filipemanuelneto
Joined May 2014
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.
Ratings2K
filipemanuelneto's rating
Reviews2K
filipemanuelneto's rating
The Texas War of Independence, as we all know, was a conflict that pitted Texan rebels against Mexican soldiers. The territory was under very strong American influence and wanted to become independent in order to become, later, a part of the USA. Led by António Lopes de Santa Ana, the Mexicans not only underestimated the enemy but also allowed themselves to suffer a humiliating defeat in the Battle of San Jacinto, giving victory to the rebel side. This film is dedicated to bringing to the big screen one of the most iconic battles of the war: the siege of the Alamo, a fortification that defended the town of San Antonio, the capital of the Texans. The battle may not have been decisive, but the way the Texans resisted and were almost all killed made them martyrs for the rebels, giving them a breath of fresh air they had not had before.
Although most people consider this film a mere remake of the famous 1960 film starring John Wayne, I feel reluctant to go down that path: in fact, director and screenwriter John Lee Hancock's approach is completely different, favoring a more rigorous reading of historical facts over the pure and simple heroization of Texans. Of course, Santa Ana, with his brutality and arrogance, is still a pantomime villain, completely ignoring the moral and mental nuances of the Mexican leader, viscerally concerned with solidifying his power and preventing other uprisings throughout the country, but this is not a documentary either and I accept well the creative liberties assumed by the team. But if we forget this lightness in the treatment of the Mexican part, I do not consider this film a remake: the facts and events of history will always lend themselves to the production of several films and we cannot consider them remakes just because they address the same historical moment.
On a technical level, we observed careful attention to the reconstruction of environments, such as the Alamo Fort and its iconic unfinished missionary façade, and the uniforms and costumes of the period. The production team took care to ask for the collaboration of a good group of historians and consultants and to take their opinions into account, which makes all the difference in this type of film. Apart from some practical freedoms and concessions that are sometimes imposed by budgetary and logistical management, I did not observe any glaring historical errors, even admitting that I am not an expert on this moment in history. Furthermore, the cinematography is very elegant, with an intelligent use of light and filming angles, which the post-production work was able to enhance by putting everything together in a coherent and cohesive way. The soundtrack is also very good.
As for the actors, I have mixed feelings: on the one hand, I can't help but consider that Billy Bob Thornton has left us here with one of the most convincing and committed works of his recent career. He managed to make Davy Crockett memorable and worthy without the vain heroism and giving less relevance to the romantic character's infamous fur hat. Equally notable, Dennis Quaid gives us a very determined and strong Sam Houston, a natural leader; Emilio Echevarría does everything he can for Santa Ana, but the way the script leads the character doesn't give him very good material; much weaker and more inconsistent, Jason Patric and Patrick Wilson try to balance themselves in a film that relegates their characters to the back of the stage, not giving them much space.
Although most people consider this film a mere remake of the famous 1960 film starring John Wayne, I feel reluctant to go down that path: in fact, director and screenwriter John Lee Hancock's approach is completely different, favoring a more rigorous reading of historical facts over the pure and simple heroization of Texans. Of course, Santa Ana, with his brutality and arrogance, is still a pantomime villain, completely ignoring the moral and mental nuances of the Mexican leader, viscerally concerned with solidifying his power and preventing other uprisings throughout the country, but this is not a documentary either and I accept well the creative liberties assumed by the team. But if we forget this lightness in the treatment of the Mexican part, I do not consider this film a remake: the facts and events of history will always lend themselves to the production of several films and we cannot consider them remakes just because they address the same historical moment.
On a technical level, we observed careful attention to the reconstruction of environments, such as the Alamo Fort and its iconic unfinished missionary façade, and the uniforms and costumes of the period. The production team took care to ask for the collaboration of a good group of historians and consultants and to take their opinions into account, which makes all the difference in this type of film. Apart from some practical freedoms and concessions that are sometimes imposed by budgetary and logistical management, I did not observe any glaring historical errors, even admitting that I am not an expert on this moment in history. Furthermore, the cinematography is very elegant, with an intelligent use of light and filming angles, which the post-production work was able to enhance by putting everything together in a coherent and cohesive way. The soundtrack is also very good.
