Reviews

Red Cliff is a superficial entertaining martial arts movie that had the potential to be much better but failed to come close to Kurosawa's Ran or Kagemusha in storyline or depth of character. Even the Korean Film - The Admiral - Roaring Currents (2014) was much superior in storyline - acting and special effects. If you enjoy watching folks doing unbelievable aerobatics and slicing and dicing twenty armed opponents this film is for you. If not - watch this once and then donate to your local library.

This - as a filmed live performance - (Stratford Shakespeare Festival's 2010 Production) - was - (obviously) - a world class production. The only comment that I have is - that - keeping in mind - that we are one people separated by a common language - (not to mention that the actors & actresses were speaking Middle English) - subtitles would have been extremely helpful. A live performance - in-and-of-itself - is wonderful - but - the sound was somewhat spotty. This production – is - however - definitely worth the view - especially - complemented by the live audience – a – definite relief from canned laughter. For those of us too lazy to actually go to the theater - it is absolutely refreshing to see the ingenuity displayed by the cast and crew in creating a simple theatrical stage into various and varied visual displays – ranging from the deck of a boat in a tempest – to – an island. Christopher Plummer strides across the stage as if he owns it – as he does indeed – as – his character – Prospero owns his island.

Robocop I was truly amazing - I enjoy watching it - even to this day. However - Robocop 3 fails at ALL levels; writing - directing - acting. Whereas Robocop I was a love story - (yes) - Robocop III elicited zero emotion. Although some basic plot elements were sound - folks being evicted from their homes by a mega-corporation - others - youngster who would have embarrassed even David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) in Independence Day - with - her computer skills - filed miserably. One does not truly appreciate the acting skills - (to include supporting actors) - and - directing - until a wonderful script - (minus a child prodigy) - falls into the hands of others much less capable. In all - a terrible film - which - only helps me to better appreciate the original.

Spoilers.

For the sake of this wonderful country of ours - I only hope that reviewers who found this a cinematic masterpiece deserving of an Oscar are on the "other side of twenty years old."

I tried watching this – then turned it off – and – had a beer. I turned the film on again for ten or fifteen minutes – turned it off – and – had another beer. The beer didn't help at all. I made it to the point where the Persians come charging at the Spartans riding a rhinoceros. At this point I threw in the towel and gave up.

Action for action's sake does not make a great film.

As duly noted by other reviewers - this film should be more appropriately titled: "King Leonidas meets a Cave Troll."

Lord of the Rings was a masterpiece – as was Gladiator. This film is the furthest from a masterpiece that I've seen in ten years – maybe longer. In fact – this film is so awful that "300" should not be mentioned in the same breath as "Lord of the Rings" – or – "Gladiator."

Again – as many other viewers have noted – this film has no plot – no character development and a montage of stupid and awful action sequences. Nothing is remotely historically accurate.

Even Arnold's Films with grunts and groans have intellectually superior dialogue to the stupid clichés mouthed in this film.

Best to watch with the sound turned off – or – better yet in a thunder storm with the power turned off.

This film is truly awful.

If you are interested in Kung Fu Flicks - with actors jumping twenty feet into the air - and - then turning somersaults - this film is definitely not for you.

This film is probably more historically accurate than most - with the possible exception of the movie based on the Gisla Sage(Gisli Sursson's Saga) - made into a 1981 Movie - Útlaginn (1981)- and - which is also an excellent movie. (I am anxiously awaiting until someone transfers this to DVD.)

For those of you truly interested in "Viking Origins" - I suggest that you get hold of William Morris' translation of The Icelandic Sagas - and - read those portions pertaining to Harald Fairhair or Harald Finehair, (c. 850 – c. 933)- the first king (872–930) of Norway - and - those first Christian Kings who followed - e.g. Haakon I, (c. 920–961), given the by-name the Good, who was the third king of Norway and the youngest son of Harald Fairhair and Thora Mosterstang.[1]

But - enough of history - and - back to the movie.

We are at a time when Christianity is brutally eradicating all traces of traditional religions - with Christian Vikings erasing all trace of their Viking Brethren - those - brothers and sisters - who - still choose to practice the traditional religions of their forefathers - burning homes and villages to the ground - and - slaughtering entire clans.

We are "thrown" into this world where a one-eyed warrior - a slave - kept alive only be his hatred of his captors - is forced to fight to the death - against others like him - for his very survival - as - we ask ourselves - who is more brutal - the slave fighting for his life - or - those - who watch him fight for their enjoyment.

We then follow this slave - now - become free - as he transcends the warrior - and - his hatred - for - if his hatred has kept him alive - what must happen if he purges himself of his hatred - and - makes the ultimate sacrifice - sacrificing himself so that his young companion might live.

We view this transcendence - in the shadow of the Christian Symbol of the cross - symbolized by the hilt of the viking sword.

Is it just accident that One-Eye does not carry a sword - but - rather an ax as his weapon - and - hence is not tied to this deadly symbol of Christianity? Is it just an accident that his enemies die with sword in hand - still tied to this symbol - while - he transcends his warrior spirit?

