Archives

Trivia

Our Award

Box Office Reports

Release Dates

Links

e-mail

HOME

     I wasn't expecting a classic when I went to see this film.  I figured it was a rip-off of the Braveheart success and like most sequels and rip-offs it would be good but not great.  I wouldn't even go that far though.  It was oooookay.  And borderline that.  I can't really tell you what makes me give it two stars and not less.  Perhaps just because it has a hint of the Braveheart-like epoch story.  The best way to describe this movie is Braveheart had James Cameron directed it.  It is cheesey beyond belief.  If there was a time for a cry, they milked it for all it was worth.  But what do you expect from a director like Roland Emmerich, who directed such "winners" (that's sarcasm) as Independance Day and Godzilla.  Corny and predictable is another way to describe the movie.

    Mel was over the top in most of the scenes, but that can only be blamed on the director because we've all seen him do much better.  Heath Ledger wasn't bad and seems to making a well deserved name for himself even though he's been in less than 10 movies, only 2 of which are big studio productions.  On the other actors, Joely Richardson really didn't have enough lines to challenge her abilities, so no complaints there.  Gregory Smith plays the youngest son and he was not bad at all.   You may recongnize him from Small Soldiers.  Jason Isaacs plays the villain and like most bad guys in bad movies he was over the top.  My least favorite in the movie is the love interest for Heath Ledger, played by Lisa Brenner.  But what should I expect from a girl who's only big acting job was on MTV's Undressed?  My two favorites in the movie were Tom Wilkinson who plays Cornwallis and Tchécky Karyo who plays Villeneuve, the French soldier.  Wilkinson did a nice job of bringing some behind the scenes action to the movie, which is basically untouched, and showing not only class but cut-throat tendencies which would be needed in someone of his character.   He is one of the only characters that has more than one level.  And thank goodness his acting was good enough to pull it off.  Karyo was not so great because of his character, which was nothing remarkable, but just simply because he did a good job.

    Ok, what do I mean by cheesey?  First, what's the movie about?   Mel Gibson plays Ben Martin, a basic bad ass who could have a real impact on the war, were he not against fighting.  He is pulled into the war (Civil War) because of the loss of a loved one.  Hmmm, sound vaguely like Braveheart?  Then he rounds up a group of people that probably wouldn't have joined the war effort except for the fact that they have faith in him.  Hmmm, sound vaguely like Braveheart?   Well, that's where the similarities end.  This movie tries to pull of the double love interest like Braveheart, but fails.  The audience, from what I noticed cringed at the idea of Ben Martin hooking up with his dead wife's sister, although everyone could see it coming from a mile away.

    Next, the calling for volunteers at the church.  Could we get more gag-worthy?  I think this shows the depths of Lisa Brenner's acting?  She should stay in shallow water like Undressed.  The small red-head boy, the flag, the don't retreat scene (which had no logic), the black slave who stayed to fight for the Confederacy because he respected and liked the men he was fighting with?????   Give me a break.  Gag, gag, gag.  Ok, so if you haven't seen it this just sounds like rambling, but trust me you will roll your eyes more than once if you see this.

    What would I do to improve this movie?  I would focus more on the war and action than the back story of the family.  If they're gonna' rip off Braveheart, they may as well stick to the formula that works instead of making it so corny.  They things I liked were the little touches that Cornwallis added about strategy and more about the war in general.  Now, I shouldn't rip into the movie so much.  There are some witty lines and there is some good acting.  The war scenes are nothing to be bragged about, although the tomahawk scene is pretty neat if you don't mind blood and guts too much.  And contrary to the rumors going around, I don't think the movie is REAL bloody.  Just kinda.

    Anyway, what is my final analysis as a viewer.  With an epoch, it's always better to see it at the theater.   But I'm not sure I'd waste my money on this movie.  I would suggest renting it, but because it's not in the theater the picture and general experience won't be as good.  Final verdict: go to the dollars to see it.