FrankiePaddo
nov 1999 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Seguimos trabajando en la actualización de algunas funciones del perfil. Para ver los distintivos, los desgloses de calificaciones y las encuestas para este perfil, visita versión anterior.
Calificaciones82
Clasificación de FrankiePaddo
Reseñas19
Clasificación de FrankiePaddo
Despite having (the always endearingly odd) Steve Railsback and Tom Berenger in supports, Danny Trejo in a cameo the whole show here is Lance Henriksen.
He is a wonderfully convincing as a former bad man, dying of natural causes and unhappy with who he has become physically and, perhaps, mentally. His solution is to exit life in a blaze of glory whilst confronting personal demons and righting past wrongs. Along the way he is joined by the ghost of a colleague and, what seems to be, Death. Cheery this isn't.
The photography is of the modern realism school (perhaps also because of the low budget) and the supporting characters aren't fleshed out. The films starts slow and is short on action but it is a "slow burn" with elegiac asides. It comes across as a cross between the masterful "The Shootist" (1976) and (the somewhat overrated but much loved) "Unforgiven" (1992).
Not magnificent but definitely one for lovers of westerns, who are familiar with the genres tropes or for lovers of Lance Henriksen, of which there should be more.
He is a wonderfully convincing as a former bad man, dying of natural causes and unhappy with who he has become physically and, perhaps, mentally. His solution is to exit life in a blaze of glory whilst confronting personal demons and righting past wrongs. Along the way he is joined by the ghost of a colleague and, what seems to be, Death. Cheery this isn't.
The photography is of the modern realism school (perhaps also because of the low budget) and the supporting characters aren't fleshed out. The films starts slow and is short on action but it is a "slow burn" with elegiac asides. It comes across as a cross between the masterful "The Shootist" (1976) and (the somewhat overrated but much loved) "Unforgiven" (1992).
Not magnificent but definitely one for lovers of westerns, who are familiar with the genres tropes or for lovers of Lance Henriksen, of which there should be more.
Hawken's Breed is much maligned. Those who say it is the worst film ever made clearly haven't seen many films.
This is an independent film made with a former major maverick film star (Peter Fonda), former major supporting player (Jack Elam), and former starlet (Sue Ann Langdon) supported by some solid character actors (Bill Thurman). I suspect all were working cheap or cheaper than they had in their prime.
And "cheap" is the operative word. Things are filmed on a small(er) budget. That does not diminish the film but you have to accept that what you are going to watch has that limitation. There are many films made on similar limitations that transcend them and outdo much bigger budget films but this isn't one of them. There is, however, enough here to keep one interested and enough to admire when it comes to film making on a shoe string.
At its heart this is a revenge themed frontier western. The story is simple and what is perhaps most obvious is the isolation of people in frontier times. A step the wrong way off a track or meeting up with strangers who are no good could end your life. The elements, the wild life, the Native Americans, other frontiersmen, all could leave you dead or dying in the middle of nowhere.
The director Charles Pierce (The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976)) loved the frontier pre-wild west and post Civil war west and this film as well as Chasing the Wind (1998), The Winds of Autumn(1976), Winterhawk (1975), Sacred Ground (1983) and Grayeagle (1977) are all westerns that deal with individuals or couples against the elements or external forces, looking for a better life or seeking revenge against those who have taken that away from them. He has a rough consistency of themes, at least in his westerns.
Maybe because of budgetary constraints maybe because of temperament the action is short and sharp and a lot of scenes seem to be almost like "mood pieces". And, whether it is intentional or not, they work as a reminder that the old west wasn't all excitement and daring do.
On the negative there are some clumsy camera angles that don't show off the actors to their best, a couple of peripheral background actors that don't look authentic, and a out of place music score, which would have worked in an ironic comic 70s western but not here.
Also, through no fault of the filmmakers the video transfer is only average which is a pity as there are some great Tennessee landscapes The principal leads are all fine and Fonda's character especially fits in with his screen persona.
It may miss the mark but it is not the worst by a country mile.
6/10
This is an independent film made with a former major maverick film star (Peter Fonda), former major supporting player (Jack Elam), and former starlet (Sue Ann Langdon) supported by some solid character actors (Bill Thurman). I suspect all were working cheap or cheaper than they had in their prime.
And "cheap" is the operative word. Things are filmed on a small(er) budget. That does not diminish the film but you have to accept that what you are going to watch has that limitation. There are many films made on similar limitations that transcend them and outdo much bigger budget films but this isn't one of them. There is, however, enough here to keep one interested and enough to admire when it comes to film making on a shoe string.
At its heart this is a revenge themed frontier western. The story is simple and what is perhaps most obvious is the isolation of people in frontier times. A step the wrong way off a track or meeting up with strangers who are no good could end your life. The elements, the wild life, the Native Americans, other frontiersmen, all could leave you dead or dying in the middle of nowhere.
