frankwiener
Joined Feb 2014
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings2K
frankwiener's rating
Reviews244
frankwiener's rating
There is much that transpires in nearly three hours of running time, but, in the end, this film is the triumph of John Wayne and Patricia Neal, whose extraordinary on-screen chemistry as a couple prevails over all, including several naval and aerial battle scenes, including that of Pearl Harbor itself. Far more important than these battle scenes is the humanity of those who must fight war and of those who love them. Not all war films convey the human side of war as effectively as this one, and few of them are as successful as this.
I have seen many John Wayne movies, including the best of them, and I would go so far as saying that this may be among his very best performances, at least in my view. I'm not sure how much his recent lung surgery had influenced his acting here. As to Ms. Neal, I have never been disappointed by her, even in "Breakfast at Tiffany's", which might be her most unsympathetic role. On the other hand, her work in "Hud" and "The Subject Was Roses" was nothing less than magnificent. Her mere presence is a huge asset to every film in which she appears, and this is no exception.
For me, the one weakness of the film is its excessive length. It just didn't have to be this long in order to convey its most critical message of the extraordinary courage that ius needed when under fire. Did we need to see so many shots of ships at sea without any action whatsoever?
The dialogue between Wayne and Burgess Meredith about the fear that dwells within men in battle will last with me to my final days, my final battle. Another noteworthy scene is one between Admiral Torrey (Wayne) and his son (Brandon de Wilde), who happens to be under his command, but I won't describe it in detail for those who haven't seen the movie. It was superb.
Were the cameo roles by film icons Henry Fonda, Dana Andrews, and Franchot Tone necessary? Did they add anything at all to the film? Could the budget have been substantially reduced by very capable actors with less recognizable names? I think so.
As in the case of Art Carney and his legendary comic role of Ed Norton in the 1950's "Honeymooners", it is impossible for me to separate Carroll O'Connor from his iconic comic role of Archie Bunker in the 1970's sitcom "All in the Family". I will always see Carney as Norton and will always see O'Connor as Bunker. There's just no hope for me then.
As to the role of Kirk Douglas's Eddington, was he supposed to redeem himself with an act of remarkable bravery after he so brutally abused his young victim? The character was quite complicated, perfect for Douglas, who is always a positive contribution to every movie in which he appears. I could not even recognize Jill Haworth from Preminger's "Exodus" five years earlier, as was the case with de Wilde ("Shane" and "Hud"). My, how they grow up. I was very sorry to read of de Wilde's tragic death only seven years after this production at the young age of 30.
In spite of its flaws, this is a movie that must be seen for its outstanding cast and for its unforgettable portrayal of human beings who suddenly find themselves in the throes of war.
I have seen many John Wayne movies, including the best of them, and I would go so far as saying that this may be among his very best performances, at least in my view. I'm not sure how much his recent lung surgery had influenced his acting here. As to Ms. Neal, I have never been disappointed by her, even in "Breakfast at Tiffany's", which might be her most unsympathetic role. On the other hand, her work in "Hud" and "The Subject Was Roses" was nothing less than magnificent. Her mere presence is a huge asset to every film in which she appears, and this is no exception.
For me, the one weakness of the film is its excessive length. It just didn't have to be this long in order to convey its most critical message of the extraordinary courage that ius needed when under fire. Did we need to see so many shots of ships at sea without any action whatsoever?
The dialogue between Wayne and Burgess Meredith about the fear that dwells within men in battle will last with me to my final days, my final battle. Another noteworthy scene is one between Admiral Torrey (Wayne) and his son (Brandon de Wilde), who happens to be under his command, but I won't describe it in detail for those who haven't seen the movie. It was superb.
Were the cameo roles by film icons Henry Fonda, Dana Andrews, and Franchot Tone necessary? Did they add anything at all to the film? Could the budget have been substantially reduced by very capable actors with less recognizable names? I think so.
As in the case of Art Carney and his legendary comic role of Ed Norton in the 1950's "Honeymooners", it is impossible for me to separate Carroll O'Connor from his iconic comic role of Archie Bunker in the 1970's sitcom "All in the Family". I will always see Carney as Norton and will always see O'Connor as Bunker. There's just no hope for me then.
