After watching two episodes, I am really hoping the writing improves. Why do writers create characters(in this case, Talon) that are supposed to be smart and skilled but make them so dumb? Talon is the sole survivor of a race that was ordered eradicated by the people in charge in her world. She supposedly survived to adulthood by her wits and ability. Why then is she portrayed as continually doing stupid things? I have no complaint with the actors. They are doing their job well as it is given them by the writers and director. Talon is all alone, traveling casually(1st mistake) through known dangerous territory and is saved by a knight. Instead of working with him(a survival strategy) she blows him off. She helps another woman with powerful connections and instead of accepting her friendship, blows her off. She nearly dies in a sword fight but is saved by the "smith" who tells her he knows important things about her future and past. The natural survival decision would be to accept his help and shelter while she recovers and learn things about her past that are important. What does she do? She blows him off too even though she is so weak that she can barely walk(BIG normally fatal mistake). She finds another 'friend' in the Brewer who helps her heal and at great risk to himself shelters her and what does she do - bails on him! The character, who is supposed to be a survivor, alone and on a quest of revenge, disdains potential allies, who have proved their potential value to her, and acts like a spoiled brat around everyone else. This by someone that should be keeping a profile so low as to be subterranean. Talon is supposed to be smart, skilled and independent. SO WRITE HER THAT WAY! I will give this a few more episodes to see if it improves but doubt it will be picked up for more than are already 'in the can'. A shame because the actors and audience deserve better. My advice to the actors is to start looking for new projects now because you deserve better than you are being provided.
Reviews
20 Reviews
Don't Breathe
(2016)
Probable copycat of "Intruders"
12 May 2018
I caught this one on one of the movie channels. This is a well directed and played movie. I would place it in the horror/mystery category with the emphasis on horror. It uses the time honored device of buildup, buildup, release then impact to shock the audience. It is well worth seeing for horror fans. This is also an example of how when a story idea is shopped around 'Hollywood' that the general idea is used in more than one movie. Being as "Intruders" and "Don't Breathe" were released a year apart, I won't speculate on who came first in the story concept. This one is more horror while "Intruders" is more mystery/suspense. Both feature outstanding performances by the female lead and somewhat vague endings. Both feature similar but not matching situations. I was impressed by this movie but enjoyed "Intruders" more just because I don't need my heart rate increased by horror movies so much anymore. If I could state a one sentence comparison: "Intruders" is smarter while "Don't Breathe" scarier. Stephen Lang delivers another great performance. For horror fans it deserves 10 stars but for me it gets 8 because it is too scary for an old codger like me. Lang and Levy both deserve 10s.
Intruders
(2015)
Surprisingly good
24 May 2017
This one surprised me. It was taunt, well-directed, paced well and the actors did outstanding work. Beth Reisgraf as Anna was amazing! She sold the character so well. On a scale of 1 to 10, I wanted to give this one a 20! Nothing is given away until the right moment in the action. There is death and violence but it is not out of place for the plot. The director is to be complimented for keeping the story well paced and without any of the characters having to act stupid to make the story work. I liked the movie so much that I immediately ordered a copy from Amazon. It is worth it.
Airborne
(II) (2013)
Remake of "The Horror at 37,000 feet"
24 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
If you ever see the 70s movie "The Horror at 37,000 feet", you will recognize the connection immediately. I did in the first few minutes of the film. "Airborne" however modernizes with sex, blood and violence along with the concerns about terrorism that is more prevalent today. There are more bodies in this one and humans do some of the dirty deeds unlike in "Horror". Most elements match though. 1)small load of passengers on 747 flight out of England to New York 2) everybody has a problem or back story(in them all that involve airline flights and disaster). 3)Ancient cursed object being transported that is the source of the evil events.
Differences: "Horror" had a 'happy ending' "Airborne" real downer ending.
The whole home station with Hamill and big government conspiracy thing is so 2012 and could have been left out.
