5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Documentary Just On TV: Two Hours of the REAL Story
1 January 2008
Although I haven't seen the movie yet, I'm not sure I want to after watching the documentary. Tom Hanks always makes a winner movie, but the real story is easily disliked for several reasons.

Since I don't know what the actual Hollywood movie shows, I can't put 'spoiler' here but you might not want to read the rest.

The Congressman was nominated by some group as one of the most INeffective Congressmen on the Hill at the time although he kept getting reelected. One complaint was that he was flying all over the world (which turned out to be the action of the movie that has been made as he was involved in funneling US Dollars to the anti soviet forces in Afghanistan. He was actually doing something but few people knew exactly what).

He was accused of using cocaine along with some bathing beauties within a hot tub party in Las Vegas. In the documentary, he remained mum without denial nor admission. He did confess to being a party hog and having multiple DUI arrests in his life. (So, being as smart as he is, he understood that DUI puts innocent people at risk & he did it anyway). So, if you're the kind who doesn't care what a man does on his off work time, then this might not bother you.

What is rankling is that by his own admission, he "DOUBLED" the initial dollar amount going to fund anti soviet forces "on my own authority." THUS, BY CHANCE OF BEING IN THE RIGHT PLACE WITH THE RIGHT AUTHORITY, HE BYPASSED THE American PEOPLE / VOTERS AND BEGAN FUNDING ON A SMALL MANNER HIS OWN PERSONAL AGENDA. HE ADMITTED OTHER CONGRESSMAN SAW WHAT HE HAD DONE BUT SAID "NOTHING." His game ended up expanding to a BILLION DOLLARS eventually. Did it help cause the Soviets to withdraw from the war in Afghanistan? No doubt some. But, he did it without voter approval and without the knowledge of most of the US Government. Thats why its called, "charlies war." Did it affect the average American in any negative way other than taking our money for a war on the other side of the planet and which was on turf right adjacent to the Soviet Union itself? Yes. In one spy type episode, a weapon was discharged on US soil by mistake prior to an authorized viewing of big shots. The weapon hit a local gas station, burned it to the ground, and put ... yes... innocent people's lives at risk. Nobody was harmed but the US Government had to pay the owner of the station for all the damages.

So far, dollars taken without proper scrutiny by people who should have been involved and American lives put at risk.

The bottom line is this: Americans ARE TIRED OF OUR LEADERS GETTING US INTO WARS AROUND THE PLANET RATHER THAN TAKING CARE OF America. NOBODY HAS AUTHORIZED THE FEDS TO DO THIS. THEY GET US INTO WAR AFTER WAR WITHOUT GOOD REASON WHILE OUR COUNTRY GOES BROKE AND OUR BORDER IS SO UNENFORCED THAT 4,000 ILLEGALS FLOOD ACROSS DAILY.

The reasoning Charlie gave as getting us deeper into that war at the risk of a Soviet Union counterattack? " We had a moral duty " said Charlie.

The American people were used in a way in which they didn't get a chance to decide themselves if the "moral duty" really applied. They had to take Charlie's word for it.

As it all turned out, the Soviet Union fell apart 10 months after they withdrew from Afghanistan, but it may well have done that without a single congressman's crusade that could have put the USA into World War III with the Soviets who could have possibly destroyed our entire country.

Charlie's War should be viewed as something out of history but be cautious in your emotions. One congressman out of 530 or so total took matters into his own hands. Our government isn't supposed to work that way. Thats called Risky Business.
4 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Grizzly Man (2005)
3/10
Man Living In Fantasy World Avoids Mental Ward
29 December 2007
Short & sweet: I gave the rating of 3 only due to close up films of animal life and dangerous animal life at that. The self proclaimed 'protector' of the bears manages to call his extended stay camping trips "work" but never manages to say what that "work" is other than filming wildlife for the ultimate goal of making himself famous.

The "star," as he would call himself, was nothing but a flaming gay who denied his self and claimed to be straight and into women. His attempt at commentary throughout his self filming was pathetic with scene after scene after scene of him saying "I love you" to wild animals and not much more.

Was he in danger? You bet. Anyone could have done what he did but most everyone else doesn't want to get killed by a bear as he did. (The death is not in the film). Anyone could have walked into bear territory and put self at extreme risk. The film was like another film of a self proclaimed 'shark expert' who ended up nearly getting eaten by sharks but managed to survive and enjoy a malfunctioning, shark damaged leg for the rest of his life.

What was his background? Well, one of his spacey, old hippie type, sprout eating "friends" said she met him while working at a restaurant where he was apparently a waiter.