The director Charles Pierce (The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976)) loved the frontier pre-wild west and post Civil war west and this film as well as Chasing the Wind (1998), The Winds of Autumn(1976), Winterhawk (1975), Sacred Ground (1983) and Grayeagle (1977) are all westerns that deal with individuals or couples against the elements or external forces, looking for a better life or seeking revenge against those who have taken that away from them. He has a rough consistency of themes, at least in his westerns.
Maybe because of budgetary constraints maybe because of temperament the action is short and sharp and a lot of scenes seem to be almost like "mood pieces". And, whether it is intentional or not, they work as a reminder that the old west wasn't all excitement and daring do.
On the negative there are some clumsy camera angles that don't show off the actors to their best, a couple of peripheral background actors that don't look authentic, and a out of place music score, which would have worked in an ironic comic 70s western but not here.
Also, through no fault of the filmmakers the video transfer is only average which is a pity as there are some great Tennessee landscapes The principal leads are all fine and Fonda's character especially fits in with his screen persona.
It may miss the mark but it is not the worst by a country mile.
6/10
At the outset I'll say I love films with some basis in historical events. The problem is of course that the more a film commits itself to historical events the more a review tends to refer to those events rather than the film.
Firstly, what I like about this film is that it doesn't try to appease any group or be politically correct. It doesn't go for the soft option as many other recent movies about recent wars do,ie: there is no good or bad, both side commit atrocities. Such liberal soppiness is misleading and directly opposed to historical fact and common sense. There are aggressors and there are victims, even though the lines of demarcation are occasionally blurred. This film in a way refers back to the films of commitment made in the 1930s in Hollywood or Latin America in the 1960s.
Similarly, people usually re-write history to suit their worldview. I note that another reviewer blamed the Yugoslav War on US and German imperialism and that the "poor" Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians were their pawns that had lived "peacefully and admirably until the West engineered the collapse of Yugoslavia". What planet did that come from? The Croatians and the Serbians have not got on in since the turn of the 20th century (as World War 1 and 2 show). Yugoslavia ( both pure and post WW2) was very much held together by force and intimidation. That's a historical fact. If the various ethnic groupings had "got on" the force of violence that erupted in the Yugoslavian War would not have occurred. That's common sense. I assume such views are based on ones internal beliefs. In this case its standard old style claptrap leftism (which unfortunately gives leftism a bad name).
History is written by the victors and in Yugoslavia after 1944 the Serbians (once again) took control of the country. Their history, which was passed out as historical fact for the next 50 years, was, they were leftists and the Croatians were all fascists, therefore you should support us in this war. The reality of course is that the Yugoslav army and irregulars in the recent war were dominated by Serbian nationalists seeking a greater Serbia and using ethnic cleansing and murder as a means to achieve this, not to mention the fact that during World War 2 (up to 1944 in any event) most of the Communist Partizans were in fact Croatian.
The beauty of course is the film is attempting to overcome the conventionally held history. It doesn't deal with past history though, but rather with what is happening now. By dealing with "history now" the film sheds light on some of the lies that have been passed out as historical fact.
The central character Chico is a man of contradictions. A child of a Hungarian Jewish father and a Spanish Catholic mother he is a child of the 1960s Latin revolutions and raised in a leftist family. So he is a Communist but a practicing Catholic, he goes to a Catholic priest for confession but prays at the weeping wall, he is a humanist but advocates war.
These supposed contradictions always existed within people. People are molded from many historical events and social forces surrounding them. The only place pure ideologies exist are in philosophical arguments between half smart raconteurs or in undergrad university assignments . ie: you cant believe in that if you believe in that etc. This film never backs away from commitment but it does subtlety (and sometimes not so subtlety) suggest that there is another side. Accordingly, you don't get the feeling you are being preached at (whereas you might from this review).
The film takes you on Chico's journey through causes around the world like a frenzied 20th century Don Quixote looking for meaning. Chico's humanity ultimately leads him to Yugoslavia and the Croatian Homeland War in the 1990s. And even though it is not a ideologically correct war (as his father tells him) he knows within himself that he must side with the oppressed.
Chico searches and is redeemed but is he content, or is he saddened and scarred? At times it seems that Chico, like a Zelig, was at all the important late 20th century events, and the film seems to make comment on them. On that level the film is not always successful (its hard enough commenting on one situation). The film is more successful as a personal odyssey through tumultuous events.
There are some standard Hollywood war movie clichés, ie: the outnumbered and besieged forces, the sing a long etc but, but they are downplayed, and I sometimes wonder if clichés became clichés because they actually occurred in times of war. What underpins the whole film though is the upfront, "in your face" reality of it all ... like Sam Fuller with a hand-held camera. The photography is not pretty, which suits the picture perfectly although I wouldn't have minded a few more scene setting shots. The docu-drama works well at drawing you into the story whilst distracting you from the budgetary limitations of the film. The "docu" is the newsreel footage of the war whilst the "drama" is Chico's journey (both physically and spiritually) and people he meets on the way. This is a war film that deals with people rather than action there is little action and when it does come it is over quickly.