Good actors doing their best in what was obviously a job to pay the bills. The actress that played the conspirator flight attendant was awesome!
If I ever see it on DVD I will pick it up for fun. A decent rainy afternoon movie.
Differences: "Horror" had a 'happy ending' "Airborne" real downer ending.
The whole home station with Hamill and big government conspiracy thing is so 2012 and could have been left out.
Good actors doing their best in what was obviously a job to pay the bills. The actress that played the conspirator flight attendant was awesome!
If I ever see it on DVD I will pick it up for fun. A decent rainy afternoon movie.
The Selling
(2011)
Great movie!
13 November 2014
This movie was a pleasant surprise. It was on Chiller channel but really belongs on a comedy channel. It pokes fun at realtors and exorcists(great portrayal by Barry Bostwick-he must of had a lot of fun with his part) and the whole horror/haunting genre in general. The acting was good and the editing came off very well. The cast is mostly unknowns but they all did a great job. One character mimics a role in Ghost Busters. I laughed at almost every scene. If it comes out on DVD, I will definitely buy it. This one is better than most big productions. It is a tribute to the low budget film field proving there doesn't need to be a lot of money spent to get a real quality product. The ghost special effects are even well done. If you see this one on your TV schedule, be sure to watch it. It will definitely cheer up your day.
Mutant World
(2014)
Surprisingly Good
9 November 2014
I just watched this movie on SciFi Channel and was impressed with it. The actors did a great job and were all very believable in their roles. The plot is pretty straightforward relating to surviving a major disaster. It has elements of a zombie movie too. There were several technical and tactical goofs and a major continuity error but I still enjoyed it.
Some of the non-spoiler technical goofs are:
The GPMG on top of the truck never had an ammunition can or belt in it. Magazine/cartridge pouches flat; common, at least put something in there!
Tactical goofs were the typical splitting forces in a known hostile environment and not leaving someone on the truck MG when dismounted.
The continuity goof would require a spoiler but it is pretty obvious when you watch the movie.
I liked that the 'survivors/preppers' were the good guys.
Overall, worth watching and kudos to all the young actors for a great job.
Some of the non-spoiler technical goofs are:
The GPMG on top of the truck never had an ammunition can or belt in it. Magazine/cartridge pouches flat; common, at least put something in there!
Tactical goofs were the typical splitting forces in a known hostile environment and not leaving someone on the truck MG when dismounted.
The continuity goof would require a spoiler but it is pretty obvious when you watch the movie.
I liked that the 'survivors/preppers' were the good guys.
Overall, worth watching and kudos to all the young actors for a great job.
The War of the Robots
(1978)
What I expected it to be with a bonus.
22 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't so much as like this movie as was captivated by one of the minor characters. As far as the movie goes, it had moments of entertainment between very poorly edited/directed scenes that almost put me to sleep. It obviously, and as others have stated, tried to exploit other successful SciFi movies. The 'robots' were almost funny but I guess when you have no money, you costume a bunch of starving extras and call them robots. I loved the green, form-fitting, crew jumpsuit uniforms on the women.
One of the minor female characters captivated me though. She was the one that was shot in the back while escaping. Unfortunately,IMDb doesn't have any pictures of the cast so I can't figure out who played the part, since she is among the characters listed as "Trissi crew". Between a beautiful face and her tragic end, I can't help coming back to it as being one of the few properly directed scenes in the whole movie. We see little of her until the battle in the big room. Everyone is making their getaway but she hangs back to protect the others. Alas, her nobility is repaid by being left behind. As she breaks for her escape, she is shot in the back and killed by a robot. Her body rolls down the steps and rests face up with "dead eyes" staring up at the camera in a haunting shot. I can't understand how someone can direct such a good sequence but make the rest of the movie such a yawner! Anyway I would love to know more about the actress that played the tragic and noble "Trissi crew".