So, there you have it. He was a waiter who took a camera into bear territory and managed to avoid getting killed for 12 or 13 summers. As the helicopter pilot who was hired to remove the remains of the "star" and his "girlfriend" said post bear attack... "the only reason the bears didn't kill him sooner was because they probably looked at him like he was retarded. He got what he asked for. He got what he deserved." If you can't stand to listen to or watch exercise fatty Richard Simmons, you won't want to waste money on this film. One possibility, though, is to turn off the audio so you don't have to listen to the utterly stupid dialog and just watch the wildlife which, after all, is the "star."
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deep Water (2006)
8/10
An Excellent Story Of 9 Men Participating In A Solo Sailboat Race Around The Planet.
22 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"Ideas are dangerous." Comment by one interviewee.

DVD Rating: B+ / 4 out of 5 / 8 out of 10 / Worth the time.

A great story for adults / or teen boaters but not for children. None of the stupid violent crime stuff so often mistaken by Hollywood these days as "quality work." And, it can be used as a trainer film on what proper boating preparation is all about, or not about, prior to "sailing the seven seas." The movie starts out somewhat slowly to develop the story as most documentaries do, but as it draws the viewer into the saga, emotions begin to percolate in one's head! Emotions include anger, sadness, and disbelief. The era: late 1960's.

That solo sailing around the globe is dangerous is not surprising. What is surprising is all the twists that viewers wouldn't expect. Its not your average group of guys in a sailing race! Each boat was different as allowed by the race rules. Each solo sailor had different levels of ability as allowed by the race rules. There were well known sailors among them and a few not so well known. One was considered a mystery man as nobody seemed to have any knowledge of his ability at all. Each boat was allowed to depart at will so long as all were underway by a certain date. And this was, of course, prior to modern electronics that allow boaters to communicate with shore about vicious storms, etc.

Actual video and audio recordings are interspersed with interviews of family members and others involved. The mood of the interviewees is always somber despite the years that have passed.

The main character, Don, is the focus of attention & how his journey relates to those who he not only wanted to beat but, due to circumstances of his own creation, HAD to beat. He HAD to win. The story was about what that circumstance did to his life as he moved South West across the Atlantic Ocean over a years time alone on the water.

Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. The entire saga isn't fully understood w/o viewing the 'bonus' stuff.

In the end, once you've watched everything on the DVD, you will likely just shake your head and exclaim, 'wow.' And keep in mind, THAT is why the story has remained alive for the last 40 years.

SPOILER: Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. One sailor who was headed back to England after circumnavigating the globe decided on the fly that, no, he was going for another spin and the film records his spouse's opinions about that decision. The opposite story unfolds as another sailor wishes the race allowed two on board so he could take his wife along and their photos demonstrate a very warm union between them. The interview with an burley ex paratrooper who had actually ROWED a boat across the Atlantic with a friend prior to the solo sail race was incredibly funny as he described not even knowing how to sail and who thought the bad things happening to him were 'normal.' Too many people think that setting sail in the open sea can be an romantic adventure without mishap. Don't you be one!
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Birth (2004)
1/10
" Birth " : Don't Waste Your Time Nor Your Money.
25 November 2006
I probably would have given it at least a "5" were it not for the ending. That was an ending, right? Sort of like they ran out of budget & told nicole kidman to "fill 10 minutes, somehow!" You don't know what was said. NO answers. You're left in the dust with a totally empty understanding of what was supposed to be happening. Did "Joe" say something to her that created a reaction? Did she realize the little boy WAS her former husband? Did she realize the little boy WAS NOT her former husband? Did "Joe" tell her the police were charging her with pedophilia? THE ENDING WAS PURE JUNK. GAR-BAGE.

Oh, and the sex scene between "Anna & Joe" ... THAT was needed and informative, right? It was typical for a sex scene ... to prop up a movie that the makers knew was a loser.

NOT worth the price of a movie house. NOT worth a rental DVD. Watch it for free when it hits cable as I did. Even then, it might not be worth your time unless you make minimum wage.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Famous? Even Google couldn't locate their photos !!
17 April 2006
what always gets people is that Hollywood line, "based on a true story" ....

so, i tuned in and tuned out rather quickly. the plot was fairly shallow & predictable and the characters were just too jolly for actual reality and especially reality of wanted criminals.

but i was curious to see what they looked like since criminals tend to all look so similar in that freakish kinda way. but even the search engines couldn't locate their photos. so i question just how "successful" the robbers were as it seem nobody in their era really cared much about them other than the usual anger at being victimized. look up bonnie & Clyde & other criminals of their era & you will find the photos. but not these guys.

the movie & the subject..... guys thinking they're intelligent for doing nothing more than using guns & explosives :) just plain stupid behavior / so what?. don't waste your time on this one.
0 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed