Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
26 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Andersonville (1996) (TV)
Disturbing, 10 June 2015

"Andersonville" is a TV film which premiered on Turner Network Television in 1996. It stars William H. Macy, (Fargo) Thomas F. Wilson, (Back to the Future) Cliff De Young, (The Craft) William Sanderson, (Blade Runner) and Fredrick Forest. (Apocalypse Now) It is produced by Ted Turner, (Gods and Generals) directed by John Frankenheimer (Ronin) and written by David W. Rintels. (Not Without My Daughter)

It is about a small group of United States soldiers who get captured by rebels during The War of the Rebellion in 1864 at the Battle of Cold Harbor in Virginia. The kidnapped U.S. troops are taken via train to an enemy prison called "Camp Sumter", but nicknamed "Andersonville" by the inhabitants because it is located by a small railroad depot called "Anderson".

Located in rural Georgia, thousands of members of the Federal Military suffer and die daily due to an acute absence of bread, vegetables, fruit, blankets, hammers, nails, wood, medicine, personal security, the attention of decent doctors and surgical instruments. There is also an overwhelming amount of disapproving overpopulated areas, meagerly clean environments and a great need of palatable water.

The facility is run by Henry Wirz - A doctor-turned-secesh caption originally from Switzerland who migrated to the States in his early adult years after college (Specifically, Kentucky and later Louisiana) where he had his own medical practice. He joined up with the traitors in 1861 and was later injured in his right arm at the battle of Seven Pines. After the affliction, he was put in charge of the affairs at Andersonville. Perhaps due to his supposed previous pharmaceutical training he acquired in his native country.

While Wirz's staff of guards are certainly dangerous individuals (who are always looking for a legal excuse to shoot Unionists so they can win a thirty-day furlough, which is the prize for killing a Lincolnite as long as it's within the guidelines of the law) the primary villains of the movie are a vicious, unmerciful, armed and violent gang of New York inmates called "Raiders".

They were bounty jumpers before their imprisonment. (A bounty jumper was someone who joined the Nationals, collected payment while still in basic training, deserted, rejoined the Army of the Potomac in another region, got more money, abandoned their post again, only to volunteer once more and repeat the process until caught either by Uncle Sam or the rivals, if their misbehaving ways are discovered at all.)

After establishing themselves at Camp Sumter, this pack of wild bullies eagerly and physically attack groups of new arrivals in an attempt to steal what belongings they have with them so they can increase their own survival in the desolate penitentiary. The authorities make no effort to stop this band of cutthroats, having no care for the well being of the Billy Yank's. The Johnny Reb's will even trade with the posse of infamous bandits.

Despite what some audience members might think, this is not a pro-Union/anti- Confederate motion picture. While I do think there were a lot of things Wirz could have done, some things were beyond his control. The intense suffering that went on at Andersonville was not done on purpose by the Confederacy. It was a lack of resources that caused the hardships. There is a scene that shows Henry Wirz in a sympathetic light, a line that points out Northern prison camps are no better then Camp Sumter, and there are also two good Southerner characters and a lot of bad Yankees presented in the flick.

I believe the reason why Andersonville gets the attention it does is because more people died there then any other institution during the United States Civil War, and this photo play is just telling their story. The mini-series is very honest, and no one group or person really gets blamed for the mistreatment of the convicts. It is sadly all apart of the hades that is war.

"Andersonville" is an anti-war film and certainly worth screening.

The most realistic boxing film ever made., 27 January 2015

"The Great White Hype" is a 1996 comedy directed by Reginald Hudlin and stars Samuel L. Jackson, Jamie Fox, Jeff Goldblum, Jon Lovitz, Damon Wayans, Peter Berg, Salli Richardson-Whitfield and John Rhys-Davies.

"Rocky", "Raging Bull", "Million Dollar Baby", "Cinderella Man" and "The Fighter" are some of the most popular boxing films of all time. "Punch-Out" is a classic video game. All these stories have one thing in common - They all feature a white person as the star, even though in real life the majority of famous boxers are African-American, yet there are no ultra- mainstream-loved movies or video games about black fighters or any other black athlete.

That is why "The Great White Hype" is the most realistic boxing film ever made.

After running into some money problems, sports organizer Fred Sultan believes people are tired of watching black boxers compete with other black boxers. Sultan thinks the ideal option to pick in order to restore society's attraction to professional boxing is to produce a white opponent for the African-American undisputed, undefeated heavyweight champion, James "The Grim Reaper" Roper.