One of the minor female characters captivated me though. She was the one that was shot in the back while escaping. Unfortunately,IMDb doesn't have any pictures of the cast so I can't figure out who played the part, since she is among the characters listed as "Trissi crew". Between a beautiful face and her tragic end, I can't help coming back to it as being one of the few properly directed scenes in the whole movie. We see little of her until the battle in the big room. Everyone is making their getaway but she hangs back to protect the others. Alas, her nobility is repaid by being left behind. As she breaks for her escape, she is shot in the back and killed by a robot. Her body rolls down the steps and rests face up with "dead eyes" staring up at the camera in a haunting shot. I can't understand how someone can direct such a good sequence but make the rest of the movie such a yawner! Anyway I would love to know more about the actress that played the tragic and noble "Trissi crew".
Alert Today - Alive Tomorrow
(1956)
I remember those times.
30 October 2011
I was a child in the 50s and this short film brought back memories of the time period. Nuclear War was a real possibility back then. We all took it seriously. "Civil Defense" was done by most communities with the Federal Government supplying training and supplies. One reviewer questioned the value of CD activities since there was no attack. Recent documents and testimony from the former Soviet Union reveal that their leaders sought the ability to obliterate the U.S.A.. Yes, WE took it seriously! The local people were expected to use this training and supplies to take care of themselves. It was definitely different from today's dependence on FEMA for everything! Neither then nor now would I consider this a "scare film" as was stated in one review. It was taken seriously and was to allay fears not amplify them.
It was one of the better films of the period dealing with this subject.
I wish I had recorded it.
It was one of the better films of the period dealing with this subject.
I wish I had recorded it.
Battle Los Angeles
(2011)
Best 'Alien Invasion' movie yet!
16 March 2011
I enjoyed this movie very much. It was orders of magnitude better than "Independance Day" although that movie had a broader scope. B:LA gave us the Warriors eye view of the battle. I would also describe it as the best USMC Recruiting movie in a long time. There were technical 'goofs' but the movie was so entertaining and caught me up in the characters so well that only one goof bugged me during the movie. The rest of the technical errors were perceived after calm reflection. This is definitely an "action" movie that is gritty in its realism. The equipment seems right on as far as my knowledge base goes. I have to believe that there were "grunts" among the technical advisors.
One of the best scenes, as a credit to the actors, was right at the beginning of the movie where they are heading into battle riding in a CH-46 helo. They all look 'scared' which is a credit to their acting or they might have actually been riding in a "Frog"! The technical goof I caught during the movie was the Laser designator having a visible beam. My understanding is the military uses LDs operating outside of the visible spectrum. The continuity error was the five man 'charge' where the Nantz character switches to his pistol and the next scene is before he does that.
The high points of the movie were the depiction of the Marines and their unit spirit. Even though some doubt their senior NCO, they fast-rope down to seek the C&C center with him in spite of him saying he would go it alone. Also, unlike many movies in the past, when the new Lt. is doing a low-level freak-out, his NCO encourages and supports him. There is no Hollywood type 'confrontation'.
Some comments I have read already say in one sentence that there is no character development and in the next sentence say the movie is too long! One can't have it both ways! The movie makers correctly chose to stick with the action and it worked.
I thought the actors all did a great job. Movies with little dialogue and what there is of it is terse are probably not popular with the performers but it challenges their acting skills more.
One of the best scenes, as a credit to the actors, was right at the beginning of the movie where they are heading into battle riding in a CH-46 helo. They all look 'scared' which is a credit to their acting or they might have actually been riding in a "Frog"! The technical goof I caught during the movie was the Laser designator having a visible beam. My understanding is the military uses LDs operating outside of the visible spectrum. The continuity error was the five man 'charge' where the Nantz character switches to his pistol and the next scene is before he does that.
The high points of the movie were the depiction of the Marines and their unit spirit. Even though some doubt their senior NCO, they fast-rope down to seek the C&C center with him in spite of him saying he would go it alone. Also, unlike many movies in the past, when the new Lt. is doing a low-level freak-out, his NCO encourages and supports him. There is no Hollywood type 'confrontation'.
