bhcpc
Joined Dec 2001
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.
Reviews21
bhcpc's rating
MI the movie is a better than average action/spy thriller, which I give a rating of 6/10. However, that does not change the fact Hollywood just butchered another a classic TV series.
What were refreshing and original about MI the TV series are A) team work -- no bickering/double-cross that typical patronizing Hollywood writers just have to put in; B) smart planning that viewers saw a little at a time as things unfolded; C) great improvisation when something unexpected happened; and D) extremely difficult and dangerous missions, usually set against a clock -- hence the title Mission Impossible. What we have in MI the movie is just another Hollywood star vehicle, nothing original or refreshing.
What were refreshing and original about MI the TV series are A) team work -- no bickering/double-cross that typical patronizing Hollywood writers just have to put in; B) smart planning that viewers saw a little at a time as things unfolded; C) great improvisation when something unexpected happened; and D) extremely difficult and dangerous missions, usually set against a clock -- hence the title Mission Impossible. What we have in MI the movie is just another Hollywood star vehicle, nothing original or refreshing.
Tarrantino did what he set out to do in Pulp Fiction - making a wacky, nonlinear piece of entertainment full of gratuitously over-the-top dialogue (or monologue) and violence. He made that clear even in the title; it's just a highly charged but disposable fiction. He succeeded quite nicely.
However, many his fans are trying to make it more than what it is, a cool but undemanding movie. While it's refreshing compared to typical banality supplied by mainstream Hollywood, it's far from a truly great classic some fans want people to believe. Interestingly, that's probably not Tarrantino's intention in the first place
However, many his fans are trying to make it more than what it is, a cool but undemanding movie. While it's refreshing compared to typical banality supplied by mainstream Hollywood, it's far from a truly great classic some fans want people to believe. Interestingly, that's probably not Tarrantino's intention in the first place
Pancho Villa was one of Mexico revolution heroes in early 20th century, and his story is certainly fascinating. However, to paraphrase one of the lines in the movie, "the truth is always the first casualty behind the lens." Since this is Pancho Villa's story, they had to make him THE MAN, good or bad.
In fact, Villa had been in revolution under Francisco Madero, a highly educated reformer, before 1914 and won the revolution in 1911. He only went back to revolution after his mentor was murdered and General Huerta took over after a coup. That background was never mentioned. In the 1914 companion (the setting of this movie), he's only one of the leaders. Actually, General Venustiano Carranza, another leader, had a more prominent role and defeated him when they split after Huerta was toppled. It was under President Carranza that Mexico Constitution of 1917 was passed, starting the landmark government and land reforms. You certainly won't know that if you watch this movie. Also conspicuously absent was any mention of Villa's raids into US and killing of 16 Americans around 1916, in an attempt to arouse US to be in conflict with the Mexico government under Carranza.
Instead, we saw Banderas swaggered and cursed, putting on a show of Mexican Robin Hood, a fierce peasant rebel almost single-handedly won the revolution and so honest and noble in his intention that he could only exist in myth. Overall, not a bad movie, but it could have been much better had it not fallen into the same Hollywood trap of changing history to fit THE MAN.
In fact, Villa had been in revolution under Francisco Madero, a highly educated reformer, before 1914 and won the revolution in 1911. He only went back to revolution after his mentor was murdered and General Huerta took over after a coup. That background was never mentioned. In the 1914 companion (the setting of this movie), he's only one of the leaders. Actually, General Venustiano Carranza, another leader, had a more prominent role and defeated him when they split after Huerta was toppled. It was under President Carranza that Mexico Constitution of 1917 was passed, starting the landmark government and land reforms. You certainly won't know that if you watch this movie. Also conspicuously absent was any mention of Villa's raids into US and killing of 16 Americans around 1916, in an attempt to arouse US to be in conflict with the Mexico government under Carranza.
Instead, we saw Banderas swaggered and cursed, putting on a show of Mexican Robin Hood, a fierce peasant rebel almost single-handedly won the revolution and so honest and noble in his intention that he could only exist in myth. Overall, not a bad movie, but it could have been much better had it not fallen into the same Hollywood trap of changing history to fit THE MAN.