Sultan bases his viewpoint on the fact that in 1982 a black boxer named Larry Holmes faced a white boxer named Gerry Cooney and the bout generated millions of dollars and that was because race played a key factor.

Since there are no current famous white sportsmen, Sultan thinks white people are desperate for a famous white athlete and that with the right press coverage, he can make a white hero.

A little later, Sultan and his staff review various matches on video tapes of different white boxers for consideration. At the conclusion of the inspection, Sultan determines that there are clearly no reliable white contenders with marketable value to compete with Roper.

A young woman in Sultan's camp named Bambi suggests that Roper fight whoever once beat him when he was a beginner.

Sultan loves the idea and creates a Great White Hope out of an amateur boxer turned eccentric Buddhist rock musician from Ohio named Terry Conklin who once defeated Roper in a novice match.

After being offered a big payday and a promise that he will be trained by Johnny Windsor - the best manager in the boxing business - Conklin agrees to return to the ring to take on Roper for the championship in Las Vegas, Nevada on Saint Patrick's Day.

The plan work likes a charm. Just like how so many boxing films and video games about fictitious white fighters are popular with white people, Terry Conklin becomes a role-model for white people everywhere. White people order the pay-per-view for the match, buy tickets to see it live and gamble on Conklin to win.

While Conklin dedicates his time to training with Windsor, Roper takes it easy, threatening Sultan's thoroughly orchestrated revival.

I love this film because I enjoy boxing, Las Vegas, Saint Patrick's Day, novelties, and the cast of this film. I also have nostalgia for mid-1990's entertainment and I find racism to be a fascinating study of human behavior. Finally, I like that this film is ninety minutes. Anything over that is typically too long.

The soundtrack has a lot of rap music, so if that's your genre, you're in for a treat.

The film is not available on blu-ray. It's only on DVD and there are no special features.

If you like films that use bigotry as comedy such as "Blazing Saddles", then you will enjoy "The Great White Hype".

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Blood, hostility, and Texas justice!, 9 January 2013

"Texas Chainsaw 3D" is a 2013 American horror film directed by John Luessenhop and the screenplay is written by Debra Sullivan and Adam Marcus.

The picture stars a cast of mostly unknown talented actors and actresses with the exceptions of cameo appearances by Bill Mosely (who is a horror movie legend, well known to the hardcore scary flicks community) and Gunner Hanson (who played the part of Leatherface in the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". In this story, he DOES NOT reprise the role. Just FYI. He portrays an elderly man.)

"Texas Chainsaw 3D" is a sequel, but it does not require the viewer to see any of the other "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" chapters to understand what's going on. This tale ignores all the other entries, and it is a direct follow-up to the first flicker show only. The motion picture shows scenes from the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" during the opening credits to catch up viewers who have never seen the first movie as to what is going on exactly.

The story in this film takes place immediately following the events of the original movie. After a shoot-out between the crazy and violent Sawyer family and the local sheriff, with the assistance of some local vigilantes who are just as insane and vicious as the Sawyers. After the shoot-out, one of the vigilantes, who's name is Gavin Miller, (played by David Born) kidnaps the infant daughter of a young woman who is apart of the Sawyer family. The baby's name is Edith Sawyer, and the mother's name is Loretta Sawyer. (Dodie Brown) Miller takes Edith home with him, and he and his wife Arlene (Sue Rock) raise the child as if she was their own. They even change Edith's name to Heather.

Heather and her new parents soon leave Texas for Oklahoma, and after Heather grows up, she has a fall-out with her Mom and Dad around Halloween, and discovers that her long-lost Grandmother from Texas, Verna Carson (who is played by Marilyn Burns who also played "Sally" in the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre") passed away recently.

Now Heather, along with the help of her boyfriend Ryan (Tremaine Neverson), and their friends, Nikki (Tania Raymonde) and Kenny (Keram Malicki-Sánchez) go on a road trip to Texas to find Heather's past. They pick up a friendly young hitchhiker named Darryl (Shaun Sipos) along the way. In due time, the group of youths soon cross paths with the infamous Leatherface (Dan Yeager) - A large, deformed, and deranged serial killer who for the most part uses a chainsaw to kill his victims, and wear's different victims faces as masks.

When Heather returns to her hometown, her presence does not go unnoticed by Mayor Burt Hartman, (Paul Rae) who was one of the men involved in the shoot out with the Sawyer family decades earlier. When he learns of the recent sightings of Leatherface, Hartman opts to round up his old posse to finish the job they started when they first encountered the Sawyer's.

