One of the worst movies of the year

Rating: 1/10 (4 March 2002)

That is a lofty title, and I plan on backing it up point by point.
1: The performances were weak at best: Mel Gibson was decidedly wooden as he portrayed Lt. Col. Moore. I understand that this role is hard to play, the character itself is rife with cliches, but a performance based exclusively on cliches is below Gibson (I blame the writer/direcotr, more on that later.) Madeline Stowe was terrible. Did she receive a copy of this script before the day they shot it? She flubbed lines, made unnatural facial movements (these really got me,) and all and all stunk up the joint. You know when Felicity is acting circles around you something is terribly wrong. As for the younger actors, Barry Pepper was good as a journalist, and Marc Blucas was fine, but he and Chris Kline ended up being inconsequential. Also, the Amy Tan inspired all-women sit ins were dreadfully acted.
2: The script was a series of unnecessary monologues: Mel Gibson's character is ridiculously saintly. He gives a very special speech to his men, his kid, his wife, his men again, another one of his kids, his wife again, a journalist, his men again... it goes on. It felt totally unnatural, and the unnecessary speeches took momentum away from the more interesting scenes.
3: The cinematography was lazy: Blood on the camera on half a dozen occasions. If this was on purpose this camera man needs to be shot. if not... well... perhaps film school is the answer. Also, shots were oddly out of focus, mislit, and just poorly done. Greg Toland where are you, deep focus would have been nice, hell, any focus would have been nice.
4: There was no consistant tone: The film jumped around, cut out of scenes at emotional moments, and had no consistancy at all. The tone fo the film towards the start felt almost comic, and then suddenly it tried to be Saving private Ryan, then it flashed back to America for 15 minutes, and then didn't return. We had battle scenes that felt out of place, and no consistant style shown at all. This felt like a high school production in that sense.
5: The music was ridiculous: Ugh, I know the 7th batallion theme is an Irish war song, but could they have found a less legubrious version. Honestly, I was laughing every time they played it. Plus, the cliche ridden score felt disjointed as it jumped from 1950's war music, to sweeping emotional faire. It was just poorly done.
6: The montages: There were almost a dozen random montages that killed any momentum the movie had (often very little.) my favorite was the Barry Pepper camera one, it really cracked me up. It looked like something me and my friends would put together on my computer. Layer 1, actor jumping up and down in front of a blue screen with a camera. Layer 2, black and white photos. Layer 3, stock footage of fire. I AM NOT KIDDING! THEY CUED STOCK FOOTAGE!!! The production values were low all around, but that was pathetic.
7: Blatant and unnecessary deviations from the text: For a movie that tauted itself as based on true events, perhaps they should have stuck to true events. Moore was not on the front lines leading his troops over a hill. He, like any officer following protocol, was behind his troops as he led them into battle (a battle that hardly resembled the finale.) That was just one of a number of instances where the filmmakers ignored the truth for no apparent reason, as the dramatic tension was not increased their way.
I think i covered most of my complaints, although I have more. This was a poor film, and I cannot recommend it. See Blackhawk Down, a far superior film, hell, see Rollerball, it at least doesn't pretend to be good. This is Spike Friedman signing out. If you have any questions or comments e-mail me. (and don't complain about my spelling)
1 out of 10