Reviews

Buddy Morrow composed and conducted this most effective theme music any TV show will ever have. I saw CHP officers in the 1960s rise from their seats when it was played over a public address system. It may be about as effective as the song "Dixie" in stirring emotions.

I was five years of age when this series hit the air. I watched as often as possible and through the entire series run. As a result I grew up to believe the California Highway Patrol was the finest law enforcement organization ever conceived; totally dedicated to preserving the peace and protecting honest citizens from predation and poor driving habits. Most importantly they accomplished this with an air of efficiency and natural superiority. You were lucky to have one pull you over on the highway to correct your aberrant road behavior. This they did with courtesy and ease. You left the encounter feeling the better for it.

Such is the power of myth.

I was raised in SF during the years of this TV series. The outdoor scenes of the old city before the high rise buildings, the 1950 Ford sedan the two detectives drove, the old SFPD telephone call boxes (two way radios in police cars were just coming in. Police cars had radio receivers but not a transmitter. They would receive a message over the radio and then hunt down a blue painted police telephone call box to reach HQs), the overcoats and hats, the old Hall of Justice building, the dignified and grave manner of Inspector Grebb and Lt. Guthrie, all of this is long gone and very nostalgic. The SFPD of Chiefs Ahern and Cahill is a long way from the multi-ethnic, multi-gendered SFPD pf today. When this TV series was filmed the SFPD was largely a club of Irish American gentlemen. And it was a good thing, too, to be sure! I am afraid the video masters of this show have long since decayed along with "Highway Patrol".

Another Sam Fuller nitty gritty, down-to-earth where the rubber meets the road movie. There is nothing extra in this movie. Every word every action is meaningful. I wish more directors today would study Sam Fuller. It seems that only Quentin Tarantino ever heard of Sam.

The premise of this film is a little unlikely- Korea early in the war and one infantry platoon is assigned to hold off three Chinese and North Korean Divisions while the rest of the U.S. Division regroups. While it is more likely that a larger US force would have had such an assignment the small number of men comprising a single platoon makes for some real character development. There are some great characters here. Fuller wrote some real life into them. I believe Fuller was a combat vet from WWII so he knows what he writes- the fear, the rage, the fear again. There are lots of nice little bits here- the frozen foot while holding up in a cave. No one is sure whose foot it is that is being revived as all their feet are frozen. I had to throw another log in the woodstove after that scene.

If you are interested in war movies without flag waving and corny dialog this movie is for you.

Just another taut masterpiece from the dark cauldron known as "David Mamet". That is to ask is there really such a person. Given the intense quality of his total body of work, I suspect a writing guild in Prague. There is no corpus Mamet!!! Anyway, thanks for bringing Val Kilmer back in a role he could do something with- his best since Doc Holiday.

My wife and I came into this without knowing anything about the movie except for Val Klimer's presence. After ten minutes we looked at each other and whispered "Mamet!" only to be shoved by the people in the row behind and told "Shut-up!" What else should one say at a Mamet film? The signature dialogue is always a treat. I wish I could talk like that.

If one enjoys tense thrillers and is able to fill in the story's blank spaces with your own knowledge and experiences this is a must see.

The Last Samurai or "Shogun" meets "Dances with Wolves". There is absolutely nothing new in this movie. A veteran of the George Custer Indian campaigns goes to Japan and is co-opted by the "natives". Haven't we seen this before?

Sorry if this is reductionsit but I just did not find anything new in this movie. Can someone explain to me why in the year 1876 the Japanesearmy is using muzzle loading rifles when the armies of the world have been using metalic cartridge breech loader for ten years? Was this the director's paen to the AMerican Civil War film "Glory"? At least they have Mr, Ahlgren armed with the S&W .45 Scofield which was the correct Army pistol of the day.

I can't find much else to comment on because it has mostly gone before. Am I missing something???