"Texas Chainsaw 3D" reminded me of "The Devil's Rejects" (Which is interesting since writer/director of "The Devil's Rejects", Rob Zombie was inspired by the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". It's worth also nothing that Bill Mosely was in both "The Devil's Rejects" and "Texas Chainsaw 3D".) The reason why I feel both stories are a little bit alike is because both involve one psycho, redneck, no nonsense family taking on another psycho, redneck, no-nonsense family. The feud reminds me a lot of the feud between the Hatfield's and the McCoy's.

As I watched "Texas Chainsaw 3D", I honestly had trouble figuring out who I was suppose to be more scared of, but that is where a major appeal for me comes into play. Some films, such as this one, are not about telling you how to think - They are about telling you to think for yourself.

The pacing of the movie is wonderful and there was never a slow moment. The picture is bound to scare anyone who has never seen a horror flick before or just doesn't watch much of them. Horror-watching vets will be entertained as well. Finally, I enjoyed the 3-D too and I think it's cool that a whole new generation gets to enjoy 3-D. The film has plenty of "jump out and scare you" moments, as well as tons of gore.

This movie makes for a great action film too, and reminds me of a modern-day Western with the way the two families are feuding with each other. There are also plenty of homages made through out the movie to the old-school "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" film. This is also a great film to watch around Halloween.

I thought the film was highly entertaining. After six "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" movies, I was concerned that the new film was going to be the "same old, same old" but it wasn't. It was very different from the other films, and that made me happy. I really enjoyed the story and think it's the best sequel in the series.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." - President Abraham Lincoln, 5 January 2013

"Django Unchained" is a 2012 American-Southern history film directed and written by Quentin Tarantino. The movie stars Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, Samuel L. Jackson and Walton Goggins.


It takes place in the late 1850's in the deep Southern region of the United States of America. A German immigrant dentist-turned-bounty-hunter named Dr. King Schultz helps a black man named Django escape from slavery. From there, Schultz and Django work together as bounty hunters and go on a mission to free Django's wife Broomhilda from a plantation/slave owner named Calvin Candie.


Django (Jamie Lee Fox) - A violent and angry ex-slave with revenge on his mind. He is a classic blaxploitation hero. He is fearless and a lot of members in the black audience will especially like him because he takes on the worst kind of racism in a very extreme and violent way. He reminds me of a real-life renegade slave from the 1830's named Nat Turner.

Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) - A highly intelligent, articulate, compassionate, charismatic, fearless, and violent man who is sympathetic towards the slaves in the U.S.A. The majority of the audience will love him. He reminds me a little of the abolitionist John Brown.

(To American history buffs - If you're familiar with Nat Turner and John Brown then just envision those two men working together and that is essentially to what we are treated to in "Django Unchained".)

Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) - A charming, but very cruel and sadistic young racist white man who owns a large number of slaves. Candie also has a small gang of violent and hateful white men (and one white woman) who work for him and do all his dirty work and clearly enjoy doing it. Django and Dr. Schultz meet their match when they encounter these people.

Stephen (Sameul L. Jackson) - Candie's head and most loyal servant. He is an elderly black man who has been enslaved by the Candie family his whole life. He is a house slave who hates his own people, but loves white folks. He is the eyes and ears for Candie.

(The film has all kinds of entertaining characters, but I believe those above the four who will get your attention the most.)


The film is almost three hours long, but it went by very fast, and I was sad to see it end. I rarely enjoy sitting in the theater and watching films that are too long, but I literally loved every second of "Django Unchained". The pacing is wonderful. You will hardly notice how much time has gone by. There are no slow parts at all.


The film has Quentin Tarantino's thumbprint all over it and if you're familiar with Quentin Tarantino films you know what I'm talking about.


Some of the racism will bother some people, and you'll hear the "N" word a lot. However, in slavery days the "N" word was not consider a racist word. It was simply what black people were called by white people for the most part. (Heck, the word "racist" did not even enter into mainstream society until after World War II. Just FYI.) Slavery happened in the U.S.A. rather we like it or not. We cannot make it go away by ignoring it. I personally think it is disrespectful to the memory of slaves by not realistically acknowledging what they went through and trying to forget it as if their feelings do not matter.


The soundtrack is great and memorable too filled with a very diverse list of songs from 1960's instrumental western movie music, 1970's songs, a German song, all the way to rap music. It will really increase your emotions through out the film.


History buffs, those who enjoy action films, Quentin Tarantino fans, and people who love classic Western cinema. (If you enjoy all of those kinds of films, this film will no doubt become one of your favorite films of all time.)