As to the role of Kirk Douglas's Eddington, was he supposed to redeem himself with an act of remarkable bravery after he so brutally abused his young victim? The character was quite complicated, perfect for Douglas, who is always a positive contribution to every movie in which he appears. I could not even recognize Jill Haworth from Preminger's "Exodus" five years earlier, as was the case with de Wilde ("Shane" and "Hud"). My, how they grow up. I was very sorry to read of de Wilde's tragic death only seven years after this production at the young age of 30.
In spite of its flaws, this is a movie that must be seen for its outstanding cast and for its unforgettable portrayal of human beings who suddenly find themselves in the throes of war.
What makes this movie so extraordinary is that it starts out so poorly and ends with my eyeballs fixed to the screen as I anxiously awaited the final outcome. Avoiding a spoil to the ending may be a challenge, but I promise not to do that, so rest easy if you haven't seen this before. I will say that as my last viewing was several years ago, I had forgotten certain details of the finale so even though I had seen it before, I still found myself glued to the seat until the very last frame.
At its start, the dialogue and character introductions leading to the ship's New Years Eve gala were ridiculously inane. The exchange between the Borgnine-Stevens couple, as the cop and retired prostitute who somehow found eternal bliss together, truly grated on my last nerve, but the Winters-Albertson couple, as a hackneyed, Jewish stereotype, especially Winters, didn't help matters either. Oy vey! Next, we were treated to the annoying conflict of an adolescent sister and her rambunctious, younger brother. Then, after so many hilarious, comedic roles, we were supposed to take Leslie Nielsen seriously as the captain of an ocean liner that was suddenly facing a major catastrophe. All that we needed was Carol Lynley as part of a brother-sister musical act and Red Buttons as an over-worked haberdasher who never found the time to marry and who runs on deck to escape his loneliness, at least according to the Shelley Winters character. Are you still with us, folks?
Don't allow any of this silliness to discourage you because the events that follow render these minor, opening nuisances trivial when measured against the major action of the film. As the story unfolds, remember that the ship has been turned upside down, so the key to survival is reaching its lowest point, which is high above and certainly no easy fete under the circumstances.
Part of the film's effectiveness is that it doesn't fear killing people along their desperate journey of survival, including some characters who you might actually start to like along the way, even though they were so disagreeable at the beginning. After all, they are still human beings.
Nominated for several Oscars, the film won for its very catchy theme song, "The Morning After", written by Al Kasha and Jerry Hirschorn, and its amazing cinematic effects. Although he was never officially recognized for his efforts, director Ronald Neame should be commended for leading a production that must have been quite daunting in spite of its flaws.
In the end, the character of Gene Hackman is most powerful as the pastor who is struggling with his faith but who finds himself as the sole inspiration for a group of people who are suddenly confronted with a harrowing life-or-death struggle. The fact that Mr. Hackman, in real life, had just departed from this world under extremely tragic circumstances immediately before my most recent viewing added a deep emotional impact to the ending, at least for me. I was always very impressed by the wide range of his acting ability. RIP, sir. The movies live on.
At its start, the dialogue and character introductions leading to the ship's New Years Eve gala were ridiculously inane. The exchange between the Borgnine-Stevens couple, as the cop and retired prostitute who somehow found eternal bliss together, truly grated on my last nerve, but the Winters-Albertson couple, as a hackneyed, Jewish stereotype, especially Winters, didn't help matters either. Oy vey! Next, we were treated to the annoying conflict of an adolescent sister and her rambunctious, younger brother. Then, after so many hilarious, comedic roles, we were supposed to take Leslie Nielsen seriously as the captain of an ocean liner that was suddenly facing a major catastrophe. All that we needed was Carol Lynley as part of a brother-sister musical act and Red Buttons as an over-worked haberdasher who never found the time to marry and who runs on deck to escape his loneliness, at least according to the Shelley Winters character. Are you still with us, folks?
Don't allow any of this silliness to discourage you because the events that follow render these minor, opening nuisances trivial when measured against the major action of the film. As the story unfolds, remember that the ship has been turned upside down, so the key to survival is reaching its lowest point, which is high above and certainly no easy fete under the circumstances.
Part of the film's effectiveness is that it doesn't fear killing people along their desperate journey of survival, including some characters who you might actually start to like along the way, even though they were so disagreeable at the beginning. After all, they are still human beings.