Some comments I have read already say in one sentence that there is no character development and in the next sentence say the movie is too long! One can't have it both ways! The movie makers correctly chose to stick with the action and it worked.
I thought the actors all did a great job. Movies with little dialogue and what there is of it is terse are probably not popular with the performers but it challenges their acting skills more.
It Waits
(2005)
A good movie with a little 'horror' thrown in the mix
31 January 2007
I finally got to watch this movie in one sitting. I was impressed both with the movie overall and with the actress. The plot kept things moving along at a bearable pace. People acted like real people not like the artificially dumb bunnies that are in most 'horror' films. Cerina Vincent really carried the movie and made her character both believable and sympathetic. "It Waits" is more of a 'character' and love story than a pure 'horror' movie. The same story idea could have worked with a rogue bear besieging the Forest Service employee in the tower rather than an ancient demon. The demon was just more 'fun'. The love scene was very tastefully done. It was probably better on the actors too that there wasn't full nudity considering it was cold enough on set to have their breath fogging every time they spoke! My only technical gripe was with the choice of scoped rifle for the protagonists' firearm. Those were very dense woods but her rifle had an obviously high-powered telescopic sight on it. That would actually hinder shooting at the close ranges in the forest. Couple that with the fact that the Forest Service employee would only need the rifle for defense against rogue animals which would only be taken at close range and one must conclude that the rifle should have had open sights rather than a telescope. I think this comes from most movie people knowing close to nothing about guns and having the idea in their heads that a 'hunting rifle' is a bolt-action with 'scope type. Sorry that I am so picky but it is this way in so many movies. Of course the pre-fused and capped dynamite she used was a stretch too as anyone who handles explosives will tell you. You don't cap and fuse any explosive until just prior to use. Otherwise you risk an unplanned 'loud noise'.
I am glad I got the DVD both for the movie and the extra features on it.
I am glad I got the DVD both for the movie and the extra features on it.
Air Force
(1943)
Another one for airplane buffs
6 January 2007
For modern viewers, this is truly a movie for airplane buffs. How many movies can you find with early B-17s flying? I have always appreciated this movie for that purpose. Those early birds without tail guns and power turrets were all gone by wars end. This movie was made during the dark days of WWII for America and the 'D' models were still fairly new and in use stateside as training aircraft. Thankfully the producers just went to real Army Air Fields and used existing equipment. That is wonderful visual documentation for history buffs! Many 'props' were real! The Air Corps thermos bottles and the Air Crew bandoleers for pistol ammunition were great to see documented.
This was a wartime movie made in a period where we had suffered lots of defeats and few victories. The young men being sent off to war had grown up being taught not to kill their fellow humans. Most of the early war 'propaganda' films went to lengths to 'dehumanize' the enemy so that a young American entering combat would not be conflicted. This happens in all wars but is more obvious to us today due to the amount of films made during WWII. Regarding the talk of 'fifth column' work at Pearl Harbor, I believe some have missed the point of the propaganda. We have become so aware of the race issue that we miss the point made in the film. It was not so much to single out the Japanese ancestry citizens of Hawaii as to make the American people think that it wasn't our military's fault that we were caught by surprise. The theme in that scene and later on Wake Island proffered that 'our boys don't lose in an even fight'. It was to establish confidence in our military and equipment. The idea was to tell the U.S. civilian population that we couldn't lose unless stabbed in the back. Actually, much of our equipment of the time was inferior to our opponents. We also had mostly 'green' troops whereas the Japanese had a lot of combat experienced pilots and troops. It was a tough fight all the way through and our veterans deserve full credit for winning.
This movie is entertaining and a great one for airplane/history buffs who know what is 'right' and what isn't correct. Politically it is dated and must be taken in context. It is still fun to watch and worth your time.