I saw this film when it was released in the mid 1960s, again on VHS over the years and finally on satelite television. It holds up very well. The theme of obsession in the line of duty is as relevant today as it was when Melville wrote "Moby Dick". The acting is excellent. Hats off to Eric Portman as the West German Navy commodore advisor in submarine warfare. He sort of reprises his roles in the "49th Parallel" and "We Dive at Dawn". He is one Englishman who portrays a great German. Martin Balsam does his usual excellent work as the under appreciated ship's doctor. This also contains yet another of Sydney Poitier's race neutral rolls. Very revolutionary for the mid 1960s ("Lillies of the Field" being another).

The ship model and iceberg scenes seem a bit dated in this digital graphics era but I shudder with cold every time I there is an exterior scene. I sailed in Greenland waters once and I know what is feels like on that grey ocean under that grey sky.

Clearly, this is British production. One interior shot of the ship shows a rack of Enfield rifles, already obsolete by the time this film was made. Not a problem really.

The suspense and tesnion hold up well after several viewings and the inevitable ending is, well, inevitable.

If you did not grow up during the Cold War this film will have less impact than living with the bomb ("The bomb, Alexi, the Hydrogen bomb..." oh, that was another cold war film).

This was the worst movie I have seen in years. Only a complete stone fool could have written and directed this picture. The opening narrative of people in some Central American tribe casting all there troubles in a clay figure and setting it adrift might have worked had it not been for some obvious inconsistencies. First, the last time I looked at a global topographic map or read "National Geographic" Central America was flat and covered with dense jungle. This sequence looked like the Sierra Madre of Northern Mexico. Second, just about all of the supposedly starving villagers who were facing famine were as fat as jelly doughnuts. Hello?

I will not even comment on the dopey Young Adults that arrive on the Island. IF they are our future please find me a "Wayback Machine".

I just saw this last night for th first time on AMC. It was the best of the series since "Alien". The story was intriging with had plenty of plot twists. The characters were well developed. The buff Ripley clone was a lot of fun. That is my kind of girl. Ms. Weaver really worked on this part. The basketball scene was a hoot. The scene of the Queen carrying Ripley was very touching prompting my wife to remark, "See, Aliens do care". The bad humans were real evil and the pirates really scuzzy. What more could one want? I really enjoyed the Aliens swimming in the flooded basement that will keep me out of pools and ponds for some time. Do you think they came from a watery planet? This might explain their slimmy exteriors. The ending was pleasent. Better writing than the previous two Alien films.

The plot seemed to follow the science fiction standard of a group of people on a mission that encounters something that wants to eat them. The group consists of a scientist, a pretty girl, a "native" person with native knowledge or the extranormal, a macho dolt, a capable and intersting middle age woman, and a non-descript guy who is the first to go. So far this follows movies like "The Angry Red Plantet" and "Alien". The monster or the opposing life form (hey, I can be P.C. and inclusive) is original and interesting. The acting is basic and the direction uninspired. The plot has some moments of stupidity that interrupt the suspension of disbelief because no one would do what they did given the character's circumstances; e.g. abandon the broken down truck with all their supplies in the midst of a big desert after the search plane spots them. I am assuming the actors are all South African (excepting the American scientist)or they are better actors than I imagined. They have the accents down pretty good and fooled me. I was particularly impressed with Adrienne Pierce who plays "Magda" - a nice looking, somewhat older than Brittany Spears, strong willed woman who drives the big Mercedes four wheel drive truck that serves as the "space ship" used to wander around the desert. She is kind of a sunburned "Ripley" character.

I enjoyed the film and recomend it to those who enjoy this genre. I would like to see more of Adrienne Pierce.

This film depicts an India I don't know much about -- a modern, prosperous and, yes, all too Western India. The clothes, dancing and attitudes could be any country. Manoj is a little unfair to this picture. Perhaps his/her standards (Sorry, I am not familiar with the name) and expectations are higher because this film is not exotic to him. I found it very interesting. This film is packed with gorgeous girls and lots of humor. The dance numbers and music are original and very well done. The film is definetly worth seeing.