As a long time American slavery/American Civil War history student, I greatly enjoyed "Django Unchained" and feel it is one of the best history films ever made. Because I am so familiar with the time period that "Django Unchained" takes place in, as well am aware of the abuse slaves faced, I invested a lot of emotion into the film and that is what made it extra entertaining and educational to me. Combined with the fact that it is a Quentin Tarantino film. I feel he creates highly realistic characters and that's why so many people love his work. Tarantino is truly a genius and the Mozart of filmmakers.

I also enjoyed the cameos in this movie from Bruce Dern, Franco Nero, Ted Neeley, Tom Savini, and Robert Carradine. There are some other memorable cameos as well. That's one of the many appealing things about QT and his films - He always casts the coolest people.

All and all, I enjoyed the film because it's educational, action-packed, emotional, suspenseful, and funny. If you like films such as "Django", "Slaves", "Goodbye Uncle Tom", "Mandingo", and "Blazing Saddles", then I believe you will also enjoy "Django Unchained".

In closing, I think this is Quentin Tarantino's best film. If you have not seen it yet, please rent it or buy it. It's worth it.

Predators (2010)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Welcome to the jungle!, 23 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Released in 2010, "Predators" is an action sci-fi film directed by Nimród Antal, and produced by Robert Rodriguez. It stars Adrien Brody, Topher Grace, Laurence Fishburne, Danny Trejo and Walton Goggins.

"Predators" is a sequel and it is part III in the Predator franchise, ignoring the two "Alien vs. Predator" films. However, you do not need to see the other "Predator" movies to understand what is going on in this film. It is a fresh new story.

The film is about this group of strangers who fall from the sky - Litreally. They find themselves trapped on a strange planet in outer space. They soon discover that they are being hunted by a violent alien race of Predators.

As the film plays on, we the audience soon learn that this group of humans all seem to share one thing in common, and as the characters try to figure out where they are, why they have landed on this planet, and why they are being hunted, we discover that these people have a few dark secrets of their own.....

I watched this film because I love the original "Predator" from 1987. I went into this film a bit worried however because while I LOVE the original "Predator", I didn't really care for it's sequel, "Predator 2", nor did I enjoy the campy "Alien vs. Predator" films, so I could only hope I would like "Predators". I am happy to type that I LOVED it! I feel that the film returned the character and the franchise to it's roots and made it scary and mysterious again. I think the reason why it worked is because the makers of this film took the time to make a decent film, and really think about what it was that people liked about the first Predator, but without ripping it off.

The biggest reason why I enjoyed this film was because every human character was so intriguing that they could have their own spin-off film that focuses on them which is something I rarely say or type about an entire cast. That's a sign of some brilliant screenplaying writing.

"Predators" uses the same soundtrack that the original "Predator" used, and has several lines and other little things that serve as nods to the original "Predator" that will make any fan of the old-school "Predator" smile.

The film is very visually beautiful. Some of the movie was shot in Hawaii so the film is great for the eyes. It's great to watch on blu-ray.

The film is not too long at all and I thought the timing was perfect. Films over ninety minutes are usually sometimes overkill for me. My ideal film is ninety minutes and this film is just under two hours.

The characters in the film later come across a man named Noland who is played by Laurence Fishburne and he totally steals the show too! Noland has been trapped on this planet for a little too long, and he is OUT OF HIS MIND! Fishburne has the best performance and out of ALL the characters, I can honestly type that Noland made me feel the most uneasy, and given the types of characters in this film, that's saying a lot! Fishburne is just freaking brilliant and really makes you forget that this is just a film you're watching. He gives me goosebumps. He is just that scary. I am pushing 30-years old as I type this, and have seen all kinds of dangerous and crazy characters in films, and for some reason, Fishburne's character in this film really had an affect on me. I guess because we are essentially seeing what can happen to a person if they are stuck on that planet for too long, and it really speaks volumes for the type of hellhole the planet is and what it can turn you into. Of course, Noland could have already been a bit crazy even before landing on the planet, and him being trapped with alien Predators just made him more insane and dangerous, but to me that is one of the many appeals about the film is that the characters are all very interesting and mysterious.

"Predators" is much darker then the first "Predator" and when you watch the film and you meet the group of human characters, you will see why.

I try to pretend "Predator 2" and the "Alien vs. Predator" films never happened and that "Predators" is the true, real, and only sequel to the 87' classic. VERY rarely do I come across sequels that were just as good or better then the first one, and I honestly think this film is just as good as the original and is the ideal sequel.

In closing, if you enjoy horror films, aliens, villains, and anti-heroes, you are bound to have fun as you just sit back, relax, and enjoy the ultra-violence and the insanity. The film is filled with all kinds of violence, twists, and turns that will make you sit there as you watch the credits roll at the end and think "Wow."

5 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
*shouts* "A bad movie!!!!!!", 23 July 2012

The producers of "Trollhunter" decided to cash in on the whole "found footage" gimmick that has been a hit in the cinema business in recent years, and made a film about college students who follow around a hunter who hunts trolls for a living. B-rated? You bet it is. The movie tries to play of like it's real, and like you the viewer are watching someone's home videos of this dude hunting giant trolls in the woods. That's pretty much it.

The show is 2010 foreign cinema. It's from Norway, but there are options on the language section of the disc where you can listen to the English dubbed version of the picture if you're an American and you don't speak Norwegian or if you're not interested in reading English subtitles. There is also an option where you can set the flick up to whenever the flicker show has Norwegian text on the screen, it will show translated English text.

This motion picture is written and directed by André Øvredal, and has an unknown cast of actor's and actresses'. To give more detail about the plot without spoiling it, I'll just type that the picture show is about a small group of youths named Thomas, Johanna, and Kalle who decide to make a student-documentary project about a local bear poacher named Hans. They soon discover he actually hunts giant trolls out in the woods for a living and was hired by the Norwegian government to do it and is paid well. Trollhunting in Norway is an underground project that only the government and it's associates are aware of.

In all honesty, the story sounded entertaining enough for me to rent, but this movie just stunk. I was so bored, I couldn't finish it. Again, it's like watching strangers home videos for the most part, and it's just boring. I didn't find any of the characters interesting, and then when we see the man hunting a troll, it's only slightly entertaining the first time. After that, I was ready to turn off my blu-ray player. I think this film would have worked MUCH better as a short that lasts only thirty minutes, but it doesn't. It's ninety minutes, and for a picture about trolls, that is way too long. This film is VERY slow for the most part, and then when the action picks up, it just shows us the same old boring thing every time of the guy killing trolls.

I don't have anything to say about the music in the film because I don't recall there being any, and the special effects of the trolls were good.

Anyhow, I just can't get into the whole troll thing. I don't take trolls seriously. I'm open-minded to the fact that maybe aliens and ghosts might exist. Heck, even Bigfoot may be real, but TROLLS!? REALLY?? Seriously? I just consider trolls to be a childish thing. i.e. A childish form of entertainment, and I think only maybe kids would be entertained by this movie. Like *maybe* boys between the ages of 10-14 would be ideal. I can't recall the film having a lot of bad language, or much gore. But it's not a serious adult horror all. It's just stupid and cheesy and I've seen too many good and scary found footage films to take a movie about hunting trolls seriously.

On a personal note - The film is not only unrealistic because of the troll concept, but it's also HIGHLY unrealistic because even if trolls were real, Norwegians would NEVER hire hunters to hunt trolls. Norway is a very liberal country and they would consider trollhunting to be a cruel and unusual punishment, and the Norwegian government would say that everyone deserves a second chance, even trolls, and they would just capture the trolls and bring them to their cushy prison they have by the beach for rehabilitation.

Oh no. I hope I didn't just give the screenplay writers of this film an idea for a sequel.

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
The War to Settle the Score, 12 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Battle for the Planet of the Apes" is the fifth and final film in the original Planet of the Apes series. It was released in 1973 and was produced by Arthur P. Jacobs, directed by J. Lee Thompson, and written by John William Corrington and Joyce Hooper Corrington. It stars Roddy McDowall, Claude Akins, Natalie Trundy, Severn Darden, Lew Ayres, Paul Williams, and John Huston.

This movie is a sequel that I do believe requires the viewer to watch "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" before watching this film. You'll be able to enjoy it however even if you haven't seen the other movies, but there will be some unanswered questions if you are not familiar with the other Ape films.

It's been nine years since the events of "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" - Due to so many Ape-uprisings, as well as a nuclear war among humans, the Apes have taken over the world. In a place called "Ape City", under Ape leader Caesar's leadership, all Apes have learned to talk and speak English, as well as do many other things. Almost all human beings have been enslaved by the Apes and are kept to serve their needs.

Caesar and his human friend MacDonald desire for the Apes and humans to live in peace. However, a militant gorilla named Aldo believes the Apes should become more strict on the humans and that all humans are evil and violent by nature, and must be punished for all their past crimes against Apes. Aldo plots with the other Gorillas to carry out justice.

Meanwhile, a group of radiation-scarred human rebels who live amongst each other out in the desert, far away from Ape City and any Apes, and are lead by a crazed, Ape-hating fanatic named Kolp, have plans to invade Ape City, rebuild society, and put the Apes back into slavery. What will happen when two civilizations go to war and battle for control of the Earth?

Like the previous Ape films, this one is also anti-racism, and is full of political, historical, and social parables. For example...

In Ape City, the Apes (of all ages) are getting educated on a variety of topics such as reading and writing by going to a school taught by a white human man schoolteacher. Because there are no Ape teachers, and because the more intelligent Apes are too busy doing other things to help build the city, Ape leader Caesar had no choice but to bring on a human teacher to do the job of educating the other Apes in basic things such as reading and writing. The school is the final and only place where a human has any type of authority over Apes.

There is a moment where the schoolteacher inadvertently says to Aldo - "No, Aldo, no!" - This is met with shocked silence by everyone - Apes and humans. It turns out one of the first laws enacted in the new Ape civilization was that no human may say "No" to an Ape.

The reason being is because a long time ago when Apes were learning how to be slaves to humans at a place called "Ape Conditioning School", one of the things Apes were forced to do was lay down on a table while being electrically shocked over and over again while a recording of a human saying the word "No" was repeated on a speaker. This was done so that the Apes would learn to fear the word "No".

And when an Ape became a slave to humans, if an Ape did something wrong, their human masters would shout "No" and that quickly put the Apes in an act of fear and submission. Humans said "No" so much to Ape that is scarred the Apes emotionally, and now, in this new society where Ape rules over Man, a human's right to say the word "No" to an Ape is a highly offensive crime.

The year was 1973 when the film was released, which was around the same time Whites and Blacks started going to school together, so I thought the issues in the classroom scene were touching on the topic of the tensions that were going on in schools all across the U.S.A. There's also a scene where Kolp and the mutant humans invade Ape City via a school-bus, which was symbolic of the time when Whites and Blacks were being bused together.

The bus is indeed a very symbolical item to appear in the film, and I think the presence of the bus subconsciously reminded audiences of the racial tensions going on in their very country, and gave the scene a more creepy atmosphere for audiences since actual acts of violence were going on, and a school-bus was largely connected to all of it.

This is a film that does not tell you who the heroes are or who the villains are, and suggests to you that you think for yourself. When I first watched this movie, I honestly did not know who to cheer for. One of the reasons why I like the film is because it doesn't really pick a side. It let's the viewer have his or her own opinion, and doesn't really tell you who to root for. The film respects it's viewers intelligence.

Characters like Aldo and Kolp are both faces of rebellion. Dark faces. Characters like Caesar and MacDonald are the light faces of rebellion. But all four characters are indeed rebels who are against the system, and in most cases, it's always the system that is the true villain. What is the system in the "Planet of the Apes" films? - Tyranny.

All and all, I enjoyed "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" very much. It is wonderful, and entertaining. It's full of parables that will appeal and educate the subconscious mind.

1 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Will make you proud to be an American., 4 July 2012

The film takes place during the American Revolutionary War, mostly during the mid-to-late 1770's in the state of South Carolina, which is the host to several bloody conflicts between the British Army and the Continental Army. The story in "The Patriot" is about a rural American farmer family lead by Benjamin Martin - He and his family finds themselves caught in the middle of war. Martin only desires to live in peace, and to raise his family, and for the sake of his children, he hopes to avoid conflict with King George III's Army as much as possible, but he and his family soon learn that being caught in the middle of war can sometimes be more dangerous then actually picking a side to support.

English actor Jason Isaacs brilliantly plays the part of the brutal Colonel William Tavington - An evil, heartless, loyal, and fearless English soldier who has nothing but hate for disloyal Americans. He will stop at nothing to crush the American rebellion against the Crown, including breaking the rules of warfare. This way of thinking soon leads to a conflict between Tavington and Martin when the two men meet.

While many of the characters in this film and the main story itself are fictional, some of the events, as well as some of the other characters certainly are not fictional. And also, if you study the American Revolution, you'll learn that British soldiers committed various war crimes against American civilians, so what we see American civilians go through in this movie is not that far-fetched. One can also learn quite a lot about the American Revolution by watching this film. i.e. The settings, the locations, the battles, the style of clothing people wore during that time period, etc. This film is visually beautiful, and quite a treat for the eyes.

I've read some people's comments online over the years and they nit-pick this film about some of the historical inaccurate's, and the thing is, this film is not a documentary, and it's not a history book. It's a film and it's purpose is to not only educate, but to entertain as well, and I think this is a very educational and entertaining film. I love American History, and I study it, and when I watch the movie, I don't notice any historical inaccurate's, and I don't look for goofs. I just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.

I also think because there are sadly some people out there who don't like history, in order to make a historical film more enjoyable for non-history buffs, some things had to more dramatized to make it more appealing and interesting to the casual fan who normally has no interest in history. It's mostly hardcore history buffs that nit-pick. I really don't think the average mainstream casual fan doesn't know about the inaccuracies or doesn't care. They are just looking to be entertained, as am I. I will also give an example of how just making a film entertaining as opposed to historically accurate can sometimes be a good thing:

During the American Revolution, it's likely (although I'm not 100% sure) based on my studies, everyone (Americans included) spoke with an English accent, and it probably didn't even sound like today's English accent. However, from an entertainment stand point, in my view, I enjoy the fact that in "The Patriot" the American characters speak in an American accent, and the English characters speak in an English accent. Reasons being is because

First - Being an American myself, it makes me able to relate to the American characters more when I hear their American accent.

Second - Because of the difference in the accents between the American characters and the English characters, it creates a more of a culture clash, and adds to the tension and makes it all the more entertaining. All wars have a "Us against them" attitude, and if the accents were exactly the same in "The Patriot", I question if that tension and crystal clear distinction between the two would have been there. It just makes the film more entertaining by having the accents be different. Even in movies about the American Civil War, the accents are different.

I think history buffs will enjoy this film, as well as anyone looking for a good movie to watch on the 4th of July. I think some of the more hardcore history buffs who have a demand for historical accuracy might be bothered by the fact that this film not only aims to educate, but entertain as well, even if that means not making everything historically accurate, but I think if you can ignore and/or forgive the film for some of it's very minor historical inaccuracies, you'll find yourself really enjoying this movie. People who don't like history should avoid the film. I also think some people from England may not care for the film since it vilifies the English.

All and all, "The Patriot" is a great and fun film full of beauty, emotion, romance, action, and drama that will not only entertain you, but teach you a lot about early American history as well. It has a wonderful soundtrack, and is a good film to watch anytime of the year, but it's extra fun to watch it around or on the 4th of July. It'll make the holiday twice as festive if you have a cool American Revolution film to watch. After swimming and enjoying BBQ all day with your family on 4th of July, this is a great movie to pop-in and watch with them at night. It will make you proud to be an American.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
A response to "The Birth of a Nation", 16 June 2012

The year was 1972. The Vietnam War was slowly coming to an end, the civil rights moment had been a success, and black power was taking over the U.S.A.

"Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" was directed by J. Lee Thompson, and stars Roddy McDowall, Ricardo Montalban, Don Murray, Natalie Trundy, Hari Rhodes, Severn Darden, and Lou Wagner. It is part IV of the Ape Series. This is a sequel that I think requires the viewer to at least see part III to fully understand what's going on in part IV. You won't be completely confused if you're a first time Ape viewer since part of the history of the Apes films is covered in this film.

The story takes place in 1991. We the audience learn that eight years earlier in the year 1983, a disease killed all the cats and dogs, leaving human beings with no pets. To replace them, people took in Apes as their pets. Because the Apes have so much intelligence, humans train them to perform chores and run errands. By 1991, the very foundation of the United States of America is based on the backbone of Ape slave labor, proving that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

However, in the minds of most of the humans, this is different. Yes, the U.S. Constitution says "All Men are Created Equal", but it says no such things about Apes. Clearly the majority of Americans in this film just cannot let go of the concept of slavery. Since they lost their human slaves over a hundred years earlier, things can now get back to "normal" for American society by coercing Apes to replace their human slaves.

While Apes are smart, they are still just animals, and are not entitled to the same rights as humans. At least this is how many of the humans in the film think. The state is run with a strict hand by a man named Governor Breck who has no mercy on the Apes.

Circus owner Armando and a young circus chimpanzee named Caesar go to a local city to promote Armando's circus. Caesar is highly intelligent, and knows how to talk. He has spent his entire life sheltered, and living in safety with Armando. When he goes to the city, and see's how Apes are treated, he finds this to be highly upsetting. Armando warns Caesar not to speak, or otherwise, Caesar could be enslaved. Can Caesar hold in his anger?


The film presents a clear case against animal cruelty, and it has so many parables that I could ramble for hours discussing them, and dissecting them, so I'll only discuss the White/Black issue that is clearly present in "Conquest".

