Reviews

It has been several years' since I wrote my previous review: ill-health affects us all at some time in our lives and I am thankful just to be here. "Micmacs" or, more properly, "Micmacs à tire-larigot" is where I choose to start writing reviews again. Yes, I think it is THAT good.

Jeunet uses a Daliesque palette in both the cinematography and mise-en-scène which seem his forte. Whilst Amélie appealed to mainstream audiences, this wonderfully black comedy seems destined to become more of a cult classic - not because it is inferior in any way, but because its subject (and witty yet pointed screenplay) mean that thinking as an adjunct to enjoyment is most necessary.

The plight of the homeless and disenfranchised has been explored by many directors before, but not, perhaps, with such a literate and poetic touch. The sense of community and the need for each member of the 'micmacs' to participate in the action against the arms dealers is central to their sense of worth (or lack of it). We are teased with glimpses/fragments of each character's previous life and what has brought them, literally, to the scrap-heap.

There is a lot of Tati in Dany Boon's performance as the central protagonist, and Julie Ferrier's turn as a contortionist is brilliant comedy. The selection of this relatively-large ensemble cast is inspired. Even Beckett seems to haunt the wings.

So there it is. A review with no spoilers and hints at elements of Surrealism and The Theatre of the Absurd. PLEASE, see this film. It has a lot to say about the human condition.

I haven't laughed so much in years!

There is just so much fun to be had that more than one viewing is required - every scene has some Aardman magic: some of it so fast that it's easy to miss a delightful nuance...

The 'choice of voice', from Jean Reno to Bill Nighy to Miriam Margolyes to EVERYONE is inspired.

The detailed backgrounds are 'to die for'. And the story/plot line ably supports deranged villains, Heath Robinson-esquire contraptions and a suitably fraught romance. I can't discuss things in any more detail since almost ANY in-depth remarks would inadvertently supply spoilers.

I'm about to rush out and buy the DVD - yes, it's THAT good!

One of the advantages of being an audience member (at least in the West) is that one can say what one likes re politics and/or regimes and not be imprisoned. Interested? Then read on...

Can we perceive this monster as the threat from NORTH Korea? It's not such an outrageous idea: it is hinted at the start of the film that the US military is responsible for the creation of the monster - insert the notion of the fallout from the Korean 'police-action' and the creation of the Communist state north of the 38th parallel.

The monster crosses the river-as-border (mostly) by bridge: how often have we seen the cold war 'exchanges' beloved of '50s/'60s film makers take place on those very constructions? Even the featured family (supposedly dysfunctional under-achievers) might possibly represent the notion of American 'paternalism' in South Korea: i.e. Koreans cannot be left unsupervised or trusted to make their own way in the world... add to this another US military doctor who looks suspiciously like Elmo Lincoln (the '20s screen's cross-eyed Tarzan) and the plot becomes as murky as the river.

Still, I could have imagined the whole scenario. Although, come to think of it, aren't ALL movies smoke-and-mirrors and paranoia; or is it just me? Apart from anything else, this is a FUN movie for all the family or at least that's what it seems on the surface!

Considering that this was made for TV, it is one strange take on the life of a 'man who would be king', and deserves a much wider viewing audience that it may have attracted.

Antonio Banderas is a much underrated actor - partially because he seems to accept any role that comes his way - and this should indicate to the harshest critic that he is most capable! Much as Robin Hood and, here in Australia, Ned Kelly, are revered as 'outlaws with a conscience', Pancho Villa is perceived as a folk hero. I hope this film dispels THAT particular notion. He was a self-serving bandit with a huge ego and, as the film shows, not above killing the 'locals' to further his grandiose schemes.

Banderas makes a fine fist of what is, essentially, a portrait of a seemingly-complex yet simple man seduced by the notion of Hollywood stardom. The irony, of course, is that, these days, anyone who appears on the screen (silver or no) is perceived as a 'star'.

Villa is presented as one in a long line of anti-heroes who find themselves fighting an unjust regime - but essentially just as brutal.

Overall a charmer of a film. Definitely worth more than one viewing.

Polanski has always directed uneven and sometimes disappointing movies.

Having said that, this writer revisited "Chinatown" almost thirty-three years after its release and found it good. In fact, found it excellent! Visually stunning (as an auteur's films should be) "Chinatown" is also a period-piece which would make the BBC proud: it reeks of purity. The costumes, cars, offices are SO accurate that it makes one want to weep. Of course, it is OUR vision of what LA was/should be. And so it goes.

