Older Movie Roundup

I watched several older movies recently and here are some reviews for them. The films covered in this are:

Mississippi Burning (1988)
Get Carter (1971)
Spy Game (2001)
​The Last Castle (2001)
​

Mississippi Burning (1988)

Amazing that I watch a movie set in 1964 and feel like the the only thing that differentiates it from the modern day is the cars. This was one of my favorite Gene Hackman roles. Willem DeFoe was also phenomenal. All around, a powerful piece of cinema.

The subject matter is terrible. It's a frustrating film, somewhat heavy handed here and there. It has a little 'Untouchables' in it when the lead character has to accept that being dirty is the only way to catch the crooks. 

If you haven't seen this movie, it is on Starz right now. Totally worth every minute. The south takes a real beating from movies from about 1985 until 2000 (when I say real, I mean they showed it in the worst possible light). 

This made for solid cinema with a message loud enough to make your ears ring. There wasn't subtlety here at all. They were screaming their agenda the entire time. And it was based on a factual event so...I guess Dick Wolf would be proud.

Rating 5 out of 5.

Get Carter (1971)

I'd seen this before but it must've been back in 2006 or so. I liked the Stallone version well enough so I sought Michael Caine's. Much of the dialogue is exactly the same. The biggest difference is that Carter in the old one is never more than a horrible person. His one redeeming quality comes from the fact he cares about the girl.

Even that comes down to him being angry that someone would mess with those he claimed relation to.

Back in 1971, this violence seemed brutal and excessive (it was one of the criticisms) but now, it's super tame. People in Reality TV shows do worse to each other (okay, that's a stretch). Some of it is slow. There are many moments where things drag and people just walk around.

Oddly enough, for a man who's out to avenge his brother, Carter gets up to quite a bit of nookie. I guess if you can't enjoy yourself when you're attempting to find out who to murder, then you're just not living. 

Some of his vengeance is rough. One criticism is that the character shows no remorse for his actions. It's pretty obvious from the moment the movie starts that this guy isn't going to shed a tear for much. Especially not offing bad guys.

I would say that it's a fun bit of film history, worth watching if you like Michael Caine or want to see a different take on the other version.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

Spy Game (2001)

Interesting that this also came out in 2001 with The Last Castle. If you were a Robert Redford Fan, then you were in for a treat. He did a great job in both of them but where I found The Last Castle pretty ridiculous, Spy Game was a lot more enjoyable.

Tony Scott directed and he didn't have the jitter cam in full effect. That helped. Brad Pitt did a great job (usually does when he can play things straight). The concept of the movie is a big misdirection while running an op under the noses of the CIA.
Telling stories of the past serves to both give some character depth as well as distract the various people in charge from what's actually happening. Basically, a character has to solve a mystery under some fairly difficult circumstances.

Of course, one of the obstacles is the fact that the main character is pretty much retiring that day. He was on his way out but gets to do one more task. As you watch the movie, you understand specifically why he takes it upon himself and I thought it resolved nicely in that regard.

I wish I had seen this movie sooner. I really enjoyed the hell out of it.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.

The Last Castle (2001)

Robert Redford plays a general who is to serve 10 years in a maximum security prison. His crime was disobeying a direct order from the president and getting 8 men killed. As he goes in, he encounters the warden, played by James Gandolfini and, as is tradition, we watch a movie about the soldier versus the admin.

Hearbreak Ridge in a prison but more absurd. I like the performances. (I didn't expect to see Mark Ruffalo in it) but they really were struggling with a concept and situation that just went above and beyond the realm of silly. 

The warden treats his prisoners like animals, experiments for his amusement. The general comes in ready to lay low but quickly can't stand by while the injustice continues. He's a chess player, the kind who figures out his opponent's weakness...I'm done right there.

This could've been an awesome POW movie but on American soil, it loses some impact. A great example is that three guards die (brutally). In the cinema, it's easy to accept that kind of thing when it's 'the enemy' but these people are Americans too. 

The catalyst of insurrection is abrupt. Yeah, there's a few messed up events but the coup doesn't take long. It all felt...simple. Too easy I guess. The colonel's not a real person. He's just a representation of sadism, a reason for the men to unify around the general.

If you haven't seen it by now, you probably don't need to bother. It's a far fetched experience to say the least.

Rating: 1.5 out of 5.
​
Side note: throw away dialogue doesn't sell anything whether it be why a sadist isn't being investigated or how a general ended up in prison. Though they do try to show it was his choice...such people tend to resign, not go to jail. Especially when they supposedly just want to retire.