Change Your Image
ramonhleigh
Reviews
Patton (1970)
Inaccurate history
Scott's Patton was way too heavy-handed. Patton was nothing if not lighthearted and depended upon his staff far more than displayed in the film. Karl Malden needed more than his gimmick of chewing on a piece of straw for his Bradley portrayal - he does NOT resemble Omar Bradley. A total miscast, the result of Hollywood's continual illusion that any good actor can portray any personality faithfully. Of course, Hollywood script writers seldom are very familiar with the historical figures they create on film, or what they did. The major problem with this film's script was its absurd portrayal of Patton as a "tank expert." He certainly was not that. Innumerable examples from the war prove without any doubt that Patton completely misunderstood the purpose of armor in WWII. The most glaring (and well known) example was his rejection of the M26 Pershing tank in favor of the horrible Sherman they had used up until the Tidworth Downs conference in England prior to Normandy. His brainless decision (based on obsolete Army theories of armored warfare)was vehemently opposed by every armor commander who had had experience with the Shermans in Sicily and North Africa. Everyone except Patton was well aware of the severe deficiencies of the Sherman tank, but Patton's rank and obstinateness prevailed. That I rank as the most disastrous decision made by any US commander in WWII - it lengthened the war and killed many thousands of those unfortunate enough to be selected to be a member of a Sherman tank crew. After the invasion, when it became readily apparent just how inferior the Sherman was, a growing scandal was hushed up by the governments of both Britain and the US. Despite the fact that Patton's rejection of the vastly superior Pershing was easily the most significant and far reaching decision he ever made, the film doesn't even mention the fact. This totally destroys the credibility of this film. Typical Hollywood history - things are portrayed the way some scriptwriter wishes they had happened. Buy hey, that's Hollywood.
The Conspirator (2010)
Reford's unbelievable ignorance
As an experienced Civl War amateur historian, I'm used to seeing Hollywood blunder and stumble with their facts, etc. But Redford goes one better : he manages to not only present historical nonsense (the question of Mary Surratt's guilt, which has never been seriously doubted, despite Redford's ignorance), but manages somehow to only see unConstitutional activities in this period of time in a military tribunal for a couple of obviously guilty assassins and would-be assassins. Hello, there blond Bobby!! Redford is an almost perfect example of just how historically ignorant our citizens are, and to be so in his position, supposedly having looked closely into the period in question, is well nigh unbelievable ignorance displayed by one who doesn't appear to be a complete moron. Redford has managed to concentrate on a tiny speck of (arguably) unConstitutional behavior, while the most gigantic example of unConstitutional behavior and death only ends just days before his film's timeline begins. Obviously Redford is not being sarcastic, but Lincoln had engaged in the most extreme and widespread destruction of civil rights by anyone, anywhere on the planet, before or since. You can almost argue that even the Nazis failed to so completely delete individual rights among ordinary citizens. Most certainly Lincoln outdid Mussolini and his Fascists. Lincoln imposed military rule and marshall law on most of the remaining union states in the north without a scintilla of justification. While Lincoln was in office, the Constitution simply didn't exist. The Confederacy did not invade the north, but was attacked in a completely illegal and unconstitutional action by Lincoln. Lincoln even ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice. Anyone who disagreed was slapped into a military prison and habeas corpus was suspended for the duration of the war. One has to go a long way to find a dictator who has more completely silenced any criticisms or deprived more people of more rights for a longer period of time (until his death)than Lincoln did. Redford sure has good judgment for what's important and what's a story actually worth telling, doesn't he? No wonder our citizens are so unbelievably ignorant of historical events. Well, at least we can be certain that Redford is aware that there was a thing called the American Civil War, and that Lincoln was assassinated. Beyond that we cannot go, based on the historical waste he has packed into his silly film. Please, Bobby, stick to wacky comedies, or films about dogs, or something, because you're destroying our history, and I'm steamed about it. We've got enough incompetence hereabouts, we don't need any more.
Birdman of Alcatraz (1962)
More "fictionalized history" from the Hollywood boys
When I first saw this film I thought that Lancaster had done a very good job. Unfortunately, I then read up on the man the movie had practically immortalized and realized I'd been had. Again. I lost a lot of respect for Lancaster after that. Apparently the only way a story can turn out the way Hollywood wants is to simply manufacture it. Of all the historical films that I've seen whose events I am familiar with, the only one that I can honestly say was accurate was The Longest Day. As for the other reviewers who somehow find deep meaning in what, for all intents and purposes, seems to be some sort of religious or propagandistic morality play, well, I didn't discern any deep thinking floating around the cell block.