Nicholson is pre-'Satanic'-eyebrows, and 'La Faye' simply stunning. Polanski's conceit of using John Huston in a key role takes one's breath away: Huston is presented as an 'eminence gris', the power behind the throne, as he was in real life.

Satisfying and a brilliant nod (and wink) to the 'forties films noir. Oooh, gonna watch it again... 10/10.

There are so many references to auteurs/directors and several genres (homages?) contained within this film, that I can't believe its rating of 6.5!!! Who on earth ARE you people? I, for one, didn't need to watch the post-production extras on the DVD... and I doubt the need for any of you to do same.

It has STYLE written all over it - indeed, EUROSTYLE - and FRENCH POMO specifically. Yes, there are obvious similarities to "Blade Runner" but, I would argue that they are shallow, surface resemblances. One could argue, given the soundtrack, for similarities with "The 5th Element". But surely, this is a feature of modern French cinema...

Similarities with "Sin City"? No. Apart from the the obvious 'black-and-white' comparison, they have nothing in common. "City" is ultra-violent and sexually-charged.

"Renaissance" owes more to the '30s and '40s noir - and it must be said - romantic products of French cinema and thus the '50s and '60s revival/regurgitation of same. If the film had been 'live', one could perceive Alain Delon as the 'hero', and 'La Bardot' as his foil/love interest.

To discuss the plot would be to destroy any reason for a viewer to enjoy the film. However...

This DVD gives one the choice to select DTS as sound reproduction: turn it up loud, be proud, and revel in a soundscape far superior to the Dolby 5.1. Maximum enjoyment comes through the use of headphones...

A VERY superior exercise in animation.

I came to this film without knowing the history behind its making: I am very glad this was the case. Had I known it is based on a game, I may not have even looked for Silent Hill at all. After all, most adaptations from games to screen are dodgy to say the least. I don't know what the game is like, but the film is sensational! Silent Hill has pretty-much anything one could wish for in a horror flick: great direction; excellent editing; and a wonderful cast. Alice Krieg plays Christabella to the hilt, and references to her "Borg Queen", especially toward the denouement, abound. Jodelle Ferland as Sharon/Alessa proves she is an adaptable actor who should get better by the role/year! And the list goes on...

Everywhere, there are allusions and references for the fans among us: "Midwich" makes an appearance and there is more than a touch of the original "Kingdom" (rather than King's adaptation) floating about. We have: the isolated community; the government (in this case local) conspiracy; the hypocrisy of sectarian religion/cults; the strong bond between mother and child; and the father-figure out of his depth.

I'm avoiding ANY hints re the story/action because it is so good that it must be experienced first-hand. Rent the DVD or buy it. I'm certainly going to watch it a few more times, and I bet you will too. Yes, it's THAT good! Now, I suppose, I'd better go find someone who's played the game...

There have been/will be attempts to transfer graphic novels/comic strips to screen. By the time of X-Men 3's release, it should have been obvious that 'one doesn't annoy the fans or, indeed, treat them as idiots'. We are, after all, where the money comes from.

Sin City is as close to representing the graphic novels upon which it is based as it can get.

OK. Film Noir: directors, camera-persons, actors, scripts. By definition dark, moody and broody. Regardless, along comes Sin City.

Violent; feminist; misogynist; brutal; improbable; hopelessly romantic; heroic; disturbing; and, ultimately, an homage to what has come before. It is, as close to perfect, as it can be.

What is immediately apparent, are the multiple narrators, most of whom die. Or do they? The constant shift between points-of-view is SO cool! As is the feeling that 'something wicked this way comes'.

Black and white? No way... those blacks and whites are infused with ink. Just as on the paper used by the author. Frank knows who he is. And so do we.

Kudos. Forget the Marvel characters. THIS is where love hurts.

This is a feature which can be watched once, and twice, and then again.

Every time one views this gem, one sees something more.

To a certain extent, it's a silent movie. It is also: a radical statement/exploration of what it is to be French; a study about obsession; an indication of just what it means to be human; and, given the characters, exactly how one copes with adversity and ageing.

The triplets are not necessarily the centre of the action. However, they certainly represent the notion of women ageing disgracefully.

And there's the rub. All the men, except the riders, the entrants in the Tour de France, are either obese (everyone within the city) or threatening figures. It's the WOMEN who are the attractive figures: not because of their gender, but because of their humanity. Frogs will never be the same.