Nominated for several Oscars, the film won for its very catchy theme song, "The Morning After", written by Al Kasha and Jerry Hirschorn, and its amazing cinematic effects. Although he was never officially recognized for his efforts, director Ronald Neame should be commended for leading a production that must have been quite daunting in spite of its flaws.
In the end, the character of Gene Hackman is most powerful as the pastor who is struggling with his faith but who finds himself as the sole inspiration for a group of people who are suddenly confronted with a harrowing life-or-death struggle. The fact that Mr. Hackman, in real life, had just departed from this world under extremely tragic circumstances immediately before my most recent viewing added a deep emotional impact to the ending, at least for me. I was always very impressed by the wide range of his acting ability. RIP, sir. The movies live on.
After many years, I viewed this film for a second time, and I must state from the start that I was not as dazzled by the spectacle of the production as I was the first time, especially during the second half, which I found rather dull.
On this second viewing, I realized that this extravaganza, nearly three hours in duration, was more significant as a history of China during the twentieth century than as the story of its last emperor, Pu Yi. Although I am not a student of Chinese history, as far as I could determine from the movie, Pu Yi didn't accomplish very much as emperor since the time when he was crowned in 1908 at the age of three. Much of his younger years were spent in isolation in the Forbidden City after he had already abdicated the throne. From Beijing, he spent a time living the high life of a playboy in Tientsin before becoming a puppet of the Japanese conquerors in Machukuo, which was also Pu Yi's original homeland of Manchuria. Once the Japanese were defeated at the end of World War II, Pu Yi was imprisoned by the communist Chinese until his "liberation" in 1959. He lived another eight years as an employee of the Botanical Gardeners of Beijing.
The first half of the film was fascinating as a cinematic marvel, including its artistic photography, majestic settings, and astounding number of extras which numbered 19,000. Somehow, this visual feast faded for me during the second half. I realized somewhere along the way that I was not emotionally invested in most of the main characters and was forced to consult the detailed plot on this website in order to confirm the story elements, which were not always clear to me and sometimes confusing.
Winning nine Oscars may impress some, but the awards by themselves do not define a great film. Great films stand on their own, regardless of how the film industry and establishment views them. I am not stating that the film did not deserve at least some of its recognition, but 1988 did not seem to provide much competition. Just as an example, none of the films nominated for best picture in that year obtained a combined rating higher than an "8" by IMDb subscribers.
For its eye-catching, colorful depiction of twentieth century Chinese history alone, especially during the first half, the film is definitely worth seeing, but I wouldn't call it "magnificent", as many have. The life of Pu Yi was captivating only in the context of the tumultuous events that surrounded him.
On this second viewing, I realized that this extravaganza, nearly three hours in duration, was more significant as a history of China during the twentieth century than as the story of its last emperor, Pu Yi. Although I am not a student of Chinese history, as far as I could determine from the movie, Pu Yi didn't accomplish very much as emperor since the time when he was crowned in 1908 at the age of three. Much of his younger years were spent in isolation in the Forbidden City after he had already abdicated the throne. From Beijing, he spent a time living the high life of a playboy in Tientsin before becoming a puppet of the Japanese conquerors in Machukuo, which was also Pu Yi's original homeland of Manchuria. Once the Japanese were defeated at the end of World War II, Pu Yi was imprisoned by the communist Chinese until his "liberation" in 1959. He lived another eight years as an employee of the Botanical Gardeners of Beijing.
The first half of the film was fascinating as a cinematic marvel, including its artistic photography, majestic settings, and astounding number of extras which numbered 19,000. Somehow, this visual feast faded for me during the second half. I realized somewhere along the way that I was not emotionally invested in most of the main characters and was forced to consult the detailed plot on this website in order to confirm the story elements, which were not always clear to me and sometimes confusing.
Winning nine Oscars may impress some, but the awards by themselves do not define a great film. Great films stand on their own, regardless of how the film industry and establishment views them. I am not stating that the film did not deserve at least some of its recognition, but 1988 did not seem to provide much competition. Just as an example, none of the films nominated for best picture in that year obtained a combined rating higher than an "8" by IMDb subscribers.
For its eye-catching, colorful depiction of twentieth century Chinese history alone, especially during the first half, the film is definitely worth seeing, but I wouldn't call it "magnificent", as many have. The life of Pu Yi was captivating only in the context of the tumultuous events that surrounded him.