This was a wartime movie made in a period where we had suffered lots of defeats and few victories. The young men being sent off to war had grown up being taught not to kill their fellow humans. Most of the early war 'propaganda' films went to lengths to 'dehumanize' the enemy so that a young American entering combat would not be conflicted. This happens in all wars but is more obvious to us today due to the amount of films made during WWII. Regarding the talk of 'fifth column' work at Pearl Harbor, I believe some have missed the point of the propaganda. We have become so aware of the race issue that we miss the point made in the film. It was not so much to single out the Japanese ancestry citizens of Hawaii as to make the American people think that it wasn't our military's fault that we were caught by surprise. The theme in that scene and later on Wake Island proffered that 'our boys don't lose in an even fight'. It was to establish confidence in our military and equipment. The idea was to tell the U.S. civilian population that we couldn't lose unless stabbed in the back. Actually, much of our equipment of the time was inferior to our opponents. We also had mostly 'green' troops whereas the Japanese had a lot of combat experienced pilots and troops. It was a tough fight all the way through and our veterans deserve full credit for winning.
This movie is entertaining and a great one for airplane/history buffs who know what is 'right' and what isn't correct. Politically it is dated and must be taken in context. It is still fun to watch and worth your time.
Fighter Squadron
(1948)
Great Aviation Movie with NO 'buts'
6 January 2007
I first saw this movie on TV in the 60s. My brother and I being aviation nuts, criticized it a lot for little things. Over the years and many viewings on TV, I have come to appreciate it more. Although some of the dialog and characters are "corny", there is more than enough aviation footage to make up for it. When one critiques a movie of people and events, it is useful to consider the time period the movie was produced besides the time period it depicts. In 1948 there were no German aircraft left to fly in the movie and CGI was a long way off. I am much less forgiving of a movie like "Pearl Harbor" that could have used CGI to show correct models of aircraft than one made when "Fighter Squadron" was produced where there were no such resources.
Besides being able to see P-47s flying, some of the scenes have a strong sense of history. When they get the orders to prepare for D-Day, I have little doubt those were accurate to history. Using real incidents and characters from the famous 4th Fighter Group of the ETO gives the 'ring of truth' to the movie. For those that think the characters were "formula", you should read "1000 Destroyed", a history of the 4th Fighter Group. The real group actually had its own 'press agent' who wrote the book. The 'Kid' character in the movie may have been a tribute to the real "Kid" Hofer who was KIA while flying with the 4th. Remember that the real pilots of WWII were VERY YOUNG men. Twenty-five was an 'old man' in that group.
I think "Fighter Squadron" is a good movie with lots of great airplane scenes that is a fitting tribute to the people that fought WWII for us. It was a serious movie of its day made when the people who had 'fought the fight' were around to watch it. It took license with history as the producers apparently felt necessary to be 'entertaining' to the general audience. It was made at a time when we didn't criticize our veterans or question their actions. It was however more realistic than wartime movies. I too hope it comes out on DVD soon.
Besides being able to see P-47s flying, some of the scenes have a strong sense of history. When they get the orders to prepare for D-Day, I have little doubt those were accurate to history. Using real incidents and characters from the famous 4th Fighter Group of the ETO gives the 'ring of truth' to the movie. For those that think the characters were "formula", you should read "1000 Destroyed", a history of the 4th Fighter Group. The real group actually had its own 'press agent' who wrote the book. The 'Kid' character in the movie may have been a tribute to the real "Kid" Hofer who was KIA while flying with the 4th. Remember that the real pilots of WWII were VERY YOUNG men. Twenty-five was an 'old man' in that group.
I think "Fighter Squadron" is a good movie with lots of great airplane scenes that is a fitting tribute to the people that fought WWII for us. It was a serious movie of its day made when the people who had 'fought the fight' were around to watch it. It took license with history as the producers apparently felt necessary to be 'entertaining' to the general audience. It was made at a time when we didn't criticize our veterans or question their actions. It was however more realistic than wartime movies. I too hope it comes out on DVD soon.
