Reviews

Excellent cast, intelligent script, heart-warming scenes of loyalty, determination, re-discovered faith, sobering scenes of the cost of freedom, wow! I was completely engrossed watching this film, the story of General David "Mickey" Marcus (Kirk Douglas), who in 1948 became the first Israeli general since Joshua of Biblical times. This film came out when I was 14 and I have somehow missed seeing it all these years. I had no idea what I was missing.

What I don't understand is the grumbling and complaining about what a "bad" film this is. Huh? I loved it! Kirk Douglas, John Wayne, Yul Bryunner, Senta Berger and Frank Sinatra were perfectly cast in their roles. The script covered the highlights of the War of Independence during the brief time time Marcus was involved, and I don't know what more you could expect for a feature film. To tell the story of the war completely and thoroughly would take a miniseries of 20 hours or more. Yes, the special effects look dated now, but you can't fault something because it doesn't use technology that hadn't been invented yet. Also, learning that Senta Berger's character was fictional and apparently only inserted to make a good story, was a disappointment. However, her character was a wonderful metaphor for Marcus' newly found love for Israel and re-discovery of his faith, after living as a secular American Jew for his entire life. (At one point Marcus says he hasn't been to temple since his bar mitzvah).

Also, I must say that I think the person who complained here on IMDb about John Wayne's reaction to seeing the Dachau concentration camp in the World War II flashback is completely off the mark. Wayne, as Pattonesque American general Mike Randolph, struggles to keep his emotions intact as he looks at the horror of the camp his troops have recently liberated. He orders his adjutant to give Marcus whatever he needs to tend to the Dachau survivors and turns away, his back to the camera. He leans against a fence, head down, physically and emotionally overcome. What would you want him to do in such a situation? I suspect the objecting person just doesn't like John Wayne no matter what the film or what his role.

His son Michael Wayne was co-producer with the film's director and screenwriter Mel Shavelson, and Wayne's Batjac Productions is one of four production companies listed. Another reviewer here has cynically suggested most of the budget went to Wayne's salary and I say balderdash! I'm quite sure the Wayne family's interest and participation in this film was not merely financial. I'm equally sure they wanted to help tell this story of the Israeli struggle for freedom they thought the world should hear. Then and now, for that matter.

I want to thank the Showtime networks for airing this film in the USA on May 16, 2009, which happened to be two days after the 61st anniversary of Israeli independence day. Nice touch, and a terrific weekend to see this film.

The late Raymond Chandler's unfinished manuscript POODLE SPRINGS, masterfully completed as a novel by SPENCER creator Robert B. Parker, has been given a first-class screen treatment by Director Bob Rafelson, Screenwriter Tom Stoppard and Production Designer Mark Friedberg. Every familiar signature trait of the Chandler-Marlowe Los Angeles is meticulously recreated and served up with nearly reverential devotion. James Caan is a letter-perfect Marlowe. The part fits him like his gray fedora, no small feat considering he follows in the shoes of such legends as Humphrey Bogart and Robert Mitchum. From matchbooks to automobiles to motels the period atmosphere is extraordinary. When a character drinks a Tab cola, the bottle is a 1963 Tab bottle. When Marlowe pays a call on the rich and powerful, the decor is '63 chic. There is no mistaking it.

Phillip Marlowe is the paradigm 1940s private investigator, but setting this story in 1963, four years after Chandler's death in 1959, is not only correct, it is part of the material's distinguished treatment. Had Chandler lived a few more years, this might well be the Marlowe he wrote for us. Parker, Rafelson and Stoppard have honored the Chandler-Marlowe heritage as the golden fleece of the American film noir and hard-boiled genres. Which, of course, it is.

One question: Why did I just happen to catch this on cable TV a year after it was released? I'd never heard anything about it. Such excellent work deserves publicity. Lots of it.

Masterful retelling of the old stage play by Director Martin Brest, perfectly performed by Anthony Hopkins, Brad Pitt, Claire Forlani and Jeffrey Tambor. What more can I ask of three hours spent on a movie? Nothing. Thank you to all involved for making such a wonderful film.

The video release of this film contains approximately 30 minutes of footage excised from the version shown at the Los Angeles premiere in 1960. The story is that the studio wanted a shorter print in circulation so more screenings could be fit into a single day, thus increasing the box office receipts. Art sacrificed for money is nothing new, but the dilution of "The Alamo" is extraordinary. It is remarkable how much the deleted scenes add to the narrative. Character development is deeper, motivation is clearer, the viewer is much closer to the story and its impact, particularly after the finale, is potent.

As it was, the studio-butchered print that circulated for years was a wonderful tribute to the struggle for Texas freedom in 1836. Releasing the original version, or director's cut, makes it an even more wonderful tribute.

The film has had a generally more appreciative following among Western-movie aficionados in the United Kingdom through the years, perhaps because the British can better appreciate a true epic when they see one and perhaps because the political factions bent upon vilifying John Wayne, are absent there. Now, thanks to the release of the uncut version on video, any movie fan who appreciates a true epic can more fully understand what the director, John Wayne, wanted to tell the world about the Alamo.

The subjective viewpoint of this film gives it a power we can only imagine from reading about war. Spielberg's use of experimental shutters in his cameras, his use of bleached and muted color and a masterful sound mix recreate the shock and utter hellishness of combat. The audience is put in the center of the action and knows what it is like to experience Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, and the fighting across Normandy in the weeks after.

Casting is superb. Each and every actor in this film is utterly perfect, from Tom Hanks through the veteran Harve Presnell in a powerful cameo appearance. The scenes of present-day Ryan visiting the cemetery cause me to appreciate anew the sacrifices of my father's generation. Do I prize highly enough what was done so I might inhabit this world free of Hitler and his Nazi evil? God help me, I hope I do.

The screenplay brilliantly introduces elements at perfectly timed intervals to underscore the physical, emotional and mental suffering war inflicts. It is the demon face of war.

I ask my British cousins to not feel neglected or slighted in any way by this film. The story's focus is on Americans in Normandy, June 6-15, 1944. It could have been a movie about British, Canadian or Free French forces, but it is not. It in no way diminishes, overlooks or ignores British or other Allied contributions and sacrifices, without which victory certainly would not have been accomplished.

Steven Spielberg deserves the thanks of every one on this planet for so clearly defining the central issues of war in general and specifically what is arguably the defining moment of the twentieth century, World War II. Let the Oscar balloting reflect Spielberg's contribution to the world and to the motion picture industry.