gordsracing
A rejoint janv. 2003
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours d’élaboration. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines des fonctionnalités manquantes reviendront bientôt. Restez à l’écoute pour leur retour. En attendant, des notes est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur de profil. Pour voir votre ou vos distributions d’évaluation par année et genre, veuillez consulter notre nouvelle section Guide d’aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d’aide sur les badges.
Commentaires10
Évaluation de gordsracing
After reading the reviews, it became obvious that everyone intellectualized this work. How utterly boring. Oh how about the good ol' days and there was nothing like it. Of all the comments no one expressed any emotion to this work or any other.
I grew up just after the end of the steam age and this cinematic gem along with Dan'l Boone graced the Saturday afternoon matinées. This was an annual movie that made the rounds and filled the seats with gabbing, yapping, farting, giggling, snot monsters like myself or was-self. And it was a movie theatre filler at the time. Almost as big as the Wizard of Oz.
IMDb insists that every critique contains something about the plot. Problem is was that it was rather a template. Here goes. Randolph Scott (cowboy/hero)gathers friends and goes defeats those evil people. Hooray!
All of us kids figured out that plot before we plunked our quarter down to watch it. That was just about the plot line of every Scott, John Wayne, Roy Rogers film ever made. If you take the time to go back and review each and every movie - just don't ask for surprises.
One must remember the context of the times. There was no or little TV. None for kids. There was school. There was the great outdoors. There were toy guns. No Cyber time. And the steam age had just collapsed. But movies such as this provided the entertainment and filled the imaginations of young whippersnappers. Even the girls got into it.
This movie was the entertainment. And it is just as mindless as anything produced today. It had a purpose originally of being propaganda. But quickly came to be kids movies.
Our fathers had experienced the real thing. And it wouldn't be until Sam Peckinpah a decade later who finally lavished the red splashes of imitation blood in realistic and copious quantities. Not until his directorship did anyone die slowly, with great pain and miserably. Until Peckinpah war and gun fights were a rather bloodless affair. Thanks Sam.
To see a movie had little or no blood, the adults didn't mind. They wouldn't have tolerated it I think. No guts spraying the shattering plant life. So this movie had all of the glory and none of the gory. Gung Ho was suitable for kids then.
You will see that I assigned a four to this rating. Why would I do that? Well. It is a terrible movie. No matter how I love it. I do love this movie because it brought back one of the happier moments of my childhood. But it is not all that good of a movie in quality terms. Basically Gung Ho transitted to become a romance novel for children.
Should people watch it. Of course. I am not saying to stay away. Realistically however. The plot is simple. The characters shallow? they are shoals. You can love a bad movie.
I grew up just after the end of the steam age and this cinematic gem along with Dan'l Boone graced the Saturday afternoon matinées. This was an annual movie that made the rounds and filled the seats with gabbing, yapping, farting, giggling, snot monsters like myself or was-self. And it was a movie theatre filler at the time. Almost as big as the Wizard of Oz.
IMDb insists that every critique contains something about the plot. Problem is was that it was rather a template. Here goes. Randolph Scott (cowboy/hero)gathers friends and goes defeats those evil people. Hooray!
All of us kids figured out that plot before we plunked our quarter down to watch it. That was just about the plot line of every Scott, John Wayne, Roy Rogers film ever made. If you take the time to go back and review each and every movie - just don't ask for surprises.
One must remember the context of the times. There was no or little TV. None for kids. There was school. There was the great outdoors. There were toy guns. No Cyber time. And the steam age had just collapsed. But movies such as this provided the entertainment and filled the imaginations of young whippersnappers. Even the girls got into it.
This movie was the entertainment. And it is just as mindless as anything produced today. It had a purpose originally of being propaganda. But quickly came to be kids movies.
Our fathers had experienced the real thing. And it wouldn't be until Sam Peckinpah a decade later who finally lavished the red splashes of imitation blood in realistic and copious quantities. Not until his directorship did anyone die slowly, with great pain and miserably. Until Peckinpah war and gun fights were a rather bloodless affair. Thanks Sam.
To see a movie had little or no blood, the adults didn't mind. They wouldn't have tolerated it I think. No guts spraying the shattering plant life. So this movie had all of the glory and none of the gory. Gung Ho was suitable for kids then.
You will see that I assigned a four to this rating. Why would I do that? Well. It is a terrible movie. No matter how I love it. I do love this movie because it brought back one of the happier moments of my childhood. But it is not all that good of a movie in quality terms. Basically Gung Ho transitted to become a romance novel for children.
