them.
All the characters do is feel sorry for themselves. It gets tiresome. Why didn't the Director and Writer notice this? Where's the gratitude? For their health, their lovely town and families, and their employment?
Bush laid out at least 17 concrete reasons to go in there, and it all fit the concept of the War on Terror, with or without WMDs. What character says that? Why the hell did you volunteer, if you didn't believe in the cause?
Why do a movie, unless you can offer something unique? A different take on things, a different performance, a different style? Melodramatic music, flashbacks, heaviness, mediocre acting. It's all been done before. Stay away from this one.
We have deserts in America. We don't have jungles.
Why not include at least one veteran who adjusts well to life back home? I'm sure there are plenty. It would provide balance.
Other than the one substantial event at the end of their tour, was the rest of their experience over there so terrible? Some reviewers have said that this is not an anti-war movie, but I think it is. You hear so many characters questioning our motives, but not many, if any, effectively defending them.
All the characters do is feel sorry for themselves. It gets tiresome. Why didn't the Director and Writer notice this? Where's the gratitude? For their health, their lovely town and families, and their employment?
Bush laid out at least 17 concrete reasons to go in there, and it all fit the concept of the War on Terror, with or without WMDs. What character says that? Why the hell did you volunteer, if you didn't believe in the cause?
Why do a movie, unless you can offer something unique? A different take on things, a different performance, a different style? Melodramatic music, flashbacks, heaviness, mediocre acting. It's all been done before. Stay away from this one.
Tom Selleck is 66 now, and close to that during this series. I like him, but he is too old for this character. At most, it should have been a guy maybe 50 or 55. Although granted, I don't know how old the character is in the book series.
They never tell us why he is so depressed, and why he started drinking. I like a little mystery, but at some point, you have to let us know what the hell is going on, or we can't empathize with the character. O.K., L.A. cops drink. But they can still have a personality.
If I met a guy who gave one word answers, and answered questions with another question, I would want to punch him. Either Selleck is overdoing this stoicism, or the Director is.
As far as girls 30 and 40 years younger, throwing themselves at him, I suppose it's possible. He's tall, rugged, and mysterious, but the guy is a total loser. Rather than have people constantly ask if his lady friends are too young for him, wny not just make the character a little younger?
Having said all that, I do like the atmosphere, the character development of other characters, some of the dialogue, and the plot line. It just could have been so much better, with more background on the main character, and a younger actor, for believability.
They never tell us why he is so depressed, and why he started drinking. I like a little mystery, but at some point, you have to let us know what the hell is going on, or we can't empathize with the character. O.K., L.A. cops drink. But they can still have a personality.
If I met a guy who gave one word answers, and answered questions with another question, I would want to punch him. Either Selleck is overdoing this stoicism, or the Director is.
As far as girls 30 and 40 years younger, throwing themselves at him, I suppose it's possible. He's tall, rugged, and mysterious, but the guy is a total loser. Rather than have people constantly ask if his lady friends are too young for him, wny not just make the character a little younger?
Having said all that, I do like the atmosphere, the character development of other characters, some of the dialogue, and the plot line. It just could have been so much better, with more background on the main character, and a younger actor, for believability.