The Longest Day
(1962)
Great Movie, New DVD Release
11 November 2006
I saw this movie when it first came out (yes, I am THAT old!), bought it for $75 when it first came out on video tape and just purchased a DVD set at Wal-Mart marked as a "Cinema Classics Collection".
The movie itself is outstanding in most aspects. For younger people, please understand that when this movie was made, many of the participants in the actual event were still alive. Many contributed in some way to the movie and others would have commented strongly if they saw something wrong. That had to put tremendous pressure on the producers. The only complaint I ever had with it was technical in nature. Much of the equipment worn by the American soldiers is incorrect. It is not that it isn't WWII equipment (it is) but that it wasn't appropriate to what the soldier was doing or carrying as a weapon. I have also read that the action on the beach is spectacular but not quite correct as most of the movement off Omaha Beach early in the day was in small groups like depicted in "Saving Private Ryan". I forgive the movie both glitches as it was more important to put Ryan's book on the screen rather than sweat the small stuff.
One bit of trivia I learned years later by reading one of Ambrose's books had to do with Richard Todd who played Major Howard taking "Pegasus Bridge". If Todd looks believable in the role, it turns out that there is a very good reason for that. It seems Todd was a young officer in one of the British Parachute Battalions that dropped into Normandie in support of Howard's capture of the bridge.
Regarding the DVD release I just bought, I have to comment on the 'historical commentary' section. This is a feature that you can turn on and a "historian" comments as you watch the movie. I was highly disappointed in the comments. Instead of real history, all it contains is a lot of movie commentary and social statements. If you choose to listen to the "Audio Commentary by Historian X X" on this set, please read Ryan's book afterward or one of Ambrose's books to correct what you have listened to on the DVD. I normally wouldn't include such a negative section but it really angered me what they termed 'historical commentary'. If it had been labeled anything but 'historical' I would not have minded. That is why I am sometimes called "History Nut".
The movie itself is outstanding in most aspects. For younger people, please understand that when this movie was made, many of the participants in the actual event were still alive. Many contributed in some way to the movie and others would have commented strongly if they saw something wrong. That had to put tremendous pressure on the producers. The only complaint I ever had with it was technical in nature. Much of the equipment worn by the American soldiers is incorrect. It is not that it isn't WWII equipment (it is) but that it wasn't appropriate to what the soldier was doing or carrying as a weapon. I have also read that the action on the beach is spectacular but not quite correct as most of the movement off Omaha Beach early in the day was in small groups like depicted in "Saving Private Ryan". I forgive the movie both glitches as it was more important to put Ryan's book on the screen rather than sweat the small stuff.
One bit of trivia I learned years later by reading one of Ambrose's books had to do with Richard Todd who played Major Howard taking "Pegasus Bridge". If Todd looks believable in the role, it turns out that there is a very good reason for that. It seems Todd was a young officer in one of the British Parachute Battalions that dropped into Normandie in support of Howard's capture of the bridge.
Regarding the DVD release I just bought, I have to comment on the 'historical commentary' section. This is a feature that you can turn on and a "historian" comments as you watch the movie. I was highly disappointed in the comments. Instead of real history, all it contains is a lot of movie commentary and social statements. If you choose to listen to the "Audio Commentary by Historian X X" on this set, please read Ryan's book afterward or one of Ambrose's books to correct what you have listened to on the DVD. I normally wouldn't include such a negative section but it really angered me what they termed 'historical commentary'. If it had been labeled anything but 'historical' I would not have minded. That is why I am sometimes called "History Nut".
Eureka
(2006–2012)
Very Good Show
24 August 2006
I enjoy the show very much so far. The setting, actors and writing are pretty good. It has that necessary touch of humor in every episode. I like all the characters. As someone else commented, the show will grow on you. It certainly has room to grow in all kinds of directions. It is at times a 'cop show', a sci-fi show, a sitcom and a drama. I hope it survives and gets picked up for more episodes. It is the best the Sci-Fi channel has come up with in quite awhile. I hope we see more of Jo the Deputy in the future. I think her character is so one-dimensional right now that she has lots of room to grow as a character. If they have any more 'military' scenes though, I hope someone teaches her how to salute.
