Keri Russell | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Keri Russell’

The Valley Of Death

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged 9/11, Afghanistan, Air-Cav, Air-Mobile, Battle Of Ia Drang, Black Hawk Down, Bush Administration, Chris Klein, Civil Rights, Fury, Gladiator, Greg Kinnear, Hacksaw Ridge, Highly Recommended Movie, Iraq, Julia Moore, Keri Russell, Lt. Col. Hal Moore, Madeleine Stowe, Mel Gibson, Reviews, Sam Elliot, Saving Private Ryan, Vietnam Memorial, Vietnam War, We Were Soldiers on August 23, 2022| 4 Comments »

“We Were Soldiers” — (2002) movie review
Today’s movie review is for the film depicting the first major air-mobile battle of American forces in Vietnam in the Ia Drang Valley which occurred in 1965. The movie stars Mel Gibson as the commanding officer Lt. Colonel Hal Moore and Madeleine Stowe as his wife: Julia Moore. Other main actors include: Greg Kinnear, Sam Elliott, Chris Klein and Keri Russell. Kinnear is a helicopter pilot; Elliott is the battalion First Sergeant; Klein is a junior officer (2nd Lieutenant) and Russell is his wife.

The basic plot shows how a “gung-ho” Army leader forms a unit, trains his officers / men to implement a new technology (helicopters and air-cavalry) and then leads them in a “major” engagement with the enemy. Unfortunately, the engagement shown is Lt. Col. Moore is leading his men into a trap where his men are cut-off from direct (non-airbased) support, surrounded and heavily outnumbered: roughly 10 to 1. The bulk of the movie is about their three day battle to survive (“win”). The essence of the Vietnam conflict is shown as superior American mobility and firepower (air and artillery) versus a dedicated / committed adversary willing to use close engagement (hand-to-hand) to negate the enemies strengths.

There are three “main” secondary plots / story lines: 1) the effects of military life (death) on the families of the soldiers (limited to officer’s families); 2) the civil rights / racial issues which were erupting in civilian society and getting carried into the military (depicted mainly on the family side); and, 3) combat leadership and how it differs from non-combatant and political leadership. The first sub-plot is intertwined with the bulk of the combat portion. The societal issues are mainly presented in the early portion (training) of the film – and, again, by the families / spouses. The leadership sub-plot is just sprinkled in and is more implied than actually shown. As it turns out, there were significant portions of this sub-plot which only appear in the “deleted scenes”. I had to view these on YouTube as my version of the movie does not include the “extras”.

So, what did I think? Is this a good movie? Is it an accurate depiction of combat / war / military life? Is this an “anti-war” movie or is it a glorification of war movie? Were the sub-plots interesting / accurate? And, lastly, to paraphrase “Gladiator“: was I entertained? In order: yes; yes; more anti-war than I thought it would be; yes – the sub-plots were interesting, accurate and important to the movie; and finally, NO! This isn’t an “entertainment” movie. The time spent watching it was well spent, but while I can be entertained by over-the-top special effects / Sci-Fi movies, I don’t watch many horror / slasher movies and I don’t find realistic depictions of war “entertaining” – no matter how much I may “like” the film. To me, it’s similar to reading a book to learn about something, versus reading a book to be entertained. This is a “learning” film; it is not an “entertaining” film

If you like(d) any of the more recent “war / combat” movies: “Saving Private Ryan“, “Fury“, “Hacksaw Ridge” or “Black Hawk Down“, you will almost certainly “like” this film. I liked all of the above and I liked this movie, too. This film depicts heroism and personal risk / injury without a glorification backdrop. The film shows combat: brutality, chaos and terror. In a refreshing turn, the movie shows the “enemy” in an almost equally positive light: they are fighting for their country, on their land, and they have families “back home”, too. This was one aspect of the film which I really did not expect as “the other side” is rarely shown in a positive light – otherwise, how would you understand you’re supposed to hate them and root for them to lose / die.

Anyway, as an amateur military historian, I found the first section (the character introductions) with the unit formation to be very interesting. I found the description of the air-mobile infantry (Air-Cav) and the specific references to the unit combat limitations to be both accurate and insightful. I found the sub-plots also accurate – as far as my limited experience was concerned, but maybe a bit too glossed over. I was single during the 1970’s when I was on active duty, so all of my “personal” information about family life / support is really second hand. The racial issues had not gone away between the film’s period (1965) and my service time (mid-70’s). And, I don’t think there is ANY doubt (IMHO) the “Congressional / military / industrial complex” has only gotten worse since the 1960’s.