You may recall that Woody Allen's first film involved taking a Japanese produced spy movie and redubbing it with his own dialogue. For the time it was a very funny movie. Some of the laughs still hold up after nearly forty years. Perhaps he could be induced to redub the dialogue of G&G?

I am typing this with one gloved hand owing to injuries so please excuse any typos.

My hat is off to the costumer of this movie and the prop department and the armorer. However, this will remain one of the worst directed and worst edited films in my memory of forty five years of movie watching. My main gripe is the camera remained too tight on the actio and lost the sweeping panorama (Cliche, I know) of the events. I am refering to the Little Round Top sequence. The early battle scene with General Buford's Cavalary was a better example - mix long shots and close ups. Repeating three times the same shot - a close uo of Jeff Daniels' character Colonel Chamberlin firing his revolver is inexcusable. He is a major character.

The director should have spent more time watching John Ford's four calavry films,John Huston's "Red Badge of Courage", and "Lawerence of Arabia" to get a sense of perspective.

On a positive note, Jeff Daniel's characterization of the decent Colonel Joshua Chamberlin was the most impressive work I have seen by him. I look forward to seeing his continued portyal in the sequel. Not that it matters much but I have an uncle, much removed, who werved a a corporal in the 8th Maine. He was reputed to be a colors bearer being the tallest man in the regiment. He survived the war, luckily. So, depictions of Maine regiments are dear to me.

Some years ago I read an article in the Times (London daily) that Shackleton and his men survived because they were largely 19th century British merchant seamen, by ethic if not by age alone. The writer doubted that modern men (or women) could have survived this ordeal as we are not tough enough. I tend to to agree. Today, if someone at the South Pole has a problem airplanes airlift them to safety. We just are not exposed to ordeals like this anymore. Not that I would wish the Shackleton ordeal on anyone except maybe Uncle Saddam or Sammy Bin Lama.

When a writer fails to adequately research their story they come up with improbabilities and factual errors that distract from the movie.

Since when does the State of Alaska import detectives from Los Angeles?

How do Los Angles detectives maintain law officer authority in another state such that they carry firearms, make arrests and pursue suspects?

Having lived in the Arctic I can testify that newcomers where eyeshades at night while sleeping. This is common.

The Walther PP carried as a "back up" weapon by Al Pacino's character is caliber .380 Automatic and not 9 millimeter.

I could not get past these goofs and Al Pacino's constant mumbling (my hearing is fine, thank you).

Sure was filmed beautifully and the locations were spectacular.

I agree with Andy that this is a very interesting film and very well acted. The script is clever and well thought out. Angel characters appear in many films of the 1930s and 1940s. They are seen less and less in modern times. If one was raised close to the Bible and, expecially, if one was raised a Roman Catholic, this movie has some especially poignant moments. Christopher Walken is, indeed, wonderful. He is so weird looking that I had no trouble suspending my disbelief in regarding him as the Arc Angel Gabriel. However, the writer is the real hero here. Some of the lines are brilliant. This is not a "spook movie". It has some real depth and asks some difficult questions about faith and the nature of God. Two of the four Arc Angels are represented here. Lucifer gets a lot of play in the movies. Gabriel with his trumpet is probably the next most "popular" although he usually appears with wings, a white robe and looks and sounds like "Satchamo". Too bad Rafael and Michael did not have a role. Maybe the sequel?

Yep, this is a dreary film set in a dreary junkshop in a dreary city. It is the perfect material for the pre-Prozac set of depressed souls. This play reminded me of "No Exit" to the extent that I imagine the characters going through these deliberations and recriminations every day into eternity. Unless the viewer is interested in exploring obsession and depression, it is not likely they will find much here. Mr. Mamet is so good at finding a moment, a glance, an expression and, climbing inside of it, he turns it inside out and expresses almost geometric variations. If he were not a playright he might have been a jazz musician.