Should people watch it. Of course. I am not saying to stay away. Realistically however. The plot is simple. The characters shallow? they are shoals. You can love a bad movie.
Freedomland circled cliché. Outstanding performances by all the leading cast were spoiled. Too often the viewer blames this facet on miscasting. Many ably written comments here in this forum relate to that aspect.
Lorenzo Council backs into a quagmire of twisting emotions. A streetwise detective he takes the hunt for the missing child and exposes the tragedy of racial bias.
The plot, certainly a formula generated by a movie industry recently hammered by the sustained lack of creativity still should have worked. The only reason. The single reason this movie made it as far as they did was the exceptionally talented actors they managed to assemble.
Every single actor carried his or her role to the limit of their ability. Sam Jackson certainly played his role ably. Julianne Moore moved her character through the hollow twists of a woman, impaired by mental illness, who lost a dear child.
Edie Falco's portrayal of "Karen Collucci" proved exceptional. Her scene with Moore's "Brenda Martin" must be one of the most powerful scenes ever played on a cinema screen. Yet it is wasted.
Blame assigns to the producers some poor editing and ultimately the director, who squandered such a wonderful script and spectacular performances. Someday someone will cut all the race riot scenes with the violence of one or more riots save one and one only riot scene.
Every time the plot started to move the director brought in or conducted the flow through a race riot. Patendly obvious is that the director did not understand the point of the script. The riot scenes did not help the flow of the plot and should have been cut. Save only one, any one, that's all. Yes it was necessary to show the communities at war but one good scene would have sufficed.
That would have allowed the relationship between Felicia {Aunjanue Ellis} and Billy {Anthony MacKie} to play more into the movie. Amazingly that was a key relationship in the quest to find the lost child. It dangled every ten minutes in the movie but it wasn't dealt with. The director completely missed the necessity of involving that relationship to a far greater degree. This was a Hitchcock type movie requiring subtlety not Sam Peckinpah.
If you don't believe me, you video hounds should take apart the movie and remove most of the racial riot littered throughout the movie. Save one or two reducing them to the essential. Then be mindful of some loss of continuity but you will instantly see a far better, a far more powerful movie than this version.
If any movie deserved to be redone this is it. It just has to be re-edited for improvements.
Lorenzo Council backs into a quagmire of twisting emotions. A streetwise detective he takes the hunt for the missing child and exposes the tragedy of racial bias.
The plot, certainly a formula generated by a movie industry recently hammered by the sustained lack of creativity still should have worked. The only reason. The single reason this movie made it as far as they did was the exceptionally talented actors they managed to assemble.
Every single actor carried his or her role to the limit of their ability. Sam Jackson certainly played his role ably. Julianne Moore moved her character through the hollow twists of a woman, impaired by mental illness, who lost a dear child.
Edie Falco's portrayal of "Karen Collucci" proved exceptional. Her scene with Moore's "Brenda Martin" must be one of the most powerful scenes ever played on a cinema screen. Yet it is wasted.
Blame assigns to the producers some poor editing and ultimately the director, who squandered such a wonderful script and spectacular performances. Someday someone will cut all the race riot scenes with the violence of one or more riots save one and one only riot scene.
Every time the plot started to move the director brought in or conducted the flow through a race riot. Patendly obvious is that the director did not understand the point of the script. The riot scenes did not help the flow of the plot and should have been cut. Save only one, any one, that's all. Yes it was necessary to show the communities at war but one good scene would have sufficed.
That would have allowed the relationship between Felicia {Aunjanue Ellis} and Billy {Anthony MacKie} to play more into the movie. Amazingly that was a key relationship in the quest to find the lost child. It dangled every ten minutes in the movie but it wasn't dealt with. The director completely missed the necessity of involving that relationship to a far greater degree. This was a Hitchcock type movie requiring subtlety not Sam Peckinpah.
If you don't believe me, you video hounds should take apart the movie and remove most of the racial riot littered throughout the movie. Save one or two reducing them to the essential. Then be mindful of some loss of continuity but you will instantly see a far better, a far more powerful movie than this version.
If any movie deserved to be redone this is it. It just has to be re-edited for improvements.
Uggh! Tell about a story of endurance. On the Greyhound bus coming from Canada's far north into the friendly morass of Toronto, for entertainment they show movies. And yes, this long trip was no different. And the movie they showed was Hidalgo.
Aside. Hard hanging irony that the only long distance transcontinental Canadian bus line would show a picture about long hard endurance riding. (eg. Vancouver - Toronto - 72 hours). Never mind. Just one of those quirks of life. Back to the movie.