Bruno. What can one say about a CGI dog? Well... Bruno is exceptional and a REAL dog!!! Everything Bruno is seen to do, is exactly what a real pooch would do.

The settings/backgrounds are the most intimate, stylish and interesting I think that I've ever seen encapsulated within an 'animated' feature.

Loved it and loved it some more. 10/10

In 1975 I was still in the army.

We'd been through "Mod Squad" and similar 'groovy' attempts at television showing us that it was awkward to be a Vietnam vet - because ALL of them were either cops or robbers. What the medium at the time was NOT showing, was that things hadn't changed since the First World War: when the troops come home, they are not the same people they were when they went away.

OK. That's something best discussed on another day.

SWAT is crap because the actors make the notion of watching paint dry exciting. It might be an early Spelling production, but it's as terrible as the 'seventies Hannah Barbera cartoons. 'Wooden' is an insult to trees.

There is NO attempt to be 'real' or even occasionally-accurate when it comes to weapons per se and why people steal/use them.

Occasional 'through-the-scope' sniper views make me want to weep. Trust me, you don't want to know.

Stories/scenarios are as hackneyed as the characters. Let's face it: pneumonic plague (?!) is not got rid of as easy as "We've been inoculated, therefore you're safe". That particular episode with 'Little Billy' surviving is, indeed, a classic.

Did I offer 2/10? I must be dreaming...

Great cast. Great director. Great premise. So what happened? The script is patchy and the interpretation of same woeful at best. It's not the subject material: Satanistic leanings within ANY government would seem to be a given. Brrrr! It's the complete lack of engagement, characterwise, by ANY of the cast. CAMP is OK, but this seems a pale rendition of the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" without the songs and over-the-top kitsch. In fact, it's the soundtrack that saves this abomination from the trashcan.

Australian films, at least HUMOROUS ones, tend to fall flat when they attempt parody or satirical-humour per se. It's not that we can't do it... it's more that we do it best on television. There is something episodic about "A Little Bit of Soul": the editing is woeful and the dialogue patchy.

Like a lot of things we in Oz do: couldabeen.

This is an unfortunate combination of G-rated, wannabe "Scooby-Doo" and, perhaps, wannabe Disney.

It's not the fault of the cast: goodness knows, between the dog and ALL the cameo appearances by people you know from TV who form the central 'character pool', and the 'quaint' town/landscape, it's ALL so wonderful. Indeed, should have been so.

And that's the catch. There is a complete lack of real or perceived threat. Imagine "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" without the bears. Think about "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" without the Evil Queen. Contemplate "Scooby-Doo" without ANY frisson of fear...

I know that 'B5' is just one more in a sequence of sequels - but surely SOMEONE could have put some 'oomph' into the script?

The occasional (jokey) reference to "Scooby-Doo" doesn't work at all. And Beethoven's legendary "eve-of-destruction" behaviour is as muted as the rest of this stinker. He just burps for goodness sake. Doesn't even fart!

"Thrasher" has always been one of my all-time favourite Neil songs. Hence the 'Summary' quotation. 'Course, most of Neil's words are quotable at the best of times.

I would offer that, given the annual nature of Red Rocks per se, that the Warner DVD issued 2000 "Red Rocks Live" was an intimation/invitation for what was to come: "Heart of Gold" or, 'HoG'.

Regardless of content, I would/will fall over any 'live' presentation of Neil's work. HoG, however, has a nuance, a special feeling if you will, which reflects our/his mortality but, at the same time has a positive 'read' on life. Young doesn't have Randy Newman's cynical take on the 'American Dream': what he offers is that same dream complete with hope.

Physically, he's getting craggier: looks more and more like cro-magnon man. BUT, we've been taught that that same 'man' is a genetic 'dead-end'. Neanderthals rule. Did I just say that?

Neil Young sits, always, balanced upon a fence which OUR perceptions have created. As a poet and social commentator and, at times, eclectic rocker, his ability to move us, mentally, emotionally and sensually, makes him a 20th Century icon who has moved, almost seamlessly, into the 21st Century.

HoG is a wonderful evocation of what it means to never ever be invited into/onto "The Grand Ol' Opry(?)" but to cram a large Nashville audience into another (perhaps better) venue, and there to slay them!

Yet, in the middle of some of the best acoustic/country songs ever written, there is a singer/songwriter seemingly uncomfortable with his legacy: "From Hank to Hendrix".

