MY WORST REVIEWED MOVIES OF 2017

                I reviewed over 80 movies in 2017 and naturally at this stage most of them were not good.  Basically, I have seen a vast majority of the good war movies, which leaves a lot of the bottom dwellers to be endured.  It’s amazing that after seven years, there are still so many war movies I want to see.  Fortunately, some on my “to be watched” are supposed to be good.  Here are the worst war movies I reviewed this past year:

5.  Ironclad:  Battle for the Blood  (2014)  -  This is the sequel to the guilty pleasure “Ironclad” which had James Purlfoy.  This movie does not.  Is that a clue as to whether it would be worse than the original?  If you like frenetic blood splattering, you might enjoy it. In one of the fights, a guy kills another with a severed arm! For the rest of us non-psychopaths, it is terrible and headache-inducing.  

4.  Beyond Valkyrie  -  You know what they say about sequels.  It’s especially true when the sequel has one percent of the budget of the original.  Needless to say the plot is ridiculous and the acting is atrocious.  It’s a Tom Sizemore movie, ‘nuff said.  There is a copious expenditure of ammo if you like that sort of thing.  Not enough to drown out the dialogue, however.

3.  Dad’s Army  (2016)  -  I am not British, so I am not required to love “Dad’s Army”.  The movie was based on the much beloved series.  I think even fans of the series had to admit the movie was a bomb.  The acting is terrible and the production is shoddy.  The movie plot is silly, but not silly funny like you would expect from the British.  I am a big fan of British comedy, but this movie did not make me laugh even once.  But then again, I watched the supposed best episode of the series and did not find it special.  I’ll stick with “Allo! Allo!”

2.  USS Indianapolis:  Men of Courage  -  Another Sizemore movie.  And it stars Nick Cage.  If that is not enough to a bad vibe, then enjoy this movie.  Even the sharks are bad actors.  Robert Shaw’s character in “Jaws” would have been more traumatized by being in this movie than actually being on the Indianapolis. Prepare to laugh guiltily.

1.  “The Red and the White” is a joint Russian-Hungarian project to commemorate the Russian Revolution.  Director Miklos Jansco decided to jump two years to the Russian Civil War and not make a celebratory film. The fact that he survived that decision tells you that the Soviet government was not as evil as thought.  The resulting film met critical acclaim in the West, but its negative portrayal of its topic did not sit well in the Soviet Union.  It was reedited to make it more heroic for Soviet audiences.  I must have seen the original version.

                The movie is set in 1919 on one of the twenty-one fronts of the Russian Civil War.  A unit of Hungarian volunteers are fighting on the side of the Bolsheviks (the Reds) versus the anti-communist Whites.  It opens with a slo-mo cavalry charge at the camera.  The cavalry are chasing two foot soldiers and catch and kill one.  In an ominous development from the perspective of this viewer, they don’t bother to get the other guy even though they can clearly see him.  This will not be the last head-scratching moment.  Here are some others.  The cavalry strip some prisoners and tell them to run home.  The White leader chooses three and shoots them in the back.  Then the remainder are chased and lined up and shot.   Next, some nurses are taken into the woods and suddenly they have dress gowns on and there is a military band.  They are forced to dance with each other and… then they are told to go.  I assume there is some symbolism here.  A prisoner is forced to sing and then told to jump in a river and is speared.  Lots of aimless walking.  Some stuff happens at a hospital.  Finally, the big battle scene.  The Hungarians charges a larger unit, then runs back, then makes a suicide attack.  Well, it was either them or me because at this point if the movie had not ended I might have slashed my wrists.

                “The Red and the White” is an “emperor’s new clothes” movie.  In other words, it’s a movie that critics insist is a masterpiece and if you don’t get that than you are a moron.  Well, I may be a moron, but I have seen enough good war movies to know a piece of shit when I see one.  It is not a single piece, but a steaming pile.  And I don’t say this because I was hoping for a heroic take on the Bolsheviks.  I think Jansco was trying to depict the insanity of war.  Or rather, that must have been his excuse when he faced all the WTF looks from the opening night audience.  Why did I shoot some of the deaths of main characters from a far distance?  Because war is confusing!  Why did the nurses dance in the woods?  If you have to ask, you don’t deserve to know!  Was the movie meant to be a comedy?  I don’t know, what do you think?  Seriously, do you have any idea what I was trying to do?  Help me understand my own movie, please.

                The movie does have some strengths.  The cinematography is showy, really artsy-fartsy.  Jansco loves long shots.  And he films from an airplane!  Awards please.  Another strength is it is one of the funniest war films I have seen.  I actually laughed out loud at some parts.  Sorry, highbrows. I couldn’t help myself.  But most importantly, it lasts only 90 minutes.  Trust me, it seems like many more.

                If you want to learn more about the Russian Civil War, read a book.  Don’t watch this movie.  There are some good movies that can inform you that war is fucked up.  Try “The Burmese Harp”, which came out the same year.  Hell, if you want to watch a entertainingly confusing war film from that year, try “Beach Red”.   At least you can decipher what Cornel Wilde was trying to do.