As for the actors, I have mixed feelings: on the one hand, I can't help but consider that Billy Bob Thornton has left us here with one of the most convincing and committed works of his recent career. He managed to make Davy Crockett memorable and worthy without the vain heroism and giving less relevance to the romantic character's infamous fur hat. Equally notable, Dennis Quaid gives us a very determined and strong Sam Houston, a natural leader; Emilio Echevarría does everything he can for Santa Ana, but the way the script leads the character doesn't give him very good material; much weaker and more inconsistent, Jason Patric and Patrick Wilson try to balance themselves in a film that relegates their characters to the back of the stage, not giving them much space.
Francis Ford Coppola is one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of all time, but this is one of his least known works by the public: nestled between the films of the "The Godfather" trilogy, it passed discreetly among their sensation and is considered a minor work. That doesn't mean it's bad: it's not a brilliant film, but it's good.
At the time it was released, in the midst of the "détente" between the USA and the Soviet Union, there was still a lot of talk about spies, espionage warfare and the use of electronic surveillance and listening systems to scrutinize people and environments. The Watergate case broke at this time, as did the famous cassette tapes that Nixon secretly recorded in the Oval Office, the contents of which he never revealed, preferring to leave the White House. So it comes as no surprise that the film's theme is eavesdropping, covert surveillance, and how information can be used to harm or commit crimes. It was something current and that all Americans knew from the newspapers. The film approaches the subject in a credible way by placing a private detective, a specialist in this type of surveillance, before a complicated moral dilemma: should he give the compromising material he has obtained to the person who hired him, and ignore the mortal danger that seems to threaten two human lives?
Technically, the film is effective. Coppola does his job well, even though we may disagree with some of his choices, and the film unfolds well and seeks to build solid suspense through the narrative and the pace of the action. Unfortunately, it is very slow, spending too much time on scenes that could have been shortened in the editing room to create a more elegant and less tiring pace for the audience. The lack of soundtrack and sound effects throughout many of the scenes makes it even more mind-numbing. I confess that I fell asleep on the first two attempts to watch it, and on the second attempt I woke up very scared in one of the final scenes, due to a loud scream that can be heard.
In addition to the exasperatingly tiresome pace, the film also has an additional problem: Gene Hackman. The actor is very good, and does his job impeccably, but I felt unable to care about his character. To me, he was a man who lived a monotonous existence, lukewarm as coffee with milk, without attachment, without connections. A man who would arouse neither sympathy nor antipathy in me, a stranger you pass by who deserves no attention. Placing a character like this in the middle of the story, in the middle of a moral dilemma, seems unintelligent to me. The rest of the cast also doesn't get any better: the villains are predictable and do what villains are supposed to do, and the two actors who gave life to the supposedly threatened couple are mere supporting characters in a story where they have no real importance whatsoever.
At the time it was released, in the midst of the "détente" between the USA and the Soviet Union, there was still a lot of talk about spies, espionage warfare and the use of electronic surveillance and listening systems to scrutinize people and environments. The Watergate case broke at this time, as did the famous cassette tapes that Nixon secretly recorded in the Oval Office, the contents of which he never revealed, preferring to leave the White House. So it comes as no surprise that the film's theme is eavesdropping, covert surveillance, and how information can be used to harm or commit crimes. It was something current and that all Americans knew from the newspapers. The film approaches the subject in a credible way by placing a private detective, a specialist in this type of surveillance, before a complicated moral dilemma: should he give the compromising material he has obtained to the person who hired him, and ignore the mortal danger that seems to threaten two human lives?
Technically, the film is effective. Coppola does his job well, even though we may disagree with some of his choices, and the film unfolds well and seeks to build solid suspense through the narrative and the pace of the action. Unfortunately, it is very slow, spending too much time on scenes that could have been shortened in the editing room to create a more elegant and less tiring pace for the audience. The lack of soundtrack and sound effects throughout many of the scenes makes it even more mind-numbing. I confess that I fell asleep on the first two attempts to watch it, and on the second attempt I woke up very scared in one of the final scenes, due to a loud scream that can be heard.