The story is of course a story about a long endurance rider played by Liam Neeson clone Viggo Mortenson. Now this is not a bad thing to be a clone of an excellent actor like Neeson, it means one is still talented. The acting style feels the same though.
Unfortunately Disney claimed that this was a true story. 1800 mile races and 3000 miles are a little hard to believe. Due diligence in commentary structuring dictated that research into the real Frank Hopkins be done.
Buffalo Bill's Wild West show was one of the most photographed events of that time. In the case of Frank Hopkins, The Long Rider's Guild web site stated in a long list of "Hopkins deceptions", that the truth is that Hopkins was a laborer digging the Philadelphia subway and, "...there is not even a documented photograph of Frank Hopkins in the saddle!"
Not news. Okay, so Disney deals with fantasy all the time, so the movie isn't based on true fact as they boasted. Not a strange turn of events for a Hollywood movie to be total horse chips. Fortunately, I am a big fan of cinematography so this mitigated the complete disappointment in lost opportunity for a very good movie. Hopkin's legend derived from an ability to pass fantastic fiction as fact. Disney should have gone to the source on this one. Legions of mediums abound in tinsel town. No excuse not to do a séance.
Hopkins agility with the true facts would have assisted the movie plot line. Lacking good consultations the movie, Hidalgo, wanders into a long formula parade of predictable plot lines and clichés. Few surprises sprout.
Hasn't Shariff stopped playing the same cliché character movie after movie? From a directorial standpoint this likely is one of the largest failures in the movie. Shariff can be one of the most powerful actors on any screen, but here his characterization fails the litmus test for reality. The potential passion of a racing fanatic gets tripped up when it would have contributed to the plot. The religious aspect of Islam and Bedouin is poorly represented. Despite the recent events these are warm, effervescent people who treat guests intelligently, kindly, lavishly and with forgiveness.
Again this is fantasy which serves the plot line little. Had the Bedouin been portrayed correctly as they really are, this would have shifted the plot line to a true believable level. It would have been a better movie.
Would I watch the movie again? Yes, knowing that there are worse movies, given little choice I'd watch. The exception to that choice, ... just not on a bus.
Aside. Hard hanging irony that the only long distance transcontinental Canadian bus line would show a picture about long hard endurance riding. (eg. Vancouver - Toronto - 72 hours). Never mind. Just one of those quirks of life. Back to the movie.
The story is of course a story about a long endurance rider played by Liam Neeson clone Viggo Mortenson. Now this is not a bad thing to be a clone of an excellent actor like Neeson, it means one is still talented. The acting style feels the same though.
Unfortunately Disney claimed that this was a true story. 1800 mile races and 3000 miles are a little hard to believe. Due diligence in commentary structuring dictated that research into the real Frank Hopkins be done.
Buffalo Bill's Wild West show was one of the most photographed events of that time. In the case of Frank Hopkins, The Long Rider's Guild web site stated in a long list of "Hopkins deceptions", that the truth is that Hopkins was a laborer digging the Philadelphia subway and, "...there is not even a documented photograph of Frank Hopkins in the saddle!"
Not news. Okay, so Disney deals with fantasy all the time, so the movie isn't based on true fact as they boasted. Not a strange turn of events for a Hollywood movie to be total horse chips. Fortunately, I am a big fan of cinematography so this mitigated the complete disappointment in lost opportunity for a very good movie. Hopkin's legend derived from an ability to pass fantastic fiction as fact. Disney should have gone to the source on this one. Legions of mediums abound in tinsel town. No excuse not to do a séance.
Hopkins agility with the true facts would have assisted the movie plot line. Lacking good consultations the movie, Hidalgo, wanders into a long formula parade of predictable plot lines and clichés. Few surprises sprout.
Hasn't Shariff stopped playing the same cliché character movie after movie? From a directorial standpoint this likely is one of the largest failures in the movie. Shariff can be one of the most powerful actors on any screen, but here his characterization fails the litmus test for reality. The potential passion of a racing fanatic gets tripped up when it would have contributed to the plot. The religious aspect of Islam and Bedouin is poorly represented. Despite the recent events these are warm, effervescent people who treat guests intelligently, kindly, lavishly and with forgiveness.
Again this is fantasy which serves the plot line little. Had the Bedouin been portrayed correctly as they really are, this would have shifted the plot line to a true believable level. It would have been a better movie.
Would I watch the movie again? Yes, knowing that there are worse movies, given little choice I'd watch. The exception to that choice, ... just not on a bus.