Is it an accident that one eye - like Odin - sacrificed his eye for truth and knowledge - and - that those carrying the sword sacrificed nothing?

Ah - this is you you - the viewer to determine for yourselves.

Beautifully filmed - Wonderfully acted by Mads Mikkelsen.

No Kung Fu tricks here - just raw and unadulterated magic.

The only resemblance between this "re-make" and the 1935 Alfred Hitchcock Original staring Robert Donat is the name. Plot-wise it is more similar to the 1978 version starring Robert Powell - but - there - the similarity ends. There is absolutely no action - no suspense - and - not even a hint of comic relief - but - then again - why would one need comic relief if there is no suspense? The "jokes" are lame and clichéd - with wooden actors going through the motions of speaking their lines. Stay away from this one. I made three separate attempts to watch this - but - each time I gave up after only 15 minutes. If you want to watch an enjoyable film - choose either the 1935 or 1978 versions.

Red Cliff could have been a stunningly spectacular epic - but - was "dumbed down" by the use of ridiculously silly martial arts throughout. Wire tricks - such as pole vaulting (with one's spear) onto a second story balcony - and - unbelievable martial arts - such as one unarmed general charging twenty or so enemy soldiers armed with spears and killing them all - destroyed whatever serious effort this film may have been trying to achieve. This film was obviously made for the mass market. Worth the watch for light entertainment and some moments of visual splendor - but - not intended for serious film buffs. If only Akira Kurosawa could have made this film in the same spirit as Ran - we all would have been treated to one gem of a film. But - alas - all we have is John Woo.

Classic B Western.

However - I thought that I'd respond to two earlier conflicting reviews concerning The Three Godfathers. One reviewer was correct in that this theme is very much similar to The Three Godfathers - 1936 - starring Chester Morris.

If you want to see an excellent western - please check out Chester Morris in the 1936 (original). In my opinion it is "harder and gritter" and better than the 1948 John Ford remake with John Wayne.

Also - it boasts - two of the best supporting actors in the business - Lewis Stone and Walter Brennen.

Having said all of this - The Cisco Kid and The Lady is still an excellent "oater" and fun to watch.

Enjoy.

I totally agree with previous comments regarding this last and final year of Battlestar Galactica. The first two seasons were so excellent that I could hardly wait for seasons 3 & 4 to come out on DVD. Sadly - the peak of the series was Season 2 – with everything going downhill from there. This is a case where writers so completely lost the story line – that – we – the viewers were left with nothing short of a Gordian Knot of puzzles and riddles at the end. At the end - I wasn't sure whether I had just finished watching a science fiction film – or – a religious film – purporting Intelligent Design. I had expected an ending – (perhaps) – along the lines of the Wachowski brothers' excellent trilogy – The Matrix – where - Baltar & Number (Caprica) 6 were – (perhaps) holographs – or – avatars. But – then - more questions than answers. In fact – there were no answers – just questions. If this were science – was this a case of parallel evolution – or – given the existence of an infinite number of "multi-verses" – a parallel universe? If this were science fiction – was this a case of human origins being the Cylons – in which case – evolution has come full circle? If this were religion – with a Divine Intelligence – micromanaging each and every nano-second – of - who lived – and – who died - - - was this a case of and "endless loop" of births and rebirths – for – creatures totally devoid of any free will? Were "futuristic visions" a case of an individual reliving the past – or – Intelligent Design – or – some sort of programming – genetic or otherwise? All said – this was a most disappointing fourth season – better left unmade. As a footnote: The beauty of Babylon 5 was: One writer – One vision – One thread – and – most importantly - no Gordian Knot left unraveled!

While well done - this is more of a tourist's guide to ancient Byzantine sites than a recreation and chronology of the Byzantine Empire. It was difficult for me to get into the mood of the period while being distracted by 20th Century pedestrian traffic, cars and trains - - complicated by the omnipresence of Mr. Romer. By way of comparison - is the thoroughly enjoyable and excellent Discovery Channel production of Genghis Khan - Rise of the Conqueror - - which employed real life actors, period costumes and reenactments to bring Genghis Khan and the rise of the Mongol Empire to life. In stark contract is John Romer's hop-scotching around archaeological sites - - without presenting an in-depth and consistent chronology of the beginnings and political intrigues of the Byzantine Empire. Having said this - this production is worth viewing as long as one is aware of its limitations.

If you are a "die hard" fan of either Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie - go see this film. Otherwise stay away. There is no plot, suspense or action - unless you consider "wasting a house and later a store" action. It appears (to me) as if the main "draw" for this film was the fact that Brad and Angelina were dating each other - rather than the movie itself. Although this film was billed as an "action/comedy" - it managed to fail on both counts. If you truly want to see a great comedy film by the same title - please watch Alfred Hitchcock's "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" (his only comedy). In summary - it was disappointing to see the talents of these two great actors wasted on an unbelievable and mediocre script.