The film concludes with a visit by Col. Moore to the Vietnam Memorial “Wall” in Washington, D.C. and a list of the seventy-nine Americans who died in the battle. It is an emotionally powerful scene on par with the cemetery scene in “*Saving Private Ryan*“.

Final recommendation: highly recommended movie. This is one of the “better” military genre movies I’ve seen in some time. This is not an anti-war movie, but it also does not extrapolate the personal integrity and heroism of the individual American soldier on to the American government or senior military command structure. A note of caution: the combat scenes are brutal, realistic and sometimes horrifying. This movie is not for the squeamish.

Final comment: if you’re wondering why I’d never bothered to see this before… Two reasons: 1) I’m not an “all-in” / committed Mel Gibson fan. I’ve enjoyed his directing more than his acting. Also, 2) when this movie came out I was not keen on supporting U.S. military adventurism around the world. At that time, I wanted revenge for “9/11”, not occupation and nation-building in Afghanistan. I did not support an invasion of Iraq and foreign government toppling. I may have been wrong, but I viewed movies and TV shows in this genre as propaganda for the Bush Administration and a “war of choice” in Iraq. Despite the quality of this individual movie (in that time period), I still hold that “propaganda” view / opinion.

.
Click here (23 August) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Austen Stalking

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alex Kingston, Alien, Amanda Price, Austenland -- movie review, Bret McKenzie, Charles Dance, Downton Abbey, Elizabeth "Lizzy" Bennet, Elliot Cowan, Gemma Arterton, Georgia King, GOT, Henry Nobley, Hugh Bonneville, ITV, J.J. Feild, Jack Huston, Jane Austen, Jane Bennet, Jane Seymour, Jaws, Jemima Rooper, Jennifer Coolidge, Keri Russell, Lady Amelia Heartwright, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Lena Headey, Lily James, Lost in Austen -- movie review, Matt Smith, Michelle Pfeiffer, Miss Elizabeth Charming, Moderate Movie Recommendation, Moderate To Strong Movie Recommendation, Morven Christie, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Bingly, Mr. Collins, Mr. Darcy, Mr. Wickham, Mrs Wattlesbrook, Mrs. Bennet, P&P, Predator, Pride & Prejudice, Pride & Prejudice & Zombies -- movie review, Psycho, Sam Riley, Strong Movie Recommendation, The Birds, The Immitation Game, Tom Hiddleston, Tom Mison, Wolfman on June 24, 2019| Leave a Comment »

Continuing in my pursuit of viewing all things “Pride & Prejudice“, I offer two more tangential movie reviews: “Pride & Prejudice & Zombies” and “Austenland” and a third made for TV series: “Lost in Austen“. The reviews are in the order I watched them, not in preference or year of release. Because this post covers three “films”, it will be considerably longer than normal. Feel free to skip it and come back another time if you’re not “into” P&P.

“Lost in Austen” (2008) – TV Series 4 part on YouTube
This is a four part TV mini-series for a privately owned (not-BBC) channel in England called ITV. The movie is a rom-com adaptation of Jane Austen’s “Pride & Prejudice” book, but is really kind of a “Back to the Future” (back to reality?) feel. Basically, the lead (Amanda Price, played by Jemima Rooper) is so in love with the book, she stumbles into it through a portal in her bathroom. She retains all of her knowledge of the book and Elizabeth Bennet (played by Gemma Arterton) “replaces” her in our time. Basically, what happens in a romance story if you know all the story but as soon as you join the story, the story is irrevocably altered. Mostly, comedy (and romance) ensues.

The rest of the main characters are: Elliot Cowan as Fitzwilliam Darcy, Tom Mison as Mr Bingley, Morven Christie as Jane Bennet, Tom Riley as George Wickham, Hugh Bonneville as Mr. Claude Bennet, and Alex Kingston as Mrs. Bennet.

Once you know the premise, the TV-series is 70-80% predictable. Given that, I still enjoyed it. Rooper is not brilliant, but she carries the load and does it more than adequately. Cowan is not “my” idea of Mr. Darcy, but he’s not bad. Strike that. He is better than most. He is stern and formal without being Hollywood handsome. And then he comes out of the pond… LoL! Adequate is true with the rest of the cast with the exception of Bonneville. For whatever reason (mostly “Downton Abbey“, I think), I really like him as an actor and I thought he is very good as Mr. Bennet adding depth which is not always in some of the other portrayals in other versions of P&P.

The series uses the characters from P&P and kind-of follows the novel’s plot, but has (and ends with) significant variance. Final recommendation: strong. If you are a “P&P” fan, I think you’ll enjoy this series as an addition / alternate universe to Austen’s P&P. If not, it is at least tolerable as rom-coms go. I found it better than “tolerable”, but that may just be my taste. If you are not a “P&P” or rom-com fan, why are you even bothering to read this review? (Just kidding…)

I watched this on YouTube for free and I would definitely consider buying it if it ever came out in my price range ($5). Each episode is about 40-45 minutes, so you are looking at almost three hours of viewing commitment.

“Pride & Prejudice & Zombies” (2016)
I know that “everything” goes better with Zombies these days, but I really didn’t know what to expect before viewing this version of P&P. I need to preface this review with a comment: I am not a horror or slasher film watcher. Mostly, I find them repetitive, boring, or offensive. I stopped watching them about 1977 or so. I very occasionally will touch base with one if it becomes a “societal” touchstone, but even then, it’s rare. I have never seen a Jason, 13th, Halloween, Hellraiser, Saw or any of those series. I have seen and do like some of the classics: “Wolfman“, “Psycho“, “Jaws“, etc and I also enjoy “monster / SciFi” films: “Predator“, “Alien“, “The Birds“. I’m not sure why I like some and not others. I guess it’s just me.

Anyway, this is actually a rom-slash / martial arts / action film. It is a “take-off” on P&P, so I thought I’d give it a chance.

Lily James plays Elizabeth Bennet, Sam Riley plays Mr. Darcy, Lena Headey plays Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Matt Smith plays Mr. Collins, Jack Huston plays Mr. Wickham and Charles Dance plays Mr. Bennet. I like Lily James and love Lena Heady. James makes a surprisingly good martial artist actor. I don’t know how much is actually James doing the fighting, but “her” portions looked great. Headey plays her typically serious role, even when it’s in a ridiculous role, like this one. (I love the eye-patch.) Dr. Who, I mean Matt Smith is outstanding as the incompetent and obsequious Collins. Riley is handsome and gallant enough as Darcy, but seems (to me) a bit too young (and movie handsome, not really ruggedly handsome). He looks like he should be in a boy band instead of on a parapet killing zombies. And, finally, I liked Dance as Mr. Bennet. I haven’t cared for him as much in other roles (GOT and “The Imitation Game“), but I thought he fit in this role.

Between the two threads, P&P and the zombies, this movie is 90% predictable. The 10% which was unpredictable was whether James, Headly and the other ladies could pull off the martial arts scenes. They do and quite well, too!

As a P&P fan, my final recommendation is: moderate to strong. I liked the sets, the costumes and the martial art set pieces. I enjoyed this movie as a different “parody / take” on P&P even though I didn’t care for any of the zombie portions of the film. They were merely action figures inserted to give the main characters moving targets to slice and dice. I watched this on my “On Demand” TV service. I’m not sure if I enjoyed it enough to actually buy a copy if ever comes in to my price point (yeah, still $5). Despite James and Headey, I’m not sure I’d pay for this P&P theme movie. And the movie ends as a setup to a sequel (which I will probably miss).

Austenland (2013)
This movie is supposed to be a “rom-com” about a late-20’s young lady who visits a theme park dedicated to re-enacting Jane Austen period life, social settings and romance. The problem is while there is romance, there is almost no comedy.

So, who’s in this movie? It stars Keri Russell as Jane Hayes (the Austen fanatic), J.J. Feild as Henry Nobley (kind of a Mr. Darcy who looks vaguely like Tom Hiddleston), Bret McKenzie as Martin (the love interest for Russell’s character in the park), Jennifer Coolidge as Miss Elizabeth Charming (I thinks she was meant to be the comedic character, but she is an offensive “rich, unread, ugly American” instead – but with a kind heart), Georgia King as Lady Amelia Heartwright (another offensive rich guest – also American), and Jane Seymour as Mrs. Wattlesbrook (the proprietor of the resort). There are also a number of other characters who aren’t really worth bothering to mention.

Russell is a “girl-next-door” version of Michelle Pfeiffer. To be honest, I thought Russell might be Pfeiffer’s daughter or much younger sister. She is the second best thing in this movie. Feild is the first. He makes both an interesting Nobly (Mr. Darcy) and a likeable history teacher. The only other “interesting” actor was Seymour playing a manipulative park director. The camera (or director or makeup crew) was not kind to her in this film. She looks old in her closeups – much more than the early 60’s she would have been when this was filmed / released. And not, evil / craggy / old – just old. Like I said, “interesting”.

Final recommendation: moderate (at best). I did like Russell and Feild and thought there was pretty good chemistry between them. So, “rom” is the limit of this rom-com. As a P&P fan, at least I can say I gave it a shot and watched it.

Thanks to any of you who made it all the way through this post / these reviews…

.
Click here (24 June) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.