There has always been an honesty and integrity to Young's work. Uncomfortable as it at times seems: "Tonight's The Night" or, perhaps, "Trans"; his reasons for recording same are the same reasons that drove him to record "ARC/WELD". Young is always 'pushing the envelope' at the same time that he revisits country and folk music per se. Always, there is a seemingly positive attitude to life: one reflected in the golden light (a la Dutch masters) constantly present in the film.

And therein, perhaps, lies a lesson.

Mortality waits for all of us. Neil makes it more acceptable.

I hadn't seen this film for a long time: imagine my delight on seeing a DVD with "5.1 surround-sound"! Hmmm...

It was made in 1956. Not a really early Japanese 'monster' flic, but pretty-close. The special effects are exactly what we all expect: bug-eyed monsters; dark mine-workings; large eggs and torn-apart miners.

But, hang on? Haven't we seen this all before? Well, yes and no. It depends on one's preference: Dr Who; 'fifties cold war movies; or Alien and the crop of similar films. It really is a crap movie unless one places it into context. And THAT is the reason why RODAN is acceptable. It belongs in its time-frame and, without giving away the plot, deserves its status as a progenitor to a lot of contemporary B- to A-grade movies.

OHMYGODTHEEGGISOPENING... Except it won't produce a supersonic 'saurian of any description. Well, not so far anyway...

Given that the premise of the film is that Smart, Agent 99 and the rest of the (still alive) rag-tag Control agents are reactivated to fight Kaos, one really has to be a fan of the original series to enjoy the movie.

I can't remember how old Don Adams was when he started the series, but, make-up aside, in this production, he looks 70s-ish. Barbara Feldon still looks amazing, and Bernie Kopell as "Siegfreid" doesn't seem to have aged a bit.

HOWEVER, if you're not a fan of the original series, this is not for you. There are constant references back to the series but, there are many one-liners referring to the current (at the time of release) US government.

They only work as comedy/irony if applied to the Govt of the time. Nothing ages as fast as political satire - unless that satire is timeless. And this ain't. Still...

Poke fun at the intelligence gathering community, because if we don't, who will?

I'm not sure I can give a new perspective on 'Angels': the enormous amount of votes and comments have pretty-much said it all.

Here in Australia, we didn't see it on free-to air until last year (2005). Thankfully, it was shown on Australia's ABC - government-owned and thus advert-free - but I didn't see all episodes at the time. Last week, I finally got the DVD, and watched it in its entirety in one sitting! "Gob-smacked" is a wonderfully evocative term.

The play translated extremely well to the small screen, as did the notion of a brilliant ensemble cast; playing, in the main, several characters each, just as would have occurred with a stage performance.

Each cast member offered mesmerising characterisations: it is hard to pick-out a stand-alone performance because each actor was exceptional in her/his presentation.

The script itself was to die for (pun intended) as was its evocation of life for gays under the Reagan administration.

Thank God I never had to live in America during this traumatic and dark time.

This world would be poorer without Scorcese's film about the demise of "The Band".

As advertised (in blurbs), it IS a celebration, but a bitter-sweet one, for there will never be another band/collective comprised of eclectic musicians capable of such an intuitive and heartfelt interpretation of the mid-twentieth-century rural AND urban American musical zeitgeist. But they were more than that.

"The Band" drew succour/inspiration from diverse roots: everything from 18th- /19th-century American folk, to contemporary music of its time which reflected the insecurity of the Vietnam War, changing social mores, and Dylan's plaint that "The Times they are a-changing".

Nothing makes this more plain (and more immediate) than the stellar cast assembled for the concert. There was a query as to why Neil Diamond was invited/attended. The obvious answer is/was that he represents the dying stages of a songwriting clique which will never exist again. Tin Pan Alley has gone, but its legacy is always present: as are the songs...

If one takes the interspersed interviews/dialogue with band members at 'face-value', then they form a picture of a struggling 'road' band which, at any time, could have ceased to exist. But they carried-on regardless and history (well... at least musical history) was made.

The 'boozy'/'stoned' dialogue between Scorcese and the band is also integral to the movie (for such it is). It not only 'humanizes' the narrative but, perhaps, also indicates WHY they were self-destructing.

Regardless of Levon Helm's 'hatchet-job' in his 'tell-all' interviews and autobiography, my (and, I hope, your) appreciation of "The Last Waltz" is that, regardless of detractors, it is quite simply one of the best concert films ever made.

