From: rsnappy%polaris.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu (Roger Snappy Rubio)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
Subject: REVIEW: THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01546
Keywords: author=Rubio
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:37:52 GMT
Reply-To: rsnappy%polaris.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu (Roger Snappy Rubio)
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


			     THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS
		       A film review by Roger Snappy Rubio
			Copyright 1992 Roger Snappy Rubio

Starring Daniel Day Lewis and Madeline Stowe
Directed by Michael Mann

     I have it on good word that this is one of the most historically
accurate pictures made today (as far as the costumes, mannerisms, etc.
are concerned).  As the director, Michael Mann, was a stickler for
detail, it does not surprise me.  And although this may be an
essentially fictional story, it nevertheless is told with gritty realism
and passionate imagery.

     THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS is a remake/film version of the Cooper
classic of the same name.  The first film was made in 1936 and the 1992
version is based both on the book and the 1936 screenplay.  I have never
read the book, and, being a movie marauder, the movies kept me from
reading my history books back in high school, so when it comes to
historical accuracy or content, my reputation is a little lackluster.
But I went with a former history major to see this film, and she told me
that this movie was one of the best, historically speaking.  So I will
not attempt to analyze it from that perspective, just strictly from a
filmmaker's perspective (something I know a little more about).  

     Daniel Day Lewis was great.  Madeline Stowe, I am sorry to say,
could have been replaced by any good actress with the same physical
build, but don't get me wrong...she was good also.  (I guess I'm too
used to seeing Daniel Day Lewis charging up a hill in the
advertisements.)  But all the actors played their parts well, and the
foreign accents (which weren't foreign at the time) were executed with a
professional demeanor.  The war scenes especially took my breath away.
There is one scene where one army gets ambushed by another (I won't say
who gets ambushed) and the film doesn't change scenes for a stint.  It
is just long enough for you to realize that there is nothing the
ambushed army can do, or for that matter, is capable of doing.  Scenes
and situations like that in this movie are very well done.

     I can't say much for story, realistically.  It's a good story, but
I found it to be a little dry.  The movie also tries to both excite you
and take your breath away, but it falls somewhere in the middle, and
cannot be called either a spectacle or a gripping drama.  Whether that's
good or bad, I'm not sure; I guess you'll have to judge for yourself.  I
guess the action (or war) scenes were filmed with the intent of making
the audience sympathetic to the cause or plight of the particular
situation.  I think it went a little too fast for that.  A good example
of appeal-for-audience-sympathy would be GLORY, which was a very well
done civil-war epic.  And a good example of spectacle would have to be
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, where your jaw drops to the floor in every scene.
THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS tries to combine elements of both extremes, and
while it is effective, I wouldn't say it was really remarkable.

     But don't take my ramblings for it; see it for yourself.  It is a
good movie.  I don't believe it will win any major Oscars, but I have
been wrong about that before.  Check it out...that's what it's there
for!

     THE SNAPMAN
     rsnappy@hydra.unm.edu
     (Roger Rubio)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews