Category: Reviews

As of this writing, it is March 8, 2020, which means it is International Women’s Day.  It’s a day that celebrates women and their accomplishments in politics, culture, and many other aspects of our world.  Over the centuries, women have fought to be heard and respected on the same level as men.  Over the past 50 or so years, we’ve seen women become more and more actively involved in civil rights, entertainment, and the political arena.  For this post, I want to celebrate the women who have made really strong contributions to the world of film.  I’ve already spoken about strong female characters and the actresses who play them, but what about the ladies that work behind-the-scenes?  I’m talking about producers, directors, and stunt-women.  While these roles are generally male-dominated, it’s important to understand that women have come a long way.  Over the past 30 years, we’ve seen some really strong movies with women in the lead as directors and producers.  It’s the same thing with television.  While I’ve generally asserted that one should hire the right person for the job, sometimes the right person is a woman.  So, let’s take a look at the ladies who are helping to shape the industry.

Zoe Bell – Stunt-woman

The job of a stuntman/stunt-woman is often a thankless one, and it’s a shame.  Stunts are an incredibly important part of film-making.  This one might seem like a cheat, because it’s something you can actually see, but hear me out:  The purpose of a stunt-person is to do the dangerous job that most actors can’t or won’t do like falling off of buildings are getting set on fire.  That’s where the stunt-person comes in.  Their other job is to make the actor/actress they’re doubling to look good.  Because of the nature of the job, stunt-people often don’t get the recognition that they deserve.  It’s even harder for women to break through in that field because it is so heavily dominated by men.  Zoe Bell of New Zealand, is one of the many women who are leading the way for more women to get involved with stunts.  Zoe has had a hell of a career doubling actresses like Lucy Lawless in Xena and Uma Thurman in the Kill Bill films.  In fact, Zoe Bell is one of the go-to stunt-women for Quentin Tarantino because she’s so damned good at what she does.  You want a perfect example?  Watch Death Proof.  Not only is the film her first real meaty role(playing herself), but she does ALL of her own stunts.

Kathleen Kennedy – Producer

Now, some people might get on my case for including Ms. Kennedy here because of how the last few Star Wars films have turned out.  As the leader of Lucasfilm, I think she’s in over her head with running a studio.  However, when you look at her filmography, you have to admire her career as a producer.  She’s one of the best in the world.  She’s worked with some of the best directors in the world including Steven Spielberg.  You look at the original Indiana Jones films, An American Tail, and Cape Fear, and you can see how she’s managed to keep these films from going off the rails.  Her first film as a producer was Steven Spielberg’s E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.  Basically, she hit the ground running and hasn’t stopped.  While she hasn’t always made the best decisions, her record speaks for itself.  Despite some recent issues with Star Wars, I think she deserves recognition as one of the best producers in the industry.

Kathryn Bigelow – Director

In terms of film, television and stage-plays, the director can be referred to as the “leader, the head honcho, or the captain.”  These folks are the reason why movies look the way they do.  They pretty much run everything that isn’t financial or basic managerial stuff.  With cameras, actors, and other staff, directors are easily the most important aspect of film-making.  Let me tell you, Kathryn Bigelow is a leader.  She is a pioneer for women who want to get in the director’s seat.  She’s responsible for some of the best movies of the past 40 years including Near Dark, Zero Dark Thirty, Point Break, The Hurt Locker, and Detroit.  Kathryn is also the first and only woman to win an Academy Award for best director, and that was for The Hurt Locker.  She’s also a producer AND a writer.  She’s phenomenal.

Jennifer Kent – Writer/Director

Coming from Australia, Jennifer Kent doesn’t appear to have much of a filmography.  She only has two full-length films to her name, The Babadook and The Nightingale.  While I haven’t seen The Babadook, I did see The Nightingale.  For Kent’s second film, The Nightingale is a powerhouse of a film.  It is one of the most brutal and unsettling period pieces that I’ve seen in years.  It’s not for everybody, but Jennifer Kent’s attention to detail and her passion for the subject matter is unquestionable.  While the film might drag at times, it’s an experience.  It takes a person of rare talent to craft a film that not only has a visceral impact on the audience, but to do it in a way that doesn’t feel exploitative is extraordinary.  Her method of story-telling is unlike anything I’ve seen before.

Gale Ann Hurd – Producer

Like Kathleen Kennedy, Gale Ann Hurd is one of the leading producers in the industry today.  Like Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Hurd has worked on some of the biggest movies in cinematic history including The Terminator, The Abyss, True Lies, Armageddon, and The Punisher.   If there was a big action/science fiction movie during the 80s and 90s, you would most likely see Gale Ann Hurd’s name attached, especially if the film was rated R.  She tends to be drawn to those kinds of movies and it shows.  Like Kathleen Kennedy, Ms. Hurd is one of the best in the business, and she knows how to get things done.  She’s currently an executive producer on The Walking Dead TV series, so she’s doing something right.  I’m an absolute fan of hers.

Patty Jenkins – Director

Patty Jenkins burst onto the scene with a little movie called Monster back in 2003.  It was a huge hit with audiences and critics alike.  Because of the film, Patty Jenkins career seemed to have taken off.  However, she wouldn’t direct a big-screen movie again until Wonder Woman.  I think that Wonder Woman is an important film in many ways.  Not only is it a fantastic comic book film in its own right, but it was well-respected by almost everybody.  It also hammered home the idea that Patty Jenkins was a force to be reckoned with as a director.  While I think Wonder Woman could have been okay if it was directed by a man, I think it was the right decision on Warner Bros. part to have a woman direct a film about a female superhero.  Obviously, Ms. Jenkins is a fan of the character, so she wanted to get it right.  She succeeded.  Wonder Woman ’84 is due to be released in June, and I am excited for it.  Patty Jenkins deserves a lot more credit and work than what she’s been given.

While women are still underrepresented in the film industry as far as film-making goes, we’re seeing more and more women taking on huge roles in the industry that require a lot of responsibility.  Directing, writing, producing.  These are the foundations of film-making and to see women willing to tackle these films is fantastic to see.  It’s even better when women can make a better movie than men.  Again, I will always say that you need to hire the right person for the job, but sometimes the best person for that job……is a woman.

Every fictional film ever made has a major focus on a handful of main characters, usually a male and female lead.  Then you have secondary characters that are part of the group or are friends of the main characters.  Side characters generally aren’t the most important characters in a story, since the main story tends to follow one or two people.  That’s not to say that some side characters aren’t important, they can be.  In certain cases they can be far more important than they initially seem to be.  For this list, I’m going to discuss some of the best and worst side characters that I’ve seen in film.  They’re all memorable, just not always for the right reasons.  Sometimes a character can be extremely annoying or a character’s presence can sometimes outshine the lead.  It happens more often than you’d think.  So, let’s get this party started!

Worst-Jar Jar Binks: Star Wars Prequels

I feel I have to apologize to my readers, especially the ones that grew up with the original Star Wars Trilogy.  Jar Jar Binks, as a character, is one of the most annoying creations that George Lucas ever thought up.  Believe it or not, I actually don’t hate the Gungans here, just Jar Jar Binks.  He’s clumsy, stupid, and quite frankly irritating.  I was waiting for more than one opportunity for the bad guys to turn him into a crispy critter.  Before somebody starts, I’m not blaming the actor for this.  Ahmed Best did the best he could with what he was given, and as such, it’s actually a decent performance.  It’s just that the character is horrendously written with some of the worst dialogue.  If Binks was supposed to be comic relief, he failed at that, like he fails at everything in the movie.

Best – Doc Holliday and Johnny Ringo: Tombstone

Tombstone is absolutely Wyatt Earp’s story, through and through, but these two particular characters, played to perfection by Michael Biehn and Val Kilmer, steal the show.  This scene in particular sets up the tension between Holliday and Ringo.  Both are experienced gun-fighters, but the film takes the liberty of making Johnny Ringo an educated man and speaking Latin.  Historically speaking, that was never the case, so this confrontation never actually happened, but it’s still bad-ass.  The scene is intense because when you translate what’s being said, those are threats on multiple levels.  While Ringo shows off his gun-slinging skills, Holliday pretty much mocks him by doing the same with his cup.  Tombstone is an amazing Western, and this scene cements that in so many ways.

Worst – Mutt Williams: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

I have a confession to make, I don’t hate any of the Indiana Jones movies.  Sure, Crystal Skull was pretty weak in a lot of areas, but it still managed to be a lot of fun.  Sadly, Shia LeBouf’s character of Mutt Williams was not one of my favorites.  Mutt is Indy’s son, but there’s nothing really there that indicates that, and LeBouf’s performance is almost embarrassing.  The character is completely one-dimensional and totally lacks the charisma and personality of Indiana Jones.  Crystal Skull is easily the weakest and I think Mutt is the weakest link in terms of characters.

Best – Brownies – Willow

Willow was one of the most underrated fantasy films of the 80s.  I grew up with this.  Everything about it was awesome.  You had sword fights, magic, cart chases, and more.  What the film had was a lot of charm.  The characters were memorable and the humor was on point.  It was a very well-written film.  While I definitely loved Val Kilmer as Madmartigan, it was Kevin Pollack and Rick Overton as Rool and Franjean.  These two pint-sized miscreants served as the film’s comic relief and boy did they deliver.  They stole every scene that they were in.  For a film that got as dark as Willow did, the comic relief was a welcome respite from some of what was going on.

Worst – Admiral Marcus – Star Trek Into Darkness

There were a lot of things that went wrong with J.J. Abrams’ stab at the Star Trek franchise, the least of which was the poorly kept secret of Benedict Cumberbatch being Khan Noonien Singh.  You know, the villain from the original Star Trek II.  While I don’t think Khan was the problem, making Admiral Marcus, the head of Starfleet, a main villain.  I credit Peter Weller for an awesome performance, but making him such an obvious villain with such a cliche plan was a bad move.  It’s not unusual for a film to have more than one villain, but when you have a genetically engineered super-soldier and an arrogant high-ranking military officer in the same film doesn’t quite work.  At least, not for me.

Best – Brother Gilbert – Dragonheart

Dragonheart is one of those films that despite the phenomenal cast, gets overlooked quite a bit in the fantasy genre.  Yeah, you’ve got Dennis Quaid playing a grizzled knight and Sean Connery as the voice of a dragon, but the one person that steals the show for me is the late Pete Postlethwaite as Brother Gilbert.  It’s one of those quirky roles that most people tend not to mention in film.  Postlethwaite was perfectly cast here.  He plays a humble poet/monk who just happens to be a natural at archery.  I really like this character because he’s not just a good guy, but he’s also not irritating and is legitimately funny at times.  Brother Gilbert is just so underrated as a character.

Worst: Prince Tarn – Red Sonja

Red Sonja for me is a very guilty pleasure.  There’s a lot of things wrong with this movie, from the casting of Brigitte Nielson as Sonja to the incredibly weak visual effects in the film.  This was originally supposed to be a third Conan film, but because of how the second film turned out, Conan 3 didn’t happen.  It’s a cheesy, but fun diversion for about 90 minutes.  But when Prince Tarn enters the picture, it’s headache-inducing.  I’m not blaming Ernie Reyes, Jr, because he was obviously just a kid at the time.  The character was poorly written to be a spoiled little brat who would have to be baby-sat by Red Sonja.  Tarn was ultimately a distraction, and not a good one at that, which took away from what Sonja was trying to do, which was get revenge for the murder of her family.

Worst and Best – Wade Wilson – Xmen Origins: Wolverine

I believe it’s statistically and scientifically proven that Xmen Origins: Wolverine is the worst X-men movie ever made.  Yes, it’s even worse than Dark Phoenix.  It’s poorly written with some really terrible visual effects, and a story that is as nonsensical as it is redundant.  Aside from Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber, the best thing this film has going for it is Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson.  This opening sequence with Wilson is pretty spectacular with Wilson delivering his requisite one-liners: “Okay, people are dead!”  It was pretty cool.  It’s just a shame that what the writers did with the character towards the end of the film ruined whatever good will they had with the opening act.  Don’t believe me?  Here, check it out for yourself:

Pretty awful, isn’t it?  Thankfully, Ryan Reynolds was really wanting to do a Deadpool film, so he kept fighting for it for years.  Thankfully, in 2016, not only did we get a proper Deadpool film, it was also one of the best X-men movies ever made.  It didn’t take itself seriously and was wonderfully violent.  So, in a way, if it wasn’t for X-men Origins: Wolverine, we probably would never have gotten Deadpool.  It’s interesting to think about that.

There were a lot of side characters out there.  A lot of whom can be fairly interesting, but can also be extremely irritating.  I’m going to end it here, because if I keep going, I’ll end up with a 25,000 word post that nobody would want to read.  These are just a few that stood out to me.  What do you think?  What are some interesting or annoying side characters that keep you watching?  Let me know.

Released: May 1993

Directors: Annabel Jenkel and Rocky Morton

Run Time: 104 Minutes

Rated PG

Distributor: Hollywood Pictures

Genre: Action/Science Fiction

Cast:
Bob Hoskins: Mario
John Leguizamo: Luigi
Dennis Hopper: King Koopa
Samantha Mathis: Daisy
Fisher Stevens: Iggy
Richard Edson: Spike

In the grand pantheon of entertainment, we have films of such renown and scale like Ben-Hur, Spartacus, and Lawrence of Arabia.  These grand epics have shaped the industry for decades and have risen the bar for what constitutes an epic film.  Many films have tried to replicate this classics, but few have succeeded.  All these films have laid the foundation for what could be the greatest film of all time…..Super Mario Bros.….wait, what?  No, no, no, that can’t be right.  Are we talking about the same movie here?  Super Mario Bros.?  From 1993?  The one starring Bob Hoskins, John Leguizamo and Dennis Hopper?  Oh, dear.  When it comes to movies based on video games, you usually don’t get more notorious than Uwe Boll as a director, as his “films” like Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead seem to indicate.  However, they were NOT the first movies of their kind.  There were movies ABOUT video games before 1993 like Tron and War Games, but there had never been a movie that was actually based on a video game until Super Mario Bros.  Here we go.

65 million years ago, a meteorite struck the earth that wiped out all the dinosaurs.  Apparently it also split the world into two different parallel dimensions.  One dimension saw humans evolve from monkeys and the other one saw them evolve from dinosaurs.  Fast-forward 65 million years and we end up in Brooklyn with two brothers, Mario and Luigi.  These two plumbers end up running into Daisy, who runs a dig-site near the Brooklyn Bridge.  They soon discover that Daisy is being hunted by King Koopa from the other dimension because she has a piece of the original meteorite that when brought together will merge both dimensions allowing Koopa to rule both worlds and eliminate the mammals from OUR world.  Everybody get that?  No?  You’re not the only ones.  The story presented here is so bonkers that you would think that you were on drugs.  I think somebody was, because there’s an awful lot of fungus in this movie.  The original game didn’t have much of a plot: Mario and Luigi have to rescue a princess from a giant turtle dragon.  That’s all you needed to know from the game.  That element of game did make into the movie, but that’s really about the only thing the movie really gets right.

I can’t really say that there’s anything wrong with the cast here.  Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo are pretty good as Mario and Luigi and Dennis Hopper always makes a great villain.  This is where things really start coming apart, however.  It’s not that the acting is awful, I mean it can be, but the problem is that the actors had to deal with a script that was changing daily.  It got to the point where Dennis Hopper refused to memorize his lines, because they kept changing.  Hoskins and Leguizamo were told that they were going to be making a certain kind of film, but when they showed up on set, it was very different from what they were told.  Very few things in the film match up with the game.  Mario and Luigi don’t even get their iconic costumes until about half-way through the film.  The character of Daisy isn’t even from the original game.  No, she’s from the GameBoy title, Super Mario Land.  It is incredibly obvious that there were major issues behind the scenes that kept the film from having a coherent tone and look.  Normally, I would accuse studio interference with these kinds of absurdities, but the real blame lies with the directors.  They insisted on making the film their own way instead of doing what Nintendo wanted.  Instead of a bright and colorful film, we get a dark, gritty, dystopian-style of a film that just doesn’t work.