Forget the vituperative and venomous fall-out. Sit back, turn it up loud, and ENJOY.

I saw this concert film when it was first released in Australia and still have respect for the fact that it wasn't edited to present Neil as a 'star': like a lot of his albums, it's a "warts-and-all" presentation.

Another commentator bemoaned the fact that "Tonight's The Night" wasn't included in the footage. I dunno. Perhaps it was, even as late as then, a too-sensitive subject for Neil and The Horse to explore on stage. Then again, there had to be differences between "Rust Never Sleeps" and "Live Rust".

"Rust" as a 'show' was a concept: a piece of theatre that sometimes didn't work and at other times captured the sheer vitality and looseness which has been a trademark of Neil Young and Crazy Horse.

The 'road-eyes', apart from being an atrocious pun (both linguistically and visually) can be seen as a comment, by Young, about the almost non-presence of roadies in the audiences' perceptions. The visual reversal of size: roadies small/equipment big is, as another pointed-out, an almost surreal juxtaposition. Acoustic Neil, crawling out of his sleeping bag, and later indicating that when he gets big he wants a real guitar, is his trademark self-deprecating humour.

I have only one main criticism about "Rust Never Sleeps" - and that is purely that the cinematic/reproduction quality of the video was so abominably terrible. Still, that's production values for you. I'd probably have "bitched about" technicalities to do with a performance of a Shakespearean play, had I been there in Elizabethan times. Huh, yeah. I'd have been outside, sweeping-up horse-droppings to resell for fuel.

I think that I missed the plot completely. Whatever! Hmmm... So.

Hally Berry (Let's face it: barry warry; burry wurry; hello wello; I'm a saucy fellow.)

Having got THAT out of the way: regardless of how one spells the name of the 'STAR', this one is a stinker.

Possibly, it (the film) needs to be referred back to the specific BATMAN movie. Lets face it, the fractured/schizophrenic 'Catwoman' as played by Michelle Pfeiffer is a much better presentation.

What seems an introduction: obviously, the opening credits, starts a plot device which does not work at all.

Midnight, the cat, is Mau, the representative of Bat. And Bat, the god and cat, breathes life back into 'Catwoman': who is ?Bat?: the cat? So. Take a hike. Cats are the reason why we are alive in the first place.

"I could have been a contender..."

Purrr... was Dr No my first hug?

I wrote a negative review for Firefly: and, I guess, that I have to take that review back (with reservations). Still, it's out there, and one out of four people found it acceptable.

Serenity, however, is NOT Firefly 'the series'. What seemed, at first viewing, pretty hokey, comes together in this feature film.

It took my daughter to point out that I had 'missed the plot' (re Firefly) completely. She also made me watch Serenity. I enjoyed it immensely! Josh Whedon's script and therefore the dialogue is as cutting and clever as it is in all his productions/directorial outings.

The characters are three-dimensional and believable: they are all 'feet-of-clay' non-heroes; human/humanoids engaging in what we humans do: attempt to make a 'killing' monetarily and retire for life. Still...

Serenity is a lot of fun whilst suggesting sub-plots. And isn't that what SF/fantasy is all about? What happens now?

An acceptable shlock/horror gore fest.

It's rated "R" - understandably - but there IS a genuine story behind the crap.

The "Creep" is not perceived or, indeed, understood, until halfway through the movie. The notion that rich and blonde women are not supposed to be in the underground in the first place, becomes obvious when she cannot change money: apparently 20 (?) becomes a stupid notion. Later, she keeps offering 50 (?) to buy help. Sorry, but the reference to capitalism is so very obvious.

People are harvested for their organs, but the 'monster' is feeding rats: killing to find dietary sustinance. Or is this the case? Not really. Eventually, one discovers the reason for the cull.

And every exit is bricked-off!

German tourists beware! Beware the British underground!

I was really disappointed with this film: the score of two is for the occasional 'carrier scenes and the flying sequences.

Richter has written much better screenplays - look up his credits on IMDb - but I'm not sure if he truly should be ashamed of this. Had it been on TV it may have achieved some sort of cult status; it is, however, so COMPLETELY derivative: from Firefox for example; 2001's HAL; Darkstar's (Dark Star?) philosophical AI; sequences from JAG; all of the 'rescuing-a-downed-pilot-from-behind-enemy-lines" sequences and etc and etc. (I'm sure I saw Chuck Norris and Sly Stallone lurking in North Korea!) Director Rob Cohen. Hmmm... Lots of producer credits, including many for TV. Is this his first outing as a director? I must investigate that. I wonder if someone else at the helm might have made a difference? Nah. The whole project seems flawed.