In addition to the exasperatingly tiresome pace, the film also has an additional problem: Gene Hackman. The actor is very good, and does his job impeccably, but I felt unable to care about his character. To me, he was a man who lived a monotonous existence, lukewarm as coffee with milk, without attachment, without connections. A man who would arouse neither sympathy nor antipathy in me, a stranger you pass by who deserves no attention. Placing a character like this in the middle of the story, in the middle of a moral dilemma, seems unintelligent to me. The rest of the cast also doesn't get any better: the villains are predictable and do what villains are supposed to do, and the two actors who gave life to the supposedly threatened couple are mere supporting characters in a story where they have no real importance whatsoever.
This is one of those old Portuguese films that ended up forgotten in favor of the great, acclaimed classics that we all know and love. Directed by Jorge Brum do Canto, the film is unremarkable, has a basic narrative and an overly theatrical cast, to say the least. However, even so, the film could perfectly be shown sometimes by RTP which, to the infamy of its competitors, continues to be the only Portuguese TV channel to retain the regular showing of national classic cinema (let's hope that this never changes, as unfortunately happened with the regular broadcasting of bullfighting events, kept for years in defense of culture and the representation of all citizens who pay the audiovisual tax, and abolished more recently to satisfy the hatred of the young Woke leftist "doctors").
The film is set during the First World War, in which Portugal had the misfortune of participating: in addition to the danger to the preservation of the African colonies, the desire for international recognition of the new republican leaders, ambitious and noisy in domestic politics, but, for the most part, devoid of individual merits, political capacity and basic diplomatic tact, forced us to make such a sacrifice. Having established itself over the blood of a sovereign king and an heir to the crown, the young Portuguese Republic yearned for the blood of thousands of hastily recruited and trained Portuguese soldiers in order to prove itself worthy of sitting, as an equal, among the great European nations. João Ratão is one of these soldiers, and he leaves behind a girlfriend, to whom he writes copiously in his eagerness to return. Many did, many never returned. The film focuses on this romance between the soldier and the village girl who waits for him, ignoring the sad fate of hunger, mud, lice and death that most Portuguese soldiers suffered in the trenches of La Lys, where many were cut to pieces on April 9, 1918.
The film is unremarkable, and the way it presents its story is poor. I missed a greater understanding of what cinema is and how it works. Brum do Canto seems to be ignoring the quality of the dialogues and the performances of its cast, focusing only on the almost pastoral narrative of a simple and humble country, but patriotic and always willing to make sacrifices when the boss requires it. From this perspective, we can notice the smell of the propaganda of the Estado Novo, the "everything for the nation, nothing against the nation", evoking the heroic memory of the soldiers of Flanders, inglorious victors of a war that had little or nothing to do with our country.
The film is set during the First World War, in which Portugal had the misfortune of participating: in addition to the danger to the preservation of the African colonies, the desire for international recognition of the new republican leaders, ambitious and noisy in domestic politics, but, for the most part, devoid of individual merits, political capacity and basic diplomatic tact, forced us to make such a sacrifice. Having established itself over the blood of a sovereign king and an heir to the crown, the young Portuguese Republic yearned for the blood of thousands of hastily recruited and trained Portuguese soldiers in order to prove itself worthy of sitting, as an equal, among the great European nations. João Ratão is one of these soldiers, and he leaves behind a girlfriend, to whom he writes copiously in his eagerness to return. Many did, many never returned. The film focuses on this romance between the soldier and the village girl who waits for him, ignoring the sad fate of hunger, mud, lice and death that most Portuguese soldiers suffered in the trenches of La Lys, where many were cut to pieces on April 9, 1918.
The film is unremarkable, and the way it presents its story is poor. I missed a greater understanding of what cinema is and how it works. Brum do Canto seems to be ignoring the quality of the dialogues and the performances of its cast, focusing only on the almost pastoral narrative of a simple and humble country, but patriotic and always willing to make sacrifices when the boss requires it. From this perspective, we can notice the smell of the propaganda of the Estado Novo, the "everything for the nation, nothing against the nation", evoking the heroic memory of the soldiers of Flanders, inglorious victors of a war that had little or nothing to do with our country.