I’ll be honest:  There is stuff in this film to like.  I actually kind of like the look of the film, despite the fact that it doesn’t work most of the time.  The set designs and some of the creature designs are not terrible.  Some of the visual effects are pretty interesting, but the clashing tones of the film really work against it.  It wants to be this goofy sci-fi comedy, but at the same time, it wants to be a dark and gritty action film.  The Super Mario Bros. film is far removed from the game that you could barely recognize it.  My brother and I grew up with the original game, so when the film came out, I was confused, as were a lot of people.  This didn’t feel like Super Mario.  This felt like a cheap Blade Runner knock-off.  They also dragged poor Lance Henriksen into this film with a ridiculous cameo.  From what’s been released about the film’s production, there was some serious shit going down.  Both Hoskins and Leguizamo were so uncomfortable with their roles that they resorted to alcohol to deal with it, and you can tell in certain scenes that Leguizamo was hammered.  Dennis Hopper got into a 3 hour shouting match with the directors about their complete lack of professionalism.  Apparently, there was a point where the directors’ agent told them to get off the set.

All production problems aside, Super Mario Bros. had the misfortune of being released in May of 1993, a few weeks before a small indie film called Jurassic Park hit the scene.  Super Mario cost about 48 million to make, but it didn’t even make back half of that.  For a movie that kicked off the video game movie craze, it fell flat on its face.  It was so bad that Nintendo refused to do another movie based on a video game.  This was 27 years ago.  Obviously, Super Mario’s failure didn’t stop other studios from giving it a shot.  The following year, we got Street Fighter with Jean-Claude Van Damme and Raul Julia.  Another failure.  It was 1995’s live-action adaptation of Mortal Kombat that proved you CAN do a video game-based movie properly and be successful.  For about a decade, Super Mario Bros. was considered to be the lowest point for video game-based movies.  That would change when film “auteur” Uwe Boll entered the scene with House of the Dead. Suddenly, it seemed like Super Mario was Citizen Kane in comparison.  For the most part, movies based on video games have been met with failure or mixed success.  There have been a few recent releases, though, that seem to show film-makers taking the source material seriously.  Movies like the latest Tomb Raider and Sonic The Hedgehog are good examples of movies of this sort.  What’s really funny is that despite the issues, I find Super Mario Bros. to be a fairly entertaining film.  Good?  Not remotely, but I don’t think it’s the abomination that a lot of people said it was.  It might not seem that way, considering what I just said about it, but I actually had a bit of fun, considering I hadn’t seen the film in over 20 years.  Bob Hoskins, John Leguizamo, and Dennis Hopper are all fun to watch, with some fairly creative visuals, but this is not required that you seek this movie out.

My Final Recommendation: Oh, Super Mario Bros., what did they do to you? 6/10

There’s something incredible about reading a book or watching a documentary about events or people that existed hundreds or even thousands of years ago.  Reading about history and watching historical films is like opening a window into the past.  Learning about our history as a species offers us a unique opportunity to learn about the mistakes of the past and not repeat them in the future.  It’s not only important to read and understand the history of your own country, but others as well.  If you’re looking for inspiration to tell a good story, all you have to do is look at the past 10,000 years.  There are so many stories that can be adapted into novels or movies.  From the rise of the Chinese Empire to the fall of Rome, there is always a story that can be told.  For this list, I’m going to be looking at the best and worst historical films that I’ve seen.  For this to work, I’ll be looking at how well each film portrays a particular part of history.  Some inaccuracies can be forgiven if the authenticity of the time period is intact.  So, let’s take a look to the past and see what we can find.

The Best: Tora! Tora! Tora!

Tora! Tora! Tora! is a World War II film about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  While the film was not necessarily a big hit when it came out, it has since been revered by many historians and film buffs to be one of the most historically accurate and spectacular films set during World War II.  What separates this film from a lot of other war movies is the fact that while half the film was directed by an American crew, the other half was directed by a Japanese crew.  Because of this, the authenticity of the film is legitimate because it shows the events leading up to the attack from both American and Japanese perspectives.  Another thing that really sticks out about this film is the attention to detail.  From the Americans spotting a Japanese mini-sub to the fact that people were warned about the Japanese attack AFTER it happened.  Not only that, the visual effects and the battle sequences are second to none.  One scene sticks out in particular:  When the Japanese attack an airfield, a remote controlled plane explodes but it ends up crashing into the other planes.  The crew that you see running for their lives are actually running for their lives.  It wasn’t supposed to happen that way, but it ended up in the final picture.  This is a must-see if you love World War II movies.

The Worst: Pearl Harbor

Since I brought up the best movie about Pearl Harbor, it’s only fair that I mentioned the worse one.  What’s wrong with this movie?  5 words: Michael Bay and Randall Wallace.  Seriously, though.  There are a lot of problems with this one.  First of all, there’s a lot of flag-waving patriotism in here.  So much that it made ME cringe, and I’m an American.  The movie was supposed to be about the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, but what we get instead is a horrendously written love story that forces history to take a back seat.  Not only that, there are things that happen in this film that couldn’t have possibly happened in real life.  For instance, Ben Affleck’s character is somehow allowed to fight for the British while still being a part of the US Military.  Military service does not work that way.  That’s actually insulting, and I would hope that British citizens would also be insulted at that.  If there’s one thing that Michael Bay knows how to do, it’s action, and the battle sequences in this film are excellent.  The weak-ass love story and overall lame script is the fault of writer Randall Wallace, who I’m going to be bringing up again later on this list.  Pearl Harbor could’ve been something really amazing, but Wallace and Bay managed to turn a movie about one of the most pivotal moments in US history into a cheese fest.  Oh, and they re-released a “director’s cut” that added more gore attempting to make the film more “realistic.”  Please.

The Best: Lawrence of Arabia

For someone who claims to be a huge fan of movies, I regret to inform you that I had never seen Lawrence of Arabia before this week.  I’d seen images and video clips, but never the entire movie.  So, when I finally sat down and watched all 3 hours and 45 minutes of it, I was completely blown away.  I love historical epics like Ben-Hur and Spartacus, but Lawrence of Arabia is in a league of its own, I think.  Peter O’Toole, in his first leading role, plays T.E Lawrence, a British officer who attempted to unite the tribes of Arabia against the Ottoman Empire.  The film’s accuracy is still being debated today, but most regard Lawrence of Arabia as one of the greatest films of all time.  I’m not entirely sure I’ll do a review of the film, mostly because I don’t think I can add anything to the discussion.  It’s definitely worth watching, though.

The Worst: Braveheart

It’s one thing for an historical film to have inaccuracies.  It’s going to happen.  You’re never going to get every single detail right, and sometimes you shouldn’t, because it would otherwise be boring.  But when a movie completely disregards the actual history of the figure that it’s trying to portray, you have to wonder why they would even bother.  Such is the case with Braveheart which is EXTREMELY loosely based on the life of William Wallace, one of Scotland’s legendary heroes.  Before I started actually reading into the history of William Wallace, at least the history that I could find, I found Braveheart to be an extraordinarily amazing film with epic battles and a great story.  Besides, Mel Gibson not only starred in, but directed this film as well.  Unfortunately, as soon as you start even scratching the surface of the history of William Wallace, the entire movie falls apart.  I have never seen a movie get so much wrong in terms of historical accuracy.  The dates are wrong, the actual historical figures are mostly misrepresented, and certain events never actually happened.  The whole prima nocta thing?  Never happened.  Princess Isabelle?  In reality, she would have been about three years old at the time of the Battle of Falkirk.  I understand the need to embellish things for the sake of drama, but when you butcher history this badly, and on purpose, I might add, it does a major disservice to not only the historical figure, but the people of Scotland as well.  While Mel Gibson definitely took some liberties with history, Randall Wallace is absolutely guilty of the weak writing of the film’s characters, to the point that they don’t even resemble their real-life counterparts.  I honestly haven’t seen the movie since.  Look, the film is well-shot and well acted with an outstanding musical score and epic battle sequences, but it doesn’t make up for the fact that the film-makers decided to try and re-write history.  I don’t care how the film-makers try to justify it.

The Best: Tombstone

I love Westerns as much as the next guy, but Tombstone is probably my favorite.  It’s not just my favorite because of the stellar cast that it had: Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Michael Biehn, Powers Booth, Dana Delany, Billy Zane, Sam Elliott and Bill Paxton.  It’s my favorite because it takes Wyatt Earp, one of the most legendary lawmen in US history, and focuses on one particular period in his life, his time in Tombstone, Arizona.  The events that happened in the film are mostly accurate to what actually happened.  For instance, the infamous gunfight at the O.K. Corral was one of the coolest set-pieces in the film.  Aside from Ike Clanton picking up a gun and fighting back, the fight went almost exactly how you saw it in the movie.  There’s also one neat little detail that most people don’t realize is actually true: Wyatt Earp throwing Johnny Tyler out of the Oriental.  It didn’t happen in exactly the same time period, but the fact that the film brought it up was amazing.  This was an outstanding film all around with Val Kilmer and Michael Biehn basically stealing the show.

The Worst and the Best: The Birth of A Nation(1915)

I bring up D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of A Nation for a reason.  This movie has significance in film history.  The movie pioneered many filming techniques that are still in use today.  It was also one of the first Civil War epics ever made.  What makes this film so egregious in terms of it’s history inaccuracy, is the fact that it got enough right to lend some form of legitimacy to everything that was happening on the screen.  Make no mistake about it, D.W. Griffith’s film is about as racist as it can get, whether that was his intention or not.  Yet, at the same time, the film is very anti-war.  The first half of the film is actually really good, with some really good story-telling.  It’s the second half of the film when it really starts getting offensive.  Yet, I can’t bring myself to say that this film shouldn’t exist, because of its importance.  People should look at this film and learn from it.  Not just with the techniques that were invented for the film, but in how to tell a story and how NOT to be racist.  There are a lot of lessons to be learned from this film, even in this day and age.  What lessons you learn from it are up to you.

The Best: Das Boot

It’s been said that history is written by the victor.  Very rarely do we get a peek of what it’s like on the other side.  Wolfgang Peterson’s submarine masterpiece, Das Boot is a look at life on a U-Boat in 1941.  The film is based on the book of the same name and based on the real-life submarine of U-96.  It seems strange that one could sympathize with Germans during WWII, but you have to understand that a lot of these guys that put out to sea probably have no idea what’s going on back home.  Their captains might, but the sailors are just fighting for their own country as any good soldier/sailor would do.  What makes this so interesting is that there is not one ounce of Nazi propaganda in the film aside from one really pro-Nazi officer.  Everything in this film is handled realistically, from the cramped quarters to the absolute chaos when they get depth-charged.  It’s absolutely white-knuckle.  The visual effects and action sequences are absolutely astounding.  What I also like about this film is that, like in actual history, the German navy was one of the least pro-Nazi branches of their military and that is reflected to a certain degree here.  The captain is clearly anti-Nazi and very skeptical about the war.  It just goes to show you that even in a war with defined lines as WWII, there’s still a lot of gray to be found, regardless of which side you were on.

Well, those were some of the best and worst historical movies that I’ve seen, with the best ones being mostly respectful to the history and the figures of that period, with the worst ones basically not giving a shit about history.  When history is done right in movies, it’s one of the best things ever.  When it’s not, and you’re a fan of history, it’s aggravating.