The Command
(1954)
Another that needs to be on DVD
8 April 2006
A great Western that entertains well. It is a movie, along with "Charge at Feather River", where Guy Madison plays a character that though having to fight the Indians, also understands their situation.
The chemistry between Madison's and Whitmore's characters was very well played. It is well paced with story moments and action moments fitting together well.
As a historical note, the Winchesters used by the troopers were incorrect as props but then this was a 1950s Western when no one cared about those details. Spencer Carbines would have been correct but unavailable. The one interesting gun prop is in the scene where the scouts are chased back to the column and meet up with the Capt. and others. One of the troopers is obviously holding a Schofield revolver which though quite unusual, were used by the U.S. Cavalry in small numbers.
I really hope that this movie is released on DVD someday soon.
The chemistry between Madison's and Whitmore's characters was very well played. It is well paced with story moments and action moments fitting together well.
As a historical note, the Winchesters used by the troopers were incorrect as props but then this was a 1950s Western when no one cared about those details. Spencer Carbines would have been correct but unavailable. The one interesting gun prop is in the scene where the scouts are chased back to the column and meet up with the Capt. and others. One of the troopers is obviously holding a Schofield revolver which though quite unusual, were used by the U.S. Cavalry in small numbers.
I really hope that this movie is released on DVD someday soon.
The Charge at Feather River
(1953)
It even has some basis in fact
8 April 2006
I can remember seeing this movie when I was very young and several times on TV since then. I have always liked it. I have noticed on the print shown on local TV that one scene has reversed film. It is the one where they are hiding behind the rock outcrop(it looks like Vasquez Rocks near Los Angeles) watching the Indians ride by. If you look carefully, you will notice that suddenly all the soldiers are left-handed! It is only a short segment and I have to admit that it took me years to notice it.
As far as history goes, there were often expeditions to rescue white captives from the Indians. The direct connection for the final battle scene is the Battle of Beecher's Island. In that action, a group of volunteer scouts equipped with repeating carbines (Spencer carbines not Winchesters) were surprised by the Indians and retreated to an island and held off several charges. In the last charge, they killed Roman Nose, one of the more famous Indian Chiefs. I have no idea if the writer of the script had this in mind but it does fit fairly well.
There are several Guy Madison movies that I hope come out on DVD someday and this is one of them.
As far as history goes, there were often expeditions to rescue white captives from the Indians. The direct connection for the final battle scene is the Battle of Beecher's Island. In that action, a group of volunteer scouts equipped with repeating carbines (Spencer carbines not Winchesters) were surprised by the Indians and retreated to an island and held off several charges. In the last charge, they killed Roman Nose, one of the more famous Indian Chiefs. I have no idea if the writer of the script had this in mind but it does fit fairly well.
There are several Guy Madison movies that I hope come out on DVD someday and this is one of them.
Shadow on the Land
(1968 TV Movie)
A Cautionary Tale
7 March 2006
I saw this movie when it first played on TV. For those who read this who were not conscious in the late '60s it may seem confusing. It was a time of unrest and doubt. People were constantly asked to "trust the government". The makers of the film obviously wanted to remind us to always regard with skepticism those who seek power in order to 'protect us'. Its message was timely then and applies equally to now.
I do not attach its message to any particular political party or persons in office. That would be to make it a matter of partisanship. The film deserves better. Like D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" it is a movie for all time for freedom loving people. I hope that it comes out on DVD someday. If it does, it should be shown in every classroom in America along with "Intolerance".
Right after the Towers fell on 9/11, I thought of this movie. I hoped that 9/11 would not become our "Reichstag Fire". If you don't know what the "Reichstag Fire" was, LOOK IT UP! Anyone who values Liberty should be aware of that term. By the way, it is used in the movie. Time will tell if 9/11 will be our "Reichstag Fire".