GRADE  =  F-

OVERLOOKED GEM? Dad’s Army (2016)

       When I was growing up my favorite TV show was “Gilligan’s Island”.  I am not proud of that, but I am not defensive about it either.  Everyone has guilty pleasures and “Gilligan’s Island” is one of my generations most common ones.  There has been much conjecture over the years about a remake.  Most would agree that while it is interesting to wonder who would play the iconic roles, the end product would be nothing short of a disaster.  Think “Flintstones” or virtually any other attempt to bring a TV classic to the big screen.  A recent attempt to buck the trend was “Dad’s Army”.  For my fellow Baby Boomers, “Dad’s Army” is the equivalent of “Hogan’s Heroes” for the British.  It appeared on the BBC from 1968-1977 and was very popular.  It ranks among the greatest British sitcoms.  The series is about the Home Guard in WWII and most of the characters are elderly British gents who are patriotically defending their island against a potential invasion or paratrooper drop.  The movie takes a typical plot and expands it into a feature film.

 

                The movie is set in 1944.  A Nazi spy is killed sending a message by pigeon.  The pigeon is subsequently shot down by some British lads who are hunting for Pvt. Walker (Daniel Mays).  Mays is the unit’s black marketer.  This way of connecting the unit to the spy is typical of the movie’s humor.  The rest of the characters are introduced via names on the screen which is the movie’s way of making it easy for its elderly audience to identify the new actors that are playing their old favorites.  To kill time before the espionage plot kicks in, the geezers are sent on a mission to recover a runaway bull.  1960s British slapstick ensues.  Meanwhile, the Nazis have green-lighted Operation Cobra which involves a lady spy infiltrating the Home Guard to determine the site of the D-Day build-up.  Rose Winters (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is masquerading as a journalist who is doing a story on the unit.  Since she is automatically the hottest bird in Walmington-on-Sea, several members of the group try making moves on her.  This includes Capt. Mainwarring (Toby Jones) and his second in command Sgt. Wilson (Bill Nighy).  She plays them for fools, which is not much of a challenge.  Mainwarring gets to be lead buffoon.   The movie uses the tired old gag where Rose convinces him that he looks more handsome without his glasses.  Tired pratfalls result. Naturally, the wives and women of the town feel threatened by the hottie.  As should all of Great Britain since this wily female spy is using these geniuses to find information that will win the war for Hitler.

 

                I am all for nostalgia.  Hell, I’m a History teacher.  And I have a soft spot for classic TV.  But that is mainly nostalgia-fueled.  I am not blind to the reality that the Golden Age of television is mostly pyrite.   I’m talking about American TV.  I am not as qualified to disrespect the BBC.  While a big fan of its crime and mystery dramas, I am less enamored with the sitcoms, with the obvious exceptions of "Monty Python" and "Fawlty Towers".  My favorite is "Allo! Allo!" which is ironic because it is also set in WWII.  David Croft co-created and co-wrote both “Dad’s Army” and “Allo!  Allo!”  I have seen every episode of “Allo!  Allo!”, but had seen none of “Dad’s Army” until I watched a couple in preparation for this review.  I watched the first episode and one of the most highly acclaimed episodes (“Deadly Attachment”) to get a feel for the show and to be able to compare it to the movie.

                I have to admit I was not impressed with the series.  In my opinion, it is greatly inferior to “Allo!  Allo!”, but I understand that humor is subjective and many would argue that “Gilligan’s Island” is sophomoric and “Hogan’s Heroes” is offensive.  Regardless of anyone’s opinion on the quality of the TV series, the movie could not have made many fans happy.  As a stand alone effort, it is terrible.  It just is not funny.  I did not laugh a single time and I generally am open to silliness.  The slapstick is lame and the feeble attempts at sexual innuendo (an art that BBC sitcoms have long mastered) are pathetic.  It is not even campy, which is the least you could ask for in an attempt to revive a dinosaur comedy.  The acting is embarrassing.  I felt sorry for a cast that was heavy with recognizable British B-listers.  It was not their fault, mind you.  Toby Jones is given the thankless task of caricaturing a caricature.  In the series, Mainwarring is portrayed as a well-meaning, if clueless leader wannabe.  In the movie, he becomes a dolt.  I find it hard to believe that the series’ fans were happy with this tweaking of the character.  The rest of the characters are more faithful to the originals, but second rate.  Since this is a modern remake, the women’s roles had to be enhanced.  Mrs. Mainwarring and her cadre are given a prominent role when in the series she did not even appear.  Most perplexing is the appearance of Catherine Zeta-Jones.  I doubt this movie gets featured on her resume.  If the idea was to attract an American audience – that was not going to happen no matter who appeared in the movie.  Talk about a movie that does not travel well.  Was she that desperate for cash?

 

                My take away from the viewing experience was one of sadness and I am not even a fan of the series.  I just know that there are many who are and as an Anglophile I wanted the movie to be good.  It isn’t.  But neither will “Gilligan’s Island”.  Some ideas are best left in the speculation phase.  I sure would like to see a movie based on “Allo!  Allo!”  Imagine what they could do with the sexual innuendo in the 21^st Century.  I wonder who would play Rene.  Actually, I fantasize more about who would play Yvette.

 

GRADE  =  D-