Having said that, it could have been much better. All its antecedents should have made for a better plot line, and they certainly used competent GCI - see some of the POSITIVE comments for this film.

Interesting that the pilots are shown as having the autonomy to morally and ethically consider 'collateral damage' too extreme to actually carry out a mission. Indeed, there's an interesting conflict between the humans and the machine - in this case perhaps between serving military personnel and the 'military machine'.

Still, all-in-all, none of the perceived central themes are developed beyond a two-dimensional aspect. I really would have enjoyed a more cerebral screenplay with meaningful dialogue.

Oh well, it IS an action movie and two stars for the action. Did I forget to mention the actors? Yes I did. Make of that what you will.

Way back in the 'golden years' of SF&Fantasy comics.... Well, at least I have your attention! Start again. Whom we referred to as 'trufans' (at least in the 'bad-old-days') are still, several generations later, almost the same people, albeit with new faces. Their passion is the same as ever and, one must admit, deservedly so. If anything has changed, it is the medium of film. CGI has changed everything - but sometimes not for/to the good.

I would argue that FF is an acceptable translation from comic to screen. Unfortunately, we must compare it with others: most notably Sin City. There cannot be a favourable comparison. However, this review is about FF.

Ioan Gruffudd, Michael Chiklis and Chris Evans form an inspired triad. However (yet again), Gruffudd, as Reed Richards, doesn't get "grey" enough from the cosmic experience; Chiklis, as 'The Thing', is far more interesting as his underplayed Ben Grimm. Johnny Storm, as played by Evans, is exactly as he is in the Marvel comic: a complete, teenage pain-in-the-butt. They work off each other in an ensemble which has coherence and a dynamic.

For me, Jessica Alba is a complete disaster as Sue Storm. She looks good (since when has being eye-candy been a job description for an actor? D'oh!) but hasn't the presence which the role requires.

Still, the special effects are good, even if Julian McMahon (as Doom) can't quite cope with the change from human to (supposedly) insane demi-god. He's not quite 'insane' enough, and certainly not convincing.

I give FF a score of six both for the special effects and because there is a sincerity behind its attempt to convert a Marvel favourite to the big screen.

Any 'translation' of a Noel Coward stage-play into a screenplay will always be fraught with danger. In this 1945 version of a feel-good movie, the actors are both stage and film savvy: unfortunately, as a production, it has dated extremely quickly.

Coward wrote many stage-oriented scripts; indeed, the second world war saw him star in the odd one-or-two films himself! Essentially, however, his scripts reflect and are about manners. The manners of the upper-class and middle-class of England. They are, almost without exception, 'drawing-room' plays: driven by and derivative of same.

In 1945, the then war was over. There was a need to be entertained and reminded that 'U' and 'non-U' was just as silly as it had always been.

The value of "Blithe Spirit" is situated within its humanity. Forget the cheesy 'green' effect - remember that the film is, and always has been about: guilt; manners; love attained and NOT lost; widowed and not divorced; and, perhaps, the notion that 'truelove' means that you will be haunted for the rest of your life until you make an acceptable divorce settlement! Take it all seriously and read Checkov and Strindberg. Now THAT'S suffering in the drawing room!

As most viewers/readers of critiques would be aware of the trap entitled 'subjective viewing' and, given this film's lack of credibility, I'll cut straight to the chase.

The Duke is far too old for his on-screen character. If the milieu wasn't being presented as Vietnam, it would be one of his own "oaters", and a bad one at that.

The Green Berets are the equivalent of the British and Australian SASR. As an infanteer, we would refer to them, in derogatory fashion, as "super soldiers". Nothing, however, would have prepared them for the sight of an overweight, old, gung-ho, anacronism. John Wayne supported the Vietnam War - but this offer of support, albeit in a filmic setting, is woeful, inaccurate, inflammatory, and insulting. Both for the troops fighting in-country and the Vietnamese who denied and finally expelled them.

Without giving spoilers, I can't, in honesty, indicate how much I abhor this film.

I gave it a rating of two, just because of the notion of using M18A1 claymores back-to-back. If you don't know of which I speak, look 'em up. Much like this 'film', they're anti-personnel mines: extremely dangerous and double-edged. (Seriously, look up the Claymore: a Scottish double-edged sword.)