The performances in Shadow On The Land were of high quality and the writing was good. It wasn't the best movie ever made but it did its job well and is worth seeing and sharing. The message is what is important.
I do not attach its message to any particular political party or persons in office. That would be to make it a matter of partisanship. The film deserves better. Like D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" it is a movie for all time for freedom loving people. I hope that it comes out on DVD someday. If it does, it should be shown in every classroom in America along with "Intolerance".
Right after the Towers fell on 9/11, I thought of this movie. I hoped that 9/11 would not become our "Reichstag Fire". If you don't know what the "Reichstag Fire" was, LOOK IT UP! Anyone who values Liberty should be aware of that term. By the way, it is used in the movie. Time will tell if 9/11 will be our "Reichstag Fire".
The performances in Shadow On The Land were of high quality and the writing was good. It wasn't the best movie ever made but it did its job well and is worth seeing and sharing. The message is what is important.
The Silent Service
(1957–1958)
Really Needs to be Brought out on DVD
1 October 2005
This was a fantastic series about U.S. Navy Submarines in WWII. It starred the regular TV actors of the the day and each episode was based on fact. Also the host often had the real people of the story on at the end of an episode to get their comments. It was great history and weekly entertainment. It really should be brought out on DVD both for those of us that remember it and to preserve television history itself. The combination of real footage and actors on the submarine set seemed pretty seamless to me but then I couldn't have been more than 6 or 7 years old when it was on TV. I just know that it is one of the shows I remember quite well from that period. It was entertaining but was obviously done more for telling the history than 'entertaining' people. For me that was more than enough.
Flight
(1958–1959)
I Watched This Show When Very Young
1 October 2005
I remember watching this show on TV when I was 9 years old. It was different every week and was made up of recreations of actual incidents involving flight. Most were centered around WWII. Gen. Kenny that introduced the episodes was the commander of the 5th Air Force under MacArthur in WWII.
I would love to see it and many other shows of that era come out in DVD sets. I suppose if I viewed them now, they might seem odd but I really enjoyed them back then. I am sure the episodes were made with a tight budget but it was entertaining and history.
This series was shown at a time when the military was in a positive light. Between WWII and the Cold War, Americans relied on and trusted the military without question. A lot of military-related series were on TV in those days: "The Silent Service", "West Point", "Annapolis Story", "Navy Log" for 'factual' stories and then there was "Steve Canyon" for the contemporary Air Force. All of these would be great to see on DVD at the very least as a part of Television history.
I would love to see it and many other shows of that era come out in DVD sets. I suppose if I viewed them now, they might seem odd but I really enjoyed them back then. I am sure the episodes were made with a tight budget but it was entertaining and history.
This series was shown at a time when the military was in a positive light. Between WWII and the Cold War, Americans relied on and trusted the military without question. A lot of military-related series were on TV in those days: "The Silent Service", "West Point", "Annapolis Story", "Navy Log" for 'factual' stories and then there was "Steve Canyon" for the contemporary Air Force. All of these would be great to see on DVD at the very least as a part of Television history.
Mission to Mars
(2000)
Really good in parts
14 March 2005
This movie and another one that deals with an expedition that goes to the Red Planet came out about the same time. "Mission to Mars" is by far the better of the two. It is very well acted and has many good technical points in it. The only part I didn't like was the accident that befell the relief expedition and the spacewalk after that. Other than that whole scene sequence, the movie was very good. The ending is very emotional. I guess that is why some really hate it or like me love it. The movie really says more about our need to explore than anything else. By reaching out constantly, we assure our survival as a species. It probably disappoints many viewers because it doesn't have monsters or evil people. In this sense it is more realistic. The people that go into space are pros and not likely to go bonkers. It is not as 'dramatic' as some but certainly more satisfying for those of us that see a future for the human race.
Tell Your Friends