IN: Review: This film looked promising but it was actually pretty bad. The premise was O.K, but the plot itself was terrible. The actors tried their best with limited material, but they could not rise above the mean spiritedness of this tacky college film. Jason Schwartzman was once again immensely irritating - even more so than in Rushmore, the rest of the cast were quite non-eventful. Scenes that should have been fun turned out to be off-putting & incredibly juvenile. Tries to be a Road Trip/American Pie but fails dismally on all levels. A total waste of everyone's time.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I saw this movie two weeks ago at the "festival des nouvelles images du Japon" in Paris. Though i wasn't expecting much from it, i have to say i've been disappointed just like many people in the audience... if i wanted to sum up how i felt, i'd say i've been comparing it to princess mononoke and nausicaa from the beginning to the end. Of course it's silly. But i couldn't help it. The stories are quite different, but the worlds pictured are very much alike. And from this point of view, "a tree of palme" definitely can't stand the comparison with Miyazaki's masterworks. Even if it's quite good technically, boredom remains... in the end its complete lack of originality makes me advise you not to care to watch it. I rated it 2 out of 10 (a bit harsh, i guess it deserves 3 or 4)
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Ride With the Devil has something rich and special, if you can stand the slow development. While tackling a dark, gritty subject, the brutal guerrilla war in the American West during its Civil War (which in turned spawned the outlaws of the old west of the 1870s), the movie maintains a strangely satisfying, unmanipulated atmosphere. What I'm refering to is the tendency of films' music and lighting to make you feel the mood you'd expect to feel. But RWTD instead has a relatively upbeat soundtrack, and lets the words and action do the talking set the mood rather than manipulation of the viewer's senses.

As an enthusast of this particular area of CW history, I'm greatly impressed with the accuracy of the film. The diologue is expertly written, (even with subtle humor occasionally) with references to bushwhackers and previous boarder battles (Independence for example...A far cry from the Oregon Trail!). The minor events that occur to Jake's band are similar to actual events that took place...Especially the attack when they're holed up in the house, and the destruction of the store/booth. The battle scenes, though rare, are pretty well executed. It even has the first CW cavalry battle put on film recently.

The directing shows the talent everyone expects of Ang Lee in subtle ways. Example: The character of Black John is shown taunting a Lawrence resident during the massacre: "Where's your army? Who are we to fight!? Who are we to fight?! (The shot then switches to a trio of Confederate Regulars standing, doing nothing to stop the carnage while the voice continues) You are cowards all!" Who are the cowards, really? Little touches like that really enhance the movie's quality.

There are no major glaring areas in the history, something that can not be said of the masterpiece of film Glory, which was basically fiction within the context of the major events it follows. Some minor problems include the fact that the years as shown by the events represented don't add up. But you will never notice that. A larger curiosity is the fact that the only African-American man-at-arms character in the film is the quasi-slave fighting for Jake and his Confederate bushwhackers. It is true that some blacks did fight for the Confederacy out there, including one who scouted Lawrence for Quantrill before the attack (Who would suspect him?). Though this black rebel is a fasinating character (whatever PC African-Americans might think of him), not a single black Union infantryman is seen in the film, which would have been more represenative of the black experience in the Western CW. One of the first black regiments of the CW was raised in Kansas (by the murderer Senator Jim Lane, and before the 54th Mass. Reg. of fame was organized), and black troops in such battles as Baxter Springs, KS, played a critical role.

No glaring historical errors. Good, realistic action, which is infrequent and not gratitous. Good Directing. This film may not be the blockbusters other recent Civil War were, but it's the cleanest job of any.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I'd never heard of this, then found out it's the man with the deadly lens, which I'd heard of but not seen. Connery's presence drove me to buy it, and it's not good. It wants to be a sort of cross between Dr Strangelove and Mash, but it just isn't that funny, unless you find the name General Wombat (?) funny. It comes across as a flat 70s thriller until the last ten minutes, when it springs to life. There are many, many flat scenes in the Whitehouse between the president and his aides which don't work. It's almost as if the initial cut was too long, and the first half was edited down to get to the whole nuclear bomb ransom storyline and the suicide bomber attacks, which i think are meant to be played for laughs, but again, aren't that funny. The location filming is excellent but the studio stuff looks like cheap TV. I could not believe the man responsible for Key Largo, Crossfire and Elmer Gantry did this. Only laugh: Connery throws away his wig before putting on his helmet and jumping out of a plane. It makes Never say Never again look like genius.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative