Reviews written by registered user
|8 reviews in total|
This film seems to be a combination of two earlier films; Bad Day at
Black Rock, and First Blood. In fact several scenes are practically
identical frame for frame. A little originality in those particular
scenes would've been better. But no biggie.
The story heads down its own path when descriptions of what the USA has been doing in (and after) every war we've been stuck in since WWII. We go in, destroy everything in sight, eventually get out, then send in the same companies to rebuild they mess they made. The brave men and women who gave their lives mean absolutely nothing except a way for those companies to get rich. It's been a national disgrace for decades. This film brings that corruption to light, but judging by many of these reviews those traitorous companies are also stacking reviews in their favor. It's actually quite funny. Even a blind man could see it.
It's hard to believe Steve McQueen turned down the roll of Sundance in
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid simply because he would have been
billed second behind Paul Newman. Oh the enormous egos of Hollywood.
Instead, he accepted this film which is rather forgettable judging by
the lack of reviews on IMDb.
He constantly fought with the director, walked off the set, and even demanded the director be fired from the project. The studio refused. Ego somewhat back in check Steve finished the film.
It's a simple coming of age story based on the Pulitzer prize winning novel by William Faulkner. Plenty of character actors do their best to carry the load but it's ruined by McQueen's constant overacting.
A couple of highlights were the early score by John Williams and the excellent photography, but neither were enough to give this anything better than a so-so rating. Best to read the book instead.
As with politics, vacation destinations, television shows and a
multitude of other things that the majority usually go for, I don't
generally agree with many movie reviews on IMDb. But for once I do.
This movie doesn't even try to be good.
Right out of the gate they steal a 10-minute scene frame-for-frame from Striking Distance. I don't mean it's a similar car chase, it's the actual chase from the Bruce Willis movie shot in 1993. Ablaze is a blatant rip off of other films from start to finish.
Not worth investing a single minute with let alone the 90 minutes they steal from your life. But at least they're consistent; all they do is steal from something else to put this drivel together. Avoid this mess at all costs.
Many consider Raging Bull to be Martin Scorsese's masterpiece. Granted,
he made some excellent films during his long career, boosted numerous
actors to stardom, and made piles of money. But calling this mess a
masterpiece is cheapening the word in every sense.
As with many Scorsese films the subject matter is extremely interesting, but in no time at all turns into a tiring bore. Good Lord, how many times must we be forced to watch a long drawn-out scene with De Niro's character screaming, yelling and slapping his wife around to realize he's not very trusting and has a shaky home life? Okay, we get it, enough already!
The main thing I want in any movie is to be entertained, but Raging Bull didn't even come close.
Some of my favorite people in real life are the quirky ones. They're
what make life interesting rather than one gigantic bore. That's the
main reason I love this film and can watch it over and over without
getting tired of it. It's a rare film that can do that to me.
There are few characters, if any, of what most folks would call "normal" in this movie. Every character is quirky in one way or another. Even characters who only have a line or two then are never seen again are quirky in their own little way. That is taking a gamble by the director and sometimes fails, but it works to a tee here.
Read the list for the well known actors names and some not so well known, but one thing is continuous throughout the film; they all had a ball making it. What a pity it has so few fans.
While I found the story fascinating, the writing, acting, score and
settings nearly perfect, why oh why does Clint Eastwood feel at this
stage of his long career he needs to resort to lame gimmicks? Case in
point; virtually every scene is shot in shadows. Not just dark, but so
dark you can't make out half the face. More movies are doing such
nonsense lately for God knows why. Playing follow the leader in
Hollywood makes little sense if the leader is screwed up.
Another example is all those flashbacks. Mr. Eastwood appeared to be attempting to give the audience whiplash. Of course biographies require going back in time, but multiple flashbacks followed by immediate flash forwards followed by what seemed to be several flash sideways all within a few minutes is extremely distracting to the viewer. And this goes on throughout the entire film.
This could very easily have been a masterpiece, but much as I admire his work, Director Eastwood spends far too much time here saying, "look at me," instead of saying watch my film.
Having watched this mess of a film some years back and seeing so many
positive reviews on here I decided to watch again thinking maybe I
missed something. Nope. Didn't miss a thing. Great actors and a great
director don't necessarily make a great movie. This is a springboard
for all of them to move on to better projects, nothing more.
Every film and/or book must have characters you care about. Well, at least one character. But I couldn't manage to give a hoot about a single character during the entire movie. Not one.
And what's with so much music? Scorsese didn't seem to know whether he wanted to make a movie with a story or merely throw a non-ending series of songs together. The final result was nothing but a jumbled mess.
At least all the actors and director went on to produce much better works.
This mess is drivel from start to finish. The movie makers couldn't
seem to decide whether they wanted a drama, documentary, music video,
comedy, travel adventure, nature hike or anything else. As a result
they failed miserably on all counts.
The cast of young actors did the best they could with what they had to work with, but unfortunately they didn't have much at all. And what's with the idiotic narration from one of them when he's obviously a year or two older than when the rest of the film was shot? Was that another attempt at being artistic?
I'll agree the premise was decent; a nature buff takes a bunch of city kids on the vacation of a lifetime. But the result is nothing but a waste of time and nature. Thumbs way down.