I've had the displeasure of having conversations with White Supremacists and Black Supremacists before. It's interesting how both groups have two things in common - They are both racist, and plenty of them are fans of the Planet of the Apes films. For the Black Supremacists, the films serve as a Black Man's fantasy of getting revenge against White men. For the White Supremacists, the films serve as a warning to White people that if they do not control Black people, they could rise up against them.

I mentioned "The Birth of a Nation" in my title - For the unaware, "The Birth of a Nation" was a black and white silent film from 1915. The second half of that film is about White men forming the KKK and rising up against the former slaves who had taken over the South.

I believe this film is in a sense a response to it - It shows the audience exactly why any group of slaves would be angry, and would have no mercy on their former masters, but also presents the question - Is it still morally right to react with so much violence and hate?

"Conquest" completely mirrors the original Planet of the Apes, only the roles between Apes and humans are reversed. "Conquest" is by far the most darkest and most disturbing of the Apes films. Some may argue that this film is anti-white, and stereotypes white men as all being dominating, heartless, power-hungry monsters. On that note, one of the reasons I think that "Conquest" is so much emotionally darker then the other Ape films is because we the audience are so use to seeing White men in charge, in both films, and in real life, that perhaps it's less-disturbing seeing them in a slave role like we saw in the first two Apes films, but in "Conquest", we are treated to a subconscious *disturbing* reminder of how the U.S.A. use to be when it had human slaves. I also could not help but think of Nazi-Germany when watching this film.

That's another thing about "Conquest" - It's not dated, and can still easily spark controversial discussions about human rights.

7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Do I Dare Disturb The Universe?, 16 June 2012

"Escape from the Planet of the Apes" came out in 1971 in the midst of very controversy times. The film is directed by Don Taylor, and stars Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter, Sal Mineo, Bradford Dillman, Ricardo Montalban, Natalie Trundy, Eric Braeden, William Windom, John Randolph, and M. Emmet Walsh.

It is part III of the Ape Series, however, the film doesn't require the viewer to see the previous other Ape films to understand what's going on, but I think it helps to see the other two so you can fully understand the character's motives and thoughts.

THE PLOT - Three highly intelligent humanoid Chimpanzees from outer space land on planet Earth in the Pacific coast in 1973 via their space ship. They are taken by the authorities to the Los Angeles Zoo. At first, the Apes are seen as a novelty and become famous and loved through out the world, but soon, they are perceived as a threat to all of mankind and planet Earth. The film starts off as being a light family comedy, but takes a very dark turn.

MY THOUGHTS - Like the previous Ape films, "Escape" has parables that address social issues that were going on in the world at that time. The year was 1971 when the film was released, right when racial segregation was ending, and Black and White people were starting to live and work amongst each other as equals. I believe the film is suggesting to the audience that accepting those who are different from you and giving them a chance might not be a bad idea, and that you shouldn't believe everything you hear about people.

The film is anti-racist, and also has an anti-abortion theme to it, and has somewhat of an anti-government theme to it as well, and addresses the issue of government intrusion. Some of the other topics include scientific experimentation on animals, and nuclear war.

One of the many reasons why I like this film because it makes me appreciate what I have. The chimps come to 1973 and our just amazed at the technology. It makes me not take for granted what we have. I sometimes think how someone from the 1860's would react to the things we have in 2015, and they'd most likely be highly impressed, and their reaction makes me realize how lucky we have it, and that we shouldn't take what we have for granted, and enjoy it to the fullest. We really have no excuse for ever being bored.

In this film, Cornelius and Zira take center stage, and become the stars, which I enjoyed because I liked both characters a lot in the first two Ape films. The film is a bit of a love story as well, because what Cornelius and Zira are going through in this film is not easy, and only their love for each other is what keeps them going strong.

Another cool thing about this film is the reverse it took - In the first two Ape films, we see human beings land on a Planet of Apes where Apes rule, and humans are treated like animals, and we see how those men respond to it. In this film, we see Apes from that same planet land in the U.S.A. in 1973 where humans rule, and Apes are kept in cages, and we see their responses to it.

I think the film and the whole Ape series is making a point that any corrupt system - whether run by White or Black people or anyone else of any color is wrong. That no group is superior to the other, and that we are all equal, and if peace is really desired, we should learn to accept one another, and not abuse any power we are given, and that only suffering will lead to any abuse of power.

FINAL THOUGHTS - This is one of those films that get different responses from different people. It presents hard questions of morals such as "If you could go back in time and kill Adolf Hitler's mother while she was pregnant with him, would you?"

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]