Un generale sotto corte marziale raggruppa duecento detenuti per sollevarsi contro il sistema corrotto che lo ha messo fuori.Un generale sotto corte marziale raggruppa duecento detenuti per sollevarsi contro il sistema corrotto che lo ha messo fuori.Un generale sotto corte marziale raggruppa duecento detenuti per sollevarsi contro il sistema corrotto che lo ha messo fuori.
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 4 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
The acting is eminent. Robert Redford does a fine performance as the reluctant hero, but two other actors are stealing the scenes even more so. The first is of course the fabulous James Gandolfini in a very different role than what we are used to from The Sopranos. I am a big fan of the TV series and I would never have thought that he would be able to play such a prick that I would actually hate him. The second actor worth extra praise is the new talent Mark Ruffalo who played so heartbreakingly well in the amazing You Can Count On Me from last year. He portrays an ordinary character with such heart and genuineness that the character becomes so much more interesting than it would with most actors.
The film is saved by its actors and its entertainment value. What pulls it down is all the logical errors and holes in the script. And I am sure many Americans will appreciate the excessive patriotism shown in the film, but it really gets too much.
Absolutely worth watching, but I have a feeling that this could have been so much more.
Rating: 7/10
The performances are splendid all around. Most especially, James Gandolfini (who had the inside track with the most richly drawn character) excels as the ambiguous villain who is actually right more than half the time.
The message which deals with the value of pride and the importance of identity and self-worth is certainly admirable. The fact that this occurs among men who have marred their own self-worth through violent crime makes the concept that much more interesting. It almost (but never quite) raises the idea of reclaiming integrity, once lost. If it had gone this extra mile, it may well have been a better film.
The weaknesses lie in the hundreds of stupid little inaccuracies which culminate into one stupid BIG inaccuracy: This place doesn't feel like a prison!
It is difficult to make a prison movie within ten years of 1994 without inviting comparisons to "The Shawshank Redemption." Rather than belaboring the obvious, I want to note one detail that is exemplary of the earlier film's superiority. Even the jolliest, funniest, most easy going prisoners in Shawshank had an underlying sense of danger about them. You didn't want to get on their bad side. You never doubt that they belong in prison (except, of course, for Andy Dufresne). But this is not so in "The Last Castle." No matter how often someone reads from a prisoner's file and discusses the horrible things he has done, none of the words, actions, or other moods conveyed by the men in this film make them seem in any way dangerous. Maybe it's a case of mass miscasting but I doubt it.
Compounding this problem is the lack of scholarship to be found in the little details. Robert Redford shaves with a safety razor in spite of the fact that no prisoner would be allowed such a tool. Razor blades, like belts and shoelaces, are potential suicide tools and, thus, prohibited in prisons. Also, people keep referring to an officer's side arm as his "gun" instead of his "weapon." These mistakes were easy to avoid and yet they remained in the film.
All of this makes a potentially fascinating film, filled with talent, seem a touch removed from reality. Like in "The Contender," director Rod Lurie has shown that his view of reality is based on his opinions rather than the other way around.
With all it had going for it, it's a shame really.
The end of the movie was stupid!!!
If I think of Robert Redford, I also think of the more than excellent movie "Brubaker". A movie in which he becomes warden of a prison that was a haven of corruption and abuse of the inmates.
In the movie "The Last Castle", we see Redford again feature in a prison movie. And this time it is not a '60's or '70's movie, but one from the early 21st century. And Redford's acting is still as great as ever!
The storyline behind the movie is unfortunately a bit too "standard". It doesn't tell a true story and neither does it put you on the edge of your seat. It is pretty predictable actually. I think the storyline was not really worthy of an actor as Redford.
But I have to admit that the movie is entertaining. This to the level that I give it 7.3 stars (rounded down to 7). It is the interaction between the two lead actors, Redford and James Gandolfini - the latter is very known for his role in Sopranos - that makes this movie an interesting one to watch.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizJames Gandolfini was reportedly reluctant to accept the role of Colonel Winter because he didn't understand the story and had never served in the military. He committed largely on the strength of a lengthy speech Winter delivered in the original script. Ironically, the scene was cut from the final film.
- BlooperIt was an error to have Irwin be a 3-star general. 3-star and 4-star generals hold their ranks temporarily, as long as they occupy a 3-star or 4-star position. When they are transferred from one 3- or 4-star position to another, the President must re-nominate them for Senate confirmation. If an officer is relieved (fired) from one of those positions, he reverts to 2-star by operation of law unless awaiting retirement (and then only for 60 days). Irwin was court-martialed, so the Army certainly wouldn't keep him in a 3-star slot. They'd relieve him and he'd go to court-martial as a 2-star. See 10 USC 601.
- Citazioni
Irwin: [narrating first lines] Take a look at a castle. Any castle. Now break down the key elements that make it a castle. They haven't changed in a thousand years. 1: Location. A site on high ground that commands the territory as far as the eye can see. 2: Protection. Big walls, walls strong enough to withstand a frontal attack. 3: A garrison. Men who are trained and willing to kill. 4: A flag. You tell your men you are soldiers and that's your flag. You tell them nobody takes our flag. And you raise that flag so it flies high where everyone can see it. Now you've got yourself a castle. The only difference between this castle and all the rest is that they were built to keep people out. This castle is built to keep people in.
- ConnessioniFeatured in HBO First Look: Inside the Walls of 'The Last Castle' (2001)
- Colonne sonoreChiseled in Stone
Written & Performed by Dean Hall
I più visti
- How long is The Last Castle?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- El último castillo
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 72.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 18.244.060 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 7.088.213 USD
- 21 ott 2001
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 27.642.707 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 2h 11min(131 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1