The acting is fine, and Eduardo Rozsa Flores plays Chico effortlessly, not surprisingly as Chico is based on Flores own life in part! Flores fought, globe trotted and eventually found a cause in the Croatian Homeland War. The direction ( by Ibolya Fekete) is handled nicely and the action is gritty. The real stand out though is the directors juxtaposition (you have to love that word even if it is overused) of live action with news footage.
If you want to be confronted and challenged ... watch this.
Firstly, what I like about this film is that it doesn't try to appease any group or be politically correct. It doesn't go for the soft option as many other recent movies about recent wars do,ie: there is no good or bad, both side commit atrocities. Such liberal soppiness is misleading and directly opposed to historical fact and common sense. There are aggressors and there are victims, even though the lines of demarcation are occasionally blurred. This film in a way refers back to the films of commitment made in the 1930s in Hollywood or Latin America in the 1960s.
Similarly, people usually re-write history to suit their worldview. I note that another reviewer blamed the Yugoslav War on US and German imperialism and that the "poor" Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians were their pawns that had lived "peacefully and admirably until the West engineered the collapse of Yugoslavia". What planet did that come from? The Croatians and the Serbians have not got on in since the turn of the 20th century (as World War 1 and 2 show). Yugoslavia ( both pure and post WW2) was very much held together by force and intimidation. That's a historical fact. If the various ethnic groupings had "got on" the force of violence that erupted in the Yugoslavian War would not have occurred. That's common sense. I assume such views are based on ones internal beliefs. In this case its standard old style claptrap leftism (which unfortunately gives leftism a bad name).
History is written by the victors and in Yugoslavia after 1944 the Serbians (once again) took control of the country. Their history, which was passed out as historical fact for the next 50 years, was, they were leftists and the Croatians were all fascists, therefore you should support us in this war. The reality of course is that the Yugoslav army and irregulars in the recent war were dominated by Serbian nationalists seeking a greater Serbia and using ethnic cleansing and murder as a means to achieve this, not to mention the fact that during World War 2 (up to 1944 in any event) most of the Communist Partizans were in fact Croatian.
The beauty of course is the film is attempting to overcome the conventionally held history. It doesn't deal with past history though, but rather with what is happening now. By dealing with "history now" the film sheds light on some of the lies that have been passed out as historical fact.
The central character Chico is a man of contradictions. A child of a Hungarian Jewish father and a Spanish Catholic mother he is a child of the 1960s Latin revolutions and raised in a leftist family. So he is a Communist but a practicing Catholic, he goes to a Catholic priest for confession but prays at the weeping wall, he is a humanist but advocates war.
These supposed contradictions always existed within people. People are molded from many historical events and social forces surrounding them. The only place pure ideologies exist are in philosophical arguments between half smart raconteurs or in undergrad university assignments . ie: you cant believe in that if you believe in that etc. This film never backs away from commitment but it does subtlety (and sometimes not so subtlety) suggest that there is another side. Accordingly, you don't get the feeling you are being preached at (whereas you might from this review).
The film takes you on Chico's journey through causes around the world like a frenzied 20th century Don Quixote looking for meaning. Chico's humanity ultimately leads him to Yugoslavia and the Croatian Homeland War in the 1990s. And even though it is not a ideologically correct war (as his father tells him) he knows within himself that he must side with the oppressed.
Chico searches and is redeemed but is he content, or is he saddened and scarred? At times it seems that Chico, like a Zelig, was at all the important late 20th century events, and the film seems to make comment on them. On that level the film is not always successful (its hard enough commenting on one situation). The film is more successful as a personal odyssey through tumultuous events.
There are some standard Hollywood war movie clichés, ie: the outnumbered and besieged forces, the sing a long etc but, but they are downplayed, and I sometimes wonder if clichés became clichés because they actually occurred in times of war. What underpins the whole film though is the upfront, "in your face" reality of it all ... like Sam Fuller with a hand-held camera. The photography is not pretty, which suits the picture perfectly although I wouldn't have minded a few more scene setting shots. The docu-drama works well at drawing you into the story whilst distracting you from the budgetary limitations of the film. The "docu" is the newsreel footage of the war whilst the "drama" is Chico's journey (both physically and spiritually) and people he meets on the way. This is a war film that deals with people rather than action there is little action and when it does come it is over quickly.
The acting is fine, and Eduardo Rozsa Flores plays Chico effortlessly, not surprisingly as Chico is based on Flores own life in part! Flores fought, globe trotted and eventually found a cause in the Croatian Homeland War. The direction ( by Ibolya Fekete) is handled nicely and the action is gritty. The real stand out though is the directors juxtaposition (you have to love that word even if it is overused) of live action with news footage.
If you want to